Case Law Jackson v. Abercrombie

Jackson v. Abercrombie

Document Cited Authorities (108) Cited in (30) Related

884 F.Supp.2d 1065

Natasha N. JACKSON, Janin Kleid, and Gary Bradley, Plaintiffs,

v. Neil S. ABERCROMBIE, Governor, State of Hawaii, and Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of Health, State of Hawaii, Defendants.andHawaii Family Forum, Defendant–Intervenor.

Civ. No. 11–00734 ACK–KSC.

United States District Court, D. Hawai‘i.

Aug. 8, 2012.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

John J. D'Amato, John T. Maloney, Jr., William Lee, D'Amato & Maloney LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiffs.

Girard D. Lau, Harvey E. Henderson, Jr., Robert T. Nakatsuji, Office of the Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant Governor Abercrombie.

William J. Wynhoff, Office of the Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant Loretta J. Fuddy.

Dale Schowengerdt, Brian W. Raum, Holly L. Carmichael, Alliance Defense Fund, Scottsdale, AZ, Lloyd James Hochberg, Jr., Honolulu, HI, for Defendant–Intervenor.

ORDER GRANTING HFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANT FUDDY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND HFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT ABERCROMBIE, AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT ABERCROMBIE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ALAN C. KAY, Senior District Judge.

+-------------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS  ¦
+-------------------¦
¦                   ¦
+-------------------+

+---------------------------------------------+
¦SYNOPSIS                                ¦1070¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦                                        ¦    ¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND                   ¦1072¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦                                        ¦    ¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦FACTUAL BACKGROUND                      ¦1074¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦                                        ¦    ¦
+---------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦I.  ¦Same–Sex Marriage in Hawaii                            ¦1074  ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦                                                       ¦      ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦II. ¦Same–Sex Marriage Nationwide                           ¦1077  ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦                                                       ¦      ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III.¦Federal Defense of Marriage Act                        ¦1078  ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦                                                       ¦      ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦IV. ¦The Parties in This Case                               ¦1079  ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦                                                       ¦      ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------+
¦STANDARD                                ¦1080¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦                                        ¦    ¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦DISCUSSION                              ¦1081¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦                                        ¦    ¦
+---------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦Defendant Abercrombie's Status as a Party¦1081¦
+--------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.¦Sovereign Immunity                 ¦1081¦
+---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦B.¦Article III                        ¦1082¦
+-----------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦II.¦Baker v. Nelson                           ¦1084¦
+---------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.¦The Due Process Claim              ¦1086¦
+---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦B.¦The Equal Protection Claim         ¦1086¦
+-----------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                                       ¦      ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III.¦The Merits of Plaintiffs' Claims                       ¦1088  ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.¦Perry v. Brown                     ¦1088¦
+---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦B.¦Romer v. Evans                     ¦1092¦
+---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦C.¦Plaintiffs' Due Process Claim      ¦1093¦
+-----------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦1.¦Description of the Asserted Fundamental Right¦1094  ¦
+----+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦   ¦2.¦The Nation's History and Tradition           ¦1096  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦D.¦Plaintiffs' Equal Protection       ¦1098¦
+-----------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Gender Discrimination               ¦1098¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Sexual Orientation Discrimination   ¦1099¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦E.¦Rational Basis Review              ¦1102¦
+-----------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Standard                            ¦1102¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Application                         ¦1105¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a. ¦Plaintiffs' and Defendant Abercrombie's           ¦1106   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦Overarching Arguments.                            ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦i. ¦The Relevant Question.                       ¦1106   ¦
+----+----+---+---+---+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦ii.¦Effect of the Civil Unions Law               ¦1107   ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b. ¦Encouraging the Stability of Relationships that   ¦1111   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦Have the Ability to Procreate Naturally           ¦       ¦
+----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦Promoting the Ideal, Where Possible, Children Are ¦       ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c. ¦Raised by Their Mother and Father in a Stable     ¦1114   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦Relationship                                      ¦       ¦
+----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦d. ¦Cautiously Experimenting With Social Change       ¦1116   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------+
¦                                        ¦    ¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦CONCLUSION                              ¦1119¦
+---------------------------------------------+
SYNOPSIS

This action is one of multiple lawsuits that have been filed in state and federal courts seeking to invalidate laws that reserve marriage to those relationships between a man and woman. Specifically, Plaintiffs' complaint asserts that Article 1, Section 23 of the Hawaii Constitution, which provides that “[t]he legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples,” and Hawaii Revised Statutes § 572–1, which states that marriage “shall be only between a man and a woman,” violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution.

The Court is mindful of the Supreme Court's cautionary note that “[b]y extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). Thus, “[t]he doctrine of judicial self-restraint requires us to exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field.” Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992). “This note of caution is especially important in cases ... where moral and personal passions run high and where there is great risk that ‘the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause [will] be subtly transformed into the policy preferences' of unelected judges.” Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 658 F.3d 1162, 1174 (9th Cir.2011) (O'Scannlain, J., concurring) (second alteration in original) (quoting Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258). In discussing the importance of judicial restraint in certain circumstances, the Hawaii Supreme Court has likewise acknowledged the need to “recognize that, although courts, at times, in arriving at decisions have taken into consideration social needs and policy, it is the paramount role of the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio – 2013
Obergefell v. Wymyslo
"...have not found that a right to same-sex marriage is implicated in the fundamental right to marry. See, e.g., Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1094–98 (D.Haw.2012) (“Other courts considering claims that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, have concluded that the ri..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho – 2014
Latta v. Otter
"...one case that analyzes the doctrinal developments since Baker, and that case was decided before Windsor. See Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1085–86 (D.Haw.2012) (concluding pre-Windsor doctrinal developments did not overcome Baker ). The Supreme Court's due process and equal pr..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit – 2014
Bostic v. Schaefer
"...Due Process Clause includes a right” to same-sex marriage. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 723, 117 S.Ct. 2258; see also Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1095 (D.Haw.2012) (“[M]issing from Plaintiffs' asserted ‘right to marry the person of one's choice’ is its centerpiece: the right to m..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada – 2012
Sevcik v. Sandoval
"...is not “clearly irreconcilable” with Lawrence such that a district court may ignore it under Miller. Rather, the Court agrees with the Jackson and Dragovich courts, which have ruled that High Tech Gays survived Lawrence in this regard. See Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1100–01..."
Document | U.S. Supreme Court – 2015
Obergefell v. Hodges
"...States, 833 F.Supp.2d 394 (S.D.N.Y.2012) Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, 881 F.Supp.2d 294 (Conn.2012) Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F.Supp.2d 1065 (Haw.2012) Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F.Supp.2d 996 (Nev.2012) Merritt v. Attorney General, 2013 WL 6044329 (M.D.La., Nov. 14, 2013) Gra..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio – 2013
Obergefell v. Wymyslo
"...have not found that a right to same-sex marriage is implicated in the fundamental right to marry. See, e.g., Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1094–98 (D.Haw.2012) (“Other courts considering claims that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, have concluded that the ri..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho – 2014
Latta v. Otter
"...one case that analyzes the doctrinal developments since Baker, and that case was decided before Windsor. See Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1085–86 (D.Haw.2012) (concluding pre-Windsor doctrinal developments did not overcome Baker ). The Supreme Court's due process and equal pr..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit – 2014
Bostic v. Schaefer
"...Due Process Clause includes a right” to same-sex marriage. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 723, 117 S.Ct. 2258; see also Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1095 (D.Haw.2012) (“[M]issing from Plaintiffs' asserted ‘right to marry the person of one's choice’ is its centerpiece: the right to m..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada – 2012
Sevcik v. Sandoval
"...is not “clearly irreconcilable” with Lawrence such that a district court may ignore it under Miller. Rather, the Court agrees with the Jackson and Dragovich courts, which have ruled that High Tech Gays survived Lawrence in this regard. See Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1100–01..."
Document | U.S. Supreme Court – 2015
Obergefell v. Hodges
"...States, 833 F.Supp.2d 394 (S.D.N.Y.2012) Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, 881 F.Supp.2d 294 (Conn.2012) Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F.Supp.2d 1065 (Haw.2012) Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F.Supp.2d 996 (Nev.2012) Merritt v. Attorney General, 2013 WL 6044329 (M.D.La., Nov. 14, 2013) Gra..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.