Jernigan v. Crane

64 F.Supp.3d 1260

Rita and Pam JERNIGAN and Becca and Tara Austin, Plaintiffs

v.Larry CRANE, in his official capacity as Circuit and County Clerk for Pulaski County, Arkansas, and his successors in interest; Dustin McDaniel, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Arkansas, and his successors in interest; Richard Weiss, in his official capacity as Director of the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, and his successors in interest; and George Hopkins, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, and his successors in interest, Defendants.

Case No. 4:13–cv–00410 KGB.

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division.

Signed Nov. 25, 2014.

Angela Griffith Mann, Jack Wagoner, III, Sarah Cowan, Wagoner Law Firm, P.A., R. Keith Pike, Pike Law Firm, PLLC, Little Rock, AR, Cheryl K. Maples, Attorney At Law, Heber Springs, AR, for Plaintiffs.

David M. Fuqua, Fuqua Campbell PA, Nga Mahfouz, Arkansas Attorney General's Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

KRISTINE G. BAKER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Rita and Pam Jernigan and Becca and Tara Austin challenge Arkansas's laws defining marriage as between a man and woman. Specifically, plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Amendment 83 to the Arkansas Constitution and Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 9–11–107, 9–11–109, and 9–11–208.

Pending before the Court are several motions. Separate defendants Dustin McDaniel, Richard Weiss, and George Hopkins, in their official capacities (“Separate Defendants”), have filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 17). Plaintiffs have responded in opposition to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 23) and have filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No 24), to which Separate Defendants have responded in opposition (Dkt. No. 27).¹ The Court held a hearing on all pending motions November 20, 2014.

Plaintiffs are two lesbian couples; the partners of each couple have been in an exclusive, committed relationship with one another for years. Plaintiffs here claim to seek the same rights as opposite-sex couples: the freedom to marry their chosen partners, the recognition of their marriages performed in other states that make same sex marriage lawful, and the right to receive the state benefits attendant to marriage. Through their claims, plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Arkansas's laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage and forbidding recognition of legitimate same-sex marriages entered into in other states. See Ark. Const. amend. 83; Ark.Code Ann. §§ 9–11–107, –109, –208. Plaintiffs challenge these laws claiming they violate the federal constitution. This Court has jurisdiction; among other statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers jurisdiction on federal courts to decide questions arising under the Constitution of the United States. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Separate Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 17) and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 24).

I. Background

Amendment 83 to the Arkansas Constitution defines marriage as “consist[ing] only of the union of one man and one woman.” Current Arkansas law defines marriage as “between a man and a woman” and declares that all marriages of same-sex couples are void. Ark.Code Ann. § 9–11–109. Current Arkansas law also provides for recognition of marriages from other states or countries but specifically excludes marriages by persons of the same sex. Id. § 9–11–107. In addition, Arkansas law now provides that the State only recognizes the marital union of “man and woman,” forbids clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, forbids the recognition of lawful same-sex marriages entered into in other states, and holds unenforceable any contractual or other rights granted by a same-sex marriage of another state. Id. § 9–11–208.

Plaintiffs Rita and Pam Jernigan (“the Jernigans”) state that they are a lesbian couple who have been in a committed relationship for five years and are married under Iowa state law. The Jernigans claim that Rita retired after teaching math in the Little Rock School District for more than 28 years; that she participated in the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (“ATRS”) while employed and currently receives retirement pay from the ATRS; that Amendment 83 prohibits Pam from being considered as Rita's spouse for purposes of her teacher retirement; and that Amendment 83 prohibits Pam from receiving surviving spouse benefits under the ATRS in the event of Rita's death.

Plaintiffs Becca and Tara Austin (“the Austins”) state that they are a lesbian couple who have been in a committed relationship for over nine years and wish to marry for the same reasons that many other couples marry: to declare publicly their love and commitment to one another before their family, friends, and community and to give to one another the security and protections that only marriage provides. The Austins state that they are both employees of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and that they have twins—a boy and a girl—who are now five years old. The Austins maintain that Tara is the biological mother of the twins and that, because Becca is not a biological parent to the children and cannot legally marry Tara under Arkansas law, Arkansas law does not consider Becca a parent to the twins. The Austins further state that their inability to marry legally in Arkansas reduces their family resources and stigmatizes the Austins and their children by denying the family social recognition and respect. The Austins claim that Becca was denied family leave to spend time with the twins at home because she and Tara were not married under Arkansas law and the children were not legally her dependents; that despite Tara's desire to stay home after the birth of the children, Tara had to return to work full-time to maintain health insurance for herself and the children; and that Becca could not carry Tara and the children on a family health insurance plan because she and Tara were not, and could not be, legally married under Arkansas law and the children were not her legal dependents.

Plaintiffs are all homeowners in and residents of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and involved in their communities. Plaintiffs state that they have cared for each other, supported each other, sacrificed for each other, and made plans for the future with each other; that they have experienced hardship, illness, joy, and success during the course of their relationships; and that they are spouses in every sense, except that Arkansas law dictates that they cannot marry and that, even if they are legally married pursuant to the laws of another state, Arkansas will not legally recognize their marriage.

Plaintiffs all applied for and were denied marriage licenses with the Pulaski County Circuit and County Clerk after the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 186 L.Ed.2d 808 (2013). Windsor held as unconstitutional Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), wherein Congress defined marriage for purposes of all federal laws to include only the marriages of opposite-sex couples. See Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2693.

The Jernigans state that because the state of Arkansas would not allow them to marry, they were forced to incur expense and inconvenience in traveling to Iowa to marry, which they did on December 16, 2013. Arkansas will not recognize the Jernigans' marriage as legal. Before the Jernigans performed their marriage ceremony in Iowa, Rita approached the ATRS. The ATRS told Rita that, even after she legally married Pam in Iowa, the ATRS still would not allow Rita to name Pam as her surviving spouse on her ATRS retirement plan.

Plaintiffs sue separate defendant Larry Crane in his official capacity as Circuit and County Clerk for Pulaski County, Arkansas. The Jernigans and the Austins applied for marriage licenses on July 11, 2013, but Mr. Crane's office refused to issue them marriage licenses because Amendment 83 and Arkansas Code Annotated § 9–11–208 prohibit the Clerk from issuing a marriage license to persons of the same gender.

Plaintiffs sue separate defendant Dustin McDaniel in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas. Plaintiffs state that Attorney General McDaniel's duties include both enforcing the law and advising officials within the state about the requirements of the law, including Amendment 83 and the challenged statutes. Arkansas law directs Attorney General McDaniel to “maintain and defend the interests of the State in matters before ... federal courts” and to be the “legal representative of all state officers, boards, and commissioners in all litigation where the interests of the state are involved.” Ark.Code Ann. § 25–16–703.

Plaintiffs sue separate defendant Richard Weiss in his official capacity as Director of the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration (“DFA”). Director Weiss is responsible for accepting or refusing tax returns filed by Arkansas residents and non-residents. Id. § 25–8–102. Amendment 83 prohibits same-sex couples married in other states from filing joint Arkansas tax returns.

Plaintiffs sue separate defendant George Hopkins in his official capacity as Executive Director of the ATRS. Plaintiffs state that Executive Director Hopkins is responsible for enforcing rules created by the ATRS Board of Trustees including withholding spousal benefits from same-sex spouses who are legally married under the laws of jurisdictions that recognize same-sex marriage and preventing same-sex spouses from receiving retirement benefits from the ATRS in the event of recipients' deaths. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Amendment 83 and the referenced statutes violate their rights to equal protection and due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs Rita and Pam Jernigan seek preliminary and permanent...