Tanco v. Haslam
| Tanco v. Haslam | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 28, 2015 |
|
| Full case name | Tanco v. Haslam |
| Related cases | Bourke v. Beshear, DeBoer v. Snyder, Obergefell v. Hodges, Love v. Beshear. |
| Court membership | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Tanco v. Haslam was the lead case in the dispute of same-sex marriage in Tennessee. A U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to recognize the marriages of the plaintiffs, three same-sex couples. The court found the equal protection analysis used in Bourke v. Beshear, a case dealing with a comparable Kentucky statute "especially persuasive". On April 25, 2014, that injunction was stayed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Tanco was appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the district court and upheld Tennessee's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions on November 6.
On January 16, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court consolidated this case with three others and agreed to review the case. Oral arguments were heard on April 28, 2015.
On October 21, 2013, local attorneys supported by the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of four Tennessee same-sex couples seeking to require Tennessee to recognize their marriages. They argued that the state's policy constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and violates their rights to due process and equal protection, as well as their right to travel. One of the couples married in California in 2008 and the other three married in New York in 2011. They contended that Tennessee's refusal to recognize their marriages was a unique departure from its rule that "a marriage valid where celebrated is valid everywhere". The suit named as defendants Governor Bill Haslam and 3 other state officials. One of the couples married in New York left the case and the number of defendants was reduced by one.
On March 14, 2014, U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to recognize the marriages of the three plaintiff couples. She wrote: "At this point, all signs indicate that, in the eyes of the United States Constitution, the plaintiffs' marriages will be placed on an equal footing with those of heterosexual couples and that proscriptions against same-sex marriage will soon become a footnote in the annals of American history."
...
Wikipedia