Latta v. Otter
| Latta v. Otter | |
|---|---|
No. 14-35420 and 35421
|
|
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
| Argued | September 8, 2014 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) |
U.S. Ninth Circuit
U.S. District of Idaho
|
| Holding | |
| Idaho's ban on same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Ronald M. Gould, Marsha S. Berzon |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Reinhardt, joined by Gould, Berzon |
| Keywords | |
| Marriage, Equal Protection, Same-sex marriage, Sexual Orientation | |
U.S. Ninth Circuit
U.S. District of Idaho
Latta v. Otter is a case initiated in 2013 in U.S. federal court by plaintiffs seeking to prevent the state of Idaho from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage. The plaintiffs won in U.S. District Court. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard this together with two related cases–Jackson v. Abercrombie, and Sevcik v. Sandoval.
The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on September 8 and affirmed the District Court's ruling on October 7. State officials requested and received an emergency stay of the Ninth Circuit's ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on October 8, which Justice Anthony Kennedy vacated on October 10, denying the requested stay.
In November 2013, four Idaho lesbian couples filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court, Latta v. Otter, challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. They were represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights. One couple was married in California in 2008, another in New York in 2011. Two of the four couples were raising a child. They named as defendants Governor Butch Otter and Ada County Clerk Chris Rich. The parties are disputing Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden's attempt to intervene on behalf of the state. Both parties asked the court for summary judgment.
Latta v. Otter was heard before Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale on May 5, 2014 and she issued her ruling on May 13. The decision granted the plaintiff same-sex couples' motion for summary judgment, declared Idaho marriage laws that ban same-sex marriage unconstitutional, and enjoined state officials from enforcing any law to the extent it restricts same-sex couples from marrying or from having their marriages recognized.
In her decision, Judge Dale dispensed with Baker v. Nelson: "The Supreme Court's due process and equal protection jurisprudence has developed significantly in the four decades after Baker, and, in last year’s Windsor decision, the Court dramatically changed tone with regard to laws that withhold marriage benefits from same-sex couples." She argued individual liberty and Fourteenth Amendment protection: "An individual's protected liberties include certain fundamental rights of personhood. These rights center on the most significant decisions of a lifetime—whom to marry, whether to have children, and how to raise and educate children. ... rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect."
...
Wikipedia