5th Circuit Appeal -Texas

No. 14-50196
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
_____________
Cleopatra DeLeon; Nicole Dimetman; Victor Holmes; Mark
Phariss,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Rick Perry, In His Official Capacity as Goernor of the
!tate of "e#as; Gre$ %&&ott, In His Official Capacity as
"e#as %ttorney General; Dai' Lakey, In His Official
Capacity %s Commissioner Of "he Department Of !tate
Health !erices,
Defendants-Appellants.
_____________

On Appeal from the United States istri!t "o#rt
for the $estern istri!t of %e&as, San Antonio ivision
"ase No. 5'1(-!v-9)*
_____________

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF
_____________


Gre$ %&&ott
Attorne+ ,eneral of %e&as

Daniel "( Ho'$e
-irst Assistant Attorne+ ,eneral

Office of the %ttorney General
..O. /o& 1*54) 01" 0592
A#stin, %e&as 3)311-*54)
051*2 9(6-1300
)onathan *( Mitchell
Soli!itor ,eneral

+yle D( Hi$hf,l
-eth +l,smann
Michael P( M,rphy
Assistant Soli!itors ,eneral



Counsel for Defendants-Appellants
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

i
Certificate of Interested Persons
"o#nsel of re!ord !ertifies that the follo4in5 persons and entities as des!ri6ed
in the fo#rth senten!e of -ifth "ir!#it 7#le *).*.1 have an interest in the o#t!ome
of this !ase. %hese representations are made in order that the 8#d5es of this "o#rt
ma+ eval#ate possi6le dis9#alifi!ation or re!#sal.

Plaintiffs Plaintiffs’ Counsel
• "leopatra e:eon
• Ni!ole imetman
• ;i!tor <olmes
• 1ar= .hariss
/arr+ Alan "hasnoff
>essi!a 1. $eisel
1i!hael .. "oole+
aniel 1!Neel >r. :ane
1atthe4 ?d4in .eppin5
Andre4 -orest Ne4man
%kin G,mp !tra,ss Ha,er .
*el' LLP


Defendants Defendants’ Counsel
• 7i!= .err+
• ,re5 A66ott
• avid :a=e+
>onathan -. 1it!hell
@+le . <i5hf#l
/eth @l#smann
1i!hael .. 1#rph+
Office of the %ttorney General


AsA >onathan -. 1it!hell
)onathan *( Mitchell
Counsel for Defendants-Appellants
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

ii
Statement Regarding Oral Argument
%he State respe!tf#ll+ s#6mits that these !onstit#tional !hallen5es to %e&asBs
marria5e la4s are s#ffi!ientl+ important to 4arrant oral ar5#ment.

Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

iii
Table of Contents
"ertifi!ate of Cnterested .ersons ............................................................................. i
Statement 7e5ardin5 Oral Ar5#ment ..................................................................... ii
%a6le of A#thorities ................................................................................................v
Statement of >#risdi!tion ........................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Css#e ............................................................................................. 1
Statement of the "ase ............................................................................................. 1
S#mmar+ of the Ar5#ment ..................................................................................... *
Ar5#ment................................................................................................................ 5
C. %e&asBs 1arria5e :a4s o Not ;iolate %he ?9#al .rote!tion
"la#se. ................................................................................................ 6
CC. %e&asBs 1arria5e :a4s o Not ;iolate %he #e-.ro!ess
"la#se. .............................................................................................. **
CCC. %he .laintiffsB "laims Are -ore!losed /+ Baker v. Nelson. ................ *)
C;. %he .laintiffsB "laims -ind No S#pport Cn %he %e&t Or
<istor+ Of %he -o#rteenth Amendment. ......................................... (1
;. :e5aliDation Of Same-Se& 1arria5e %hro#5h emo!rati!
.ro!esses Cs -ar .refera6le %o :e5aliDation %hro#5h >#di!ial
e!ree. ............................................................................................. (4
;C. %his "o#rt Sho#ld 7#le ?ven Cf %he S#preme "o#rt ,rants
"ertiorari Cn Kitchen v. Herbert. ......................................................... ()
"on!l#sion ............................................................................................................ (9
"ertifi!ate of Servi!e............................................................................................ 40
"ertifi!ate of ?le!troni! "omplian!e .................................................................... 41
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

iv
"ertifi!ate of "omplian!e .................................................................................... 4*

Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

v
Table of Autorities
Cases
A.L.A. Schechter Poultr Corp. v. !nited States,
*95 U.S. 495 019(52 ........................................................................................... (3
A"ostini v. #elton,
5*1 U.S. *0( 019932 ........................................................................................... *9
Baker v. Nelson,
409 U.S. )10 0193*2 ....................................................................................... 5, *)
Ben-Shalo$ v. %arsh,
))1 -.*d 454 03th "ir. 19)92 .............................................................................. 19
Bd. of &r. of !niv. of Ala. v. 'arrett,
5(1 U.S. (56 0*0012 ........................................................................................... (3
Bo(ers v. Hard(ick,
43) U.S. 1)6 019)62 .......................................................................................... *4
Bro(n v. Bd. of )duc.,
(43 U.S. 4)( 019542 ........................................................................................... *1
Col"rove v. Battin,
41( U.S. 149 0193(2 ............................................................................................ (1
Cook v. 'ates,
5*) -.(d 4* 01st "ir. *00)2 ................................................................................ 1)
Dandrid"e v. *illia$s,
(93 U.S. 431 019302 ........................................................................................... 1*
Dred Scott v. Sanford,
60 U.S. (9( 01)562 ............................................................................................ **
)$p+t Div., Dep+t of Hu$an -es. of .r. v. S$ith,
494 U.S. )3* 019902 ......................................................................................... *0
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

vi
#CC v. Beach Co$$c+ns, /nc.,
50) U.S. (03 0199(2 ...............................................................................(, 3, 1(, 13
Harris v. %c-ae,
44) U.S. *93 019)02 .......................................................................................... 14
Haden v. Paterson,
594 -.(d 150 0*d "ir. *0102 ................................................................................. 3
Heller v. Doe,
509 U.S. (1* 0199(2 ................................................................................ (, 6, 3, 1*
Hernande0 v. -obles,
)55 N.?.*d 1 0N.E. *0062 .................................................................................. (1
Hicks v. %iranda,
4** U.S. ((* 019352 .......................................................................................... *)
Hollin"s(orth v. Perr,
1(( S. "t. *65* 0*01(2 ................................................................................. (0, ()
1ohn v. Paullin,
*(1 U.S. 5)( 0191(2 ............................................................................................ (0
Kitchen v. Herbert,
No. 1(-413), *014 $: *)6)044 010th "ir. >#ne *5, *0142 ............... *4, *5, *6, ()
Lochner v. Ne( 2ork,
19) U.S. 45 019052 ................................................................................... 5, **, (3
Lofton v. Sec+ of Dept. of Children and #a$il Servs.,
(5) -.(d )04 011th "ir. *0042 ............................................................................ 1)
Lovin" v. 3ir"inia,
()) U.S. 1 019632 .................................................................................... 11, *0, *1
%andel v. Bradle,
4(* U.S. 13( 019332 0per !#riam2 ...................................................................... *)
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

vii
%cCullen v. Coakle,
1(4 S. "t. *51) 0*0142 ...................................................................................... *0
%ichael H. v. 'erald D.,
491 U.S. 110 019)92 .......................................................................................... *4
%orehead v. Ne( 2ork e4 rel. &ipaldo,
*9) U.S. 5)3 019(62 ........................................................................................... (3
Nat+l )ndo($ent for the Arts v. #inle,
5*4 U.S. 569 0199)2 ........................................................................................... 14
Nat+l Labor -elations Bd. v. Noel Cannin",
No. 1*-1*)1, *014 $: *))*090 0U.S. >#ne *6, *0142 ....................................... (1
Nat+l Paint 5 Coatin"s Ass+n v. Cit of Chica"o,
45 -.(d 11*4 03th "ir. 19952................................................................................. 3
Ne( State /ce Co. v. Lieb$ann,
*)5 U.S. *6* 019(*2 ........................................................................................... (5
-enolds v. !nited States,
9) U.S. 145 01)3)2 ............................................................................................ *0
-odri"ue0 de 6ui7as v. Shearson8A$. )4press, /nc.,
490 U.S. 433 019)92 ........................................................................................... *9
-ust v. Sullivan,
500 U.S. 13(, 19( 019912 .................................................................................... 14
Scarbrou"h v. %or"an Cnt. Bd. of )duc.,
430 -.(d *50 06th "ir. *0062 ............................................................................. 1)
Sch. Dist. of Abin"ton &(p. v. Sche$pp,
(34 U.S. *0( 0196(2 ........................................................................................... (1
See"$iller v. La3erkin Cit,
5*) -.(d 36* 010th "ir. *00)2 ........................................................................... *6
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

viii
Se$inole &ribe of #la. v. #lorida,
513 U.S. 44 019962 ............................................................................................. (3
Skinner v. .klaho$a e4 rel. *illia$son,
(16 U.S. 5(5 0194*2 ........................................................................................... 11
Steffan v. Perr,
41 -.(d 633 0.". "ir. 19942 .......................................................................... 3, 1)
!ll$ann v. !nited States,
(50 U.S. 4** 019562 ........................................................................................... *3
!nited States v. Lope0,
514 U.S. 549 019952 ........................................................................................... (5
!nited States v. *indsor,
1(( S. "t. *635 0*01(2 ............................................................................... 9, *9-(0
!nited States. v. %endo0a,
491 -.*d 5(4 05th "ir. 19342 .............................................................................. (0
3arnu$ v. Brien,
36( N.$.*d )6* 0Co4a *0092 ............................................................................. )
*al$er v. Dep+t of Defense,
5* -.(d )51 010th "ir. 19952 .............................................................................. 1)
*ashin"ton v. Davis,
4*6 U.S. **9 019362 .......................................................................................... *0
*ashin"ton v. 'lucksber",
5*1 U.S. 30* 019932 ............................................................................ (, **, *(, *5
*illia$s v. Attorne 'en. of Ala.,
(3) -.(d 1*(* 011th "ir. *0042 .......................................................................... *6
*illia$son v. Lee .ptical of .kla., /nc.,
(4) U.S. 4)( 019552 ........................................................................................... 15
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

i&
Constitutional Provisions and Statutes
U.S. "onst. art. ;.............................................................................................. 5, *(
U.S. "onst. amend. FC; G 1 ................................................................................... 6
*) U.S.". G 1*53 019))2 ....................................................................................... *)
*) U.S.". G 1*9*0a2012 ............................................................................................ 1
*) U.S.". G 1((1 ..................................................................................................... 1
%e&. "onst. art. C, G (* ............................................................................................ 1
%e&. -am. "ode G *.001062 ..................................................................................... 1
%e&. -am. "ode G 6.*04062 ..................................................................................... 1
Other Authorities
/r#!e A. A!=erman,
Beond Carolene Products, 9) <arv. :. 7ev. 31( 019)52 ........................................ 9
,eor5e $. ent, >r., &raditional %arria"e9 Still *orth Defendin",
1) /EU >. .#6. :. 419 0*0042 ............................................................................ 16
-ran= <. ?aster6roo=,
Abstraction and Authorit, 59 U. "hi. :. 7ev. (49 0199*2 .................................... *(
>ohn <art ?l+,
De$ocrac and Distrust' A &heor of 1udicial -evie( 019)02 ............................... **
>ohn <art ?l+,
&he *a"es of Crin" *olf, )* Eale :.>. 9*0 0193(2 ............................................. (*
$illiam N. ?s=rid5e,
&he Case for Sa$e-Se4 %arria"e 6) 01st ed. 19962 ......................................... 14-15
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 10 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

&
$illiam N. ?s=rid5e, >r. H .hilip .. -ri!=e+, 6uasi-Constitutional La(9
Clear State$ent -ules as Constitutional La($akin",
45 ;and. :. 7ev. 59( 0199*2 .............................................................................. (6
%he -ederalist No. 45
0>ames 1adison2 0"linton 7ossiter ed. 19612 ..................................................... 4
Sherif ,ir5is, 7o6ert .. ,eor5e H 7+an %. Anderson, *hat /s
%arria"e:, (4 <arv. >.:. H .#6. .olB+ *45 0*0112 .............................................. 16
>esse ,raham, >onathan <aidt H /rian Nose=, Liberals and
Conservatives -el on Different Sets of %oral #oundations, 96 >o#rnal
of .ersonalit+ and So!ial .s+!holo5+ 10*9 0*0092 ........................................ 16-13
>onathan <aidt H >esse ,raham, *hen %oralit .pposes 1ustice9
Conservatives Have %oral /ntuitions &hat Liberals %a Not -eco"ni0e,
*0 So!ial >#sti!e 7esear!h 9) 0*0032 ................................................................. 16
Cnstit#te for Ameri!an ;al#es,
%arria"e and the La(9 A State$ent of Principles 0*0062 ...................................... 16
1i!hael $. 1!"onnell, &he Constitution and Sa$e-Se4 %arria"e,
$all St. >. 01ar!h *1, *01(2 .............................................................................. (6
1i!hael $. 1!"onnell, &he /$portance of Hu$ilit in 1udicial -evie(9
A Co$$ent on -onald D(orkin+s ;%oral -eadin"< of the
Constitution, 65 -ordham :. 7ev. 1*69 019932 .............................................. (5-(6
1i!hael $. 1!"onnell, &he -i"ht to Die and the 1urisprudence of
&radition, 1993 Utah :. 7ev. 665 ................................................................. *(, *5
:a#ren!e <. %ri6e,
&akin" &e4t and Structure Seriousl9 -eflections .n #ree-#or$ %ethod
/n Constitutional /nterpretation, 10) <arv. :. 7ev. 1**1 019952 .......................... **
$itherspoon Cnstit#te,
%arria"e and the Public 'ood9 &en Principles 0*00)2 ........................................... 16
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 11 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

&i
". $ri5ht, La( of #ederal Courts 0*d ed. 19302 ..................................................... *)


Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 12 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

1
efendants-Appellants 7i!= .err+, ,re5 A66ott, and avid :a=e+ 0!ol-
le!tivel+, Ithe StateJ2 respe!tf#ll+ appeal the distri!t !o#rtBs preliminar+-
in8#n!tion order of -e6r#ar+ *6, *014.
Statement of !urisdiction
%he distri!t !o#rt entered a preliminar+ in8#n!tion on -e6r#ar+ *6, *014.
%he State filed a timel+ noti!e of appeal on -e6r#ar+ *3, *014. %his "o#rt
has 8#risdi!tion to revie4 the order #nder *) U.S.". G 1*9*0a2012. %he dis-
tri!t !o#rtBs s#68e!t-matter 8#risdi!tion rested on *) U.S.". G 1((1.
Statement of te Issue
oes the -o#rteenth Amendment deprive the States of their a#thorit+ to
define marria5e as the #nion of one man and one 4omanK
Statement of te Case
Cn *005, the people of %e&as voted 6+ a 36 per!ent to *4 per!ent mar5in
to amend their !onstit#tion to define marria5e as Isolel+ the #nion of one
man and one 4oman.J %he amendment also prohi6its the State and its s#6-
divisions from !reatin5 or re!o5niDin5 same-se& marria5es. See %e&. "onst.
art. C, G (*. %he %e&as -amil+ "ode prohi6its the iss#an!e of marria5e li-
!enses to same-se& !o#ples. %e&. -am. "ode G *.001062. Ct also provides that
ILaM marria5e 6et4een persons of the same se& or a !ivil #nion is !ontrar+ to
the p#6li! poli!+ of this state and is void,J and prohi6its re!o5nition of o#t-
of-state same-se& marria5es or !ivil #nions. /d. G 6.*04062.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 13 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

*
%he plaintiffs !ontend that these la4s 0!olle!tivel+, %e&asBs marria5e
la4s2 violate the d#e-pro!ess and e9#al-prote!tion !la#ses of the -o#rteenth
Amendment. %he distri!t !o#rt entered a preliminar+ in8#n!tion after hold-
in5 that %e&asBs marria5e la4s fail rational-6asis revie4 and holdin5, in the
alternative, that same-se& marria5e 9#alifies as a If#ndamentalJ s#6stantive-
d#e-pro!ess ri5ht. See 7OA.1995-*04*. %he distri!t !o#rt sta+ed its order
pendin5 appeal. See 7OA.*04*.
Summar" of te Argument
%his !ase is not a6o#t 4hether %e&as sho#ld re!o5niDe same-se& mar-
ria5e. Ct is a6o#t the 9#estion of 4ho de!ides. %here are rational, tho#5htf#l
ar5#ments on 6oth sides of the politi!al de6ate a6o#t 4hether to le5aliDe
same-se& marria5e. %hat de6ate sho#ld 6e allo4ed to !ontin#e amon5 voters
and 4ithin demo!rati!all+ ele!ted le5islat#res. Under the United States
"onstit#tion, the de!ision 6elon5s to the people of %e&as and their ele!ted
representatives, not the federal !o#rts.
%e&asBs marria5e la4s are rooted in a 6asi! realit+ of h#man
life' pro!reation re9#ires a male and a female. %4o people of the same se&
!annot, 6+ themselves, pro!reate. All the ?9#al .rote!tion "la#se re9#ires is
that %e&asBs marria5e la4s 6e rationall+ related to a le5itimate state interest.
%e&asBs marria5e la4s easil+ satisf+ that standard. %he StateBs re!o5nition
and en!o#ra5ement of opposite-se& marria5es in!reases the li=elihood that
nat#rall+ pro!reative !o#ples 4ill prod#!e !hildren, and that the+ 4ill do so
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 14 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

(
in the !onte&t of sta6le, lastin5 relationships. /+ en!o#ra5in5 the formation
of opposite-se& marria5es, the State see=s not onl+ to en!o#ra5e pro!reation
6#t also to minimiDe the so!ietal !osts that !an res#lt from pro!reation o#t-
side of sta6le, lastin5 marria5es. /e!a#se same-se& relationships do not nat#-
rall+ prod#!e !hildren, re!o5niDin5 same-se& marria5e does not f#rther these
5oals to the same e&tent that re!o5niDin5 opposite-se& marria5e does. %hat is
eno#5h to s#ppl+ a rational 6asis for %e&asBs marria5e la4s.
%he distri!t !o#rtBs !ontrar+ !on!l#sion rests on a misappli!ation of ra-
tional-6asis revie4. 7ational-6asis revie4 does not re9#ire a pre!ise means-
end fit 6et4een a la4 and its stated o68e!tives, and it does not re9#ire a State
to prod#!e eviden!e that a la4 4ill a!hieve its o68e!tives. See Heller v. Doe,
509 U.S. (1*, (*0-*1 0199(2N #CC v. Beach Co$$c+ns, /nc., 50) U.S. (03, (15
0199(2. Nor is a State re9#ired to sho4 that same-se& marria5e 4ill #nder-
mine the StateBs interests in en!o#ra5in5 responsi6le environments for pro-
!reationN it is eno#5h if one !o#ld rationall+ 6elieve that opposite-se& mar-
ria5es 4ill advan!e the StateBs interests in pro!reation to a 5reater e&tent
than same-se& marria5es. %he distri!t !o#rt never denied that one !o#ld ra-
tionall+ hold this 6elief.
%he distri!t !o#rtBs effort to ma=e same-se& marria5e into a If#ndamen-
talJ s#6stantive-d#e-pro!ess ri5ht is e9#all+ #navailin5. *ashin"ton v.
'lucksber", 5*1 U.S. 30* 019932, for6ids the re!o5nition of s#!h ri5hts #nless
the+ are Ideepl+ rooted in this NationBs histor+ and traditionJOand same-
se& marria5e is not deepl+ rooted in this NationBs histor+ and tradition. P#ite
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 15 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

4
the opposite' the vie4 of marria5e deepl+ rooted in o#r histor+ and tradition
is that marria5e !an e&ist onl 6et4een one man and one 4oman.
-inall+, %e&asBs marria5e la4s do not !onfli!t 4ith an+ de!ision of the
S#preme "o#rt. %he holdin5s of Lovin", La(rence, and *indsor stop 4ell
short of re9#irin5 same-se& marria5e in all 50 States. %he plaintiffs 4o#ld
li=e this "o#rt to e4tend the holdin5s of those !ases. /#t a !o#rt !annot e&-
tend those !ases a6sent a sho4in5 that %e&asBs marria5e la4s !onfli!t 4ith
the Constitution, and the plaintiffs have not presented an ar5#ment 6ased on
the "onstit#tion. %heir distri!t-!o#rt 6riefin5 is a poli!+ ar5#ment for 4h+
same-se& marria5e sho#ld 6e le5al, and 4hile the+ attempt to !reate a le5al
veneer 6+ dis!#ssin5 S#preme "o#rt de!isions, the+ !annot es!ape the fa!t
that %e&asBs marria5e la4s' 012 do not !onfli!t 4ith an+ de!ision of the S#-
preme "o#rtN 0*2 do not !onfli!t 4ith an+ lan5#a5e in the "onstit#tionN and
0(2 do not !onfli!t 4ith an+ lon5standin5 pra!ti!e or tradition.
Altho#5h the "onstit#tion does not re9#ire the State to permit same-se&
marria5e, the "onstit#tion does provide the process to 6e #sed for resolvin5
disa5reements over iss#es s#!h as same-se& marria5e' federalism and demo!-
ra!+. %he -ramers esta6lished a 5overnment that leaves the vast ma8orit+ of
de!isions 4ith the States. See %he -ederalist No. 45, at *9* 0>ames 1adison2
0"linton 7ossiter ed. 19612 0I%he po4ers dele5ated 6+ the proposed "onsti-
t#tion to the federal 5overnment, are fe4 and defined. %hose 4hi!h are to
remain in the State 5overnments are n#mero#s and indefinite.J2. And the
"onstit#tion imposes e&tensive s#perma8oritarian h#rdles on those 4ho see=
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 16 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

5
to !reate ne4 !onstit#tional ri5hts. See U.S. "onst. art. ;. Some people ma+
disli=e federalism as a means for resolvin5 o#r disa5reements, 6e!a#se it
permits one State to adopt poli!ies that people in other States ma+ disap-
prove. /#t the entire point of the "onstit#tionBs federalist str#!t#re is to en-
a6le States and !itiDens 4ith different vie4s on important matters to !o-e&istN
o#r "onstit#tion Iis made for people of f#ndamentall+ differin5 vie4s.J
Lochner v. Ne( 2ork, 19) U.S. 45, 36 019052 0<olmes, >., dissentin52.
Argument
;ie4s on same-se& marria5e are !han5in5. %he+ ma+ !ontin#e to !han5e.
%he+ ma+ not. %hose on 6oth sides of the p#6li! de6ate 6elieve passionatel+
in their !a#se and see= to !onvin!e their fello4 !itiDens of its merits. As im-
portant as this de6ate is for o#r nation, its o#t!ome is not di!tated 6+ the
"onstit#tion, and it sho#ld not 6e resolved 6+ the federal !o#rts. A state does
not violate the ?9#al .rote!tion "la#se 4hen the distin!tions dra4n 6+ its
la4s are rationall+ rooted in 6iolo5+. %he #e .ro!ess "la#se does not afford
ri5hts that are not deepl+ rooted in the histor+ and traditions of o#r nation.
And no de!ision of the S#preme "o#rt interpretin5 these !onstit#tional pro-
visions re9#ires States to re!o5niDe same-se& marria5es. Cndeed, the onl+
S#preme "o#rt de!ision on point holds that same-se& marria5e is not a !on-
stit#tional ri5ht. See Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. )10 0193*2.
?ndin5 the vi5oro#s !ivi! de6ate on same-se& marria5e 6+ for!in5 all 50
States into a !o#rt-ordered, one-siDe-fits-all sol#tion is not the resol#tion o#r
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 17 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

6
"onstit#tion envisions. State re!o5nition of same-se& marria5e simpl+ is not
a matter on 4hi!h the "onstit#tion spea=s. %hat does not ma=e one side of
the p#6li! de6ate ri5ht or 4ron5. Ct means onl+ that the de6ate sho#ld !on-
tin#e. Nation4ide resol#tion of the same-se& marria5e 9#estion, if and 4hen
it ta=es pla!e, sho#ld refle!t the hearts and minds of the people of the several
States, not the 4ill of the federal !o#rts.
I# Te$as’s %arriage La&s 'o Not (iolate Te
E)ual Protection Clause#
%he e9#al prote!tion !la#se for6ids a State to Iden+ to an+ person 4ith-
in its 8#risdi!tion the e9#al prote!tion of the la4s.J U.S. "onst. amend. FC;
G 1. %his does not re9#ire a State to !onfer e9#al treatment on thin5s that are
tr#l+ different from one another in relevant respe!ts, and the distri!t !o#rt
did not den+ that opposite-se& #nions are the onl+ t+pe of h#man relation-
ship that is 6iolo5i!all+ !apa6le of prod#!in5 !hildren. Cnstead, the !o#rt
!laimed that %e&as has no Irational 6asisJ for limitin5 marria5e to opposite-
se& !o#ples 6e!a#se %e&as allo4s infertile opposite-se& !o#ples to marr+,
and 6e!a#se the State has not sho4n that same-se& marria5e 4ill #ndermine
the StateBs interests in pro!reation. See 7OA.1064-35N 7OA.*01)-*5. %he
distri!t !o#rt misapplied rational-6asis revie4.
-irst, rational-6asis revie4 allo4s States to ena!t over-in!l#sive or #nder-
in!l#sive la4s. See Heller, 509 U.S. at (*1 0IL"Mo#rts are !ompelled #nder
rational-6asis revie4 to a!!ept a le5islat#reBs 5eneraliDations even 4hen
there is an imperfe!t fit 6et4een means and ends. A !lassifi!ation does not
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 18 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

3
fail rational-6asis revie4 6e!a#se it is not made 4ith mathemati!al ni!et+ or
6e!a#se in pra!ti!e it res#lts in some ine9#alit+.J2 0!itation and internal 9#o-
tation mar=s omitted2N Haden v. Paterson, 594 -.(d 150, 131 0*d "ir. *0102
0IL7Mational 6asis revie4 allo4s le5islat#res to a!t in!rementall+ and to pass
la4s that are over 0and #nder2 in!l#sive.J2.
Se!ond, rational-6asis revie4 does not re9#ire a State to prod#!e evi-
den!e that a la4 4ill a!hieve its o68e!tives. See Heller, 509 U.S. at (*0 0IA
State . . . has no o6li5ation to prod#!e eviden!e to s#stain the rationalit+ of a
stat#tor+ !lassifi!ation.J2N Beach Co$$c+ns, 50) U.S. at (15 0holdin5 that a
le5islative de!ision Iis not s#68e!t to !o#rtroom fa!tfindin5 and ma+ 6e
6ased on rational spe!#lation #ns#pported 6+ eviden!e or empiri!al dataJ2.
%hird, rational-6asis revie4 does not allo4 !o#rts to invalidate a la4 6+
4ei5hin5 eviden!e or resolvin5 disp#ted 9#estions of fa!t. %he mere e4istence
of disa5reement on an empiri!al 9#estion is eno#5h to esta6lish a Ireasona-
6l+ !on!eiva6le state of fa!ts that !o#ld provide a rational 6asis.J Beach
Co$$c+ns, 50) U.S. at (1(N see also Nat+l Paint 5 Coatin"s Ass+n v. Cit of
Chica"o, 45 -.(d 11*4, 11*3 03th "ir. 19952 0IL%Mo sa+ that s#!h a disp#te e&-
istsOindeed, to sa+ that one ma+ 6e i$a"inedOis to re9#ire a de!ision for
the state.J2N Steffan v. Perr, 41 -.(d 633, 6)5 0.". "ir. 19942 0ICt is hard to
ima5ine a more deferential standard than rational 6asis.J2.
%he distri!t !o#rtBs rational-6asis anal+sis violates ea!h of these pre!epts
of rational-6asis revie4Oall of 4hi!h have 6een esta6lished in 6indin5 S#-
preme "o#rt pre!edent. Ct !ontradi!ts Heller 6+ demandin5 a pre!ise means-
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 19 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

)
ends fit 6et4een the 5oal of en!o#ra5in5 responsi6le pro!reation and the de-
!ision to 4ithhold marria5e from same-se& !o#ples. See 7OA.*0*1 0re8e!tin5
the StateBs pro!reation-fo!#sed rationale 6e!a#se the State re!o5niDes mar-
ria5es involvin5 Ipost-menopa#sal 4omen, infertile individ#als, and indi-
vid#als 4ho !hoose to refrain from pro!reatin5.J2. Ct violates Heller a5ain 6+
fa#ltin5 the State for failin5 to prod#!e Ievidentiar+ s#pportJ for its !laims.
See 7OA.*019 0Iefendants have not provided an+ evidentiar+ s#pport for
their assertion that den+in5 marria5e to same-se& !o#ples positivel+ affe!ts
!hildrearin5.J2.
1
And it i5nores Beach Co$$unications 6+ p#rportin5 to re-
solve disp#ted empiri!al 9#estions and rel+in5 on findin5s of fa!t entered 6+
other distri!t !o#rts. See 7OA.*019 0I.laintiffs presented an a6#ndan!e of
eviden!e and resear!h, !onfirmed 6+ o#r independent resear!h, s#pportin5
the proposition that the interests of !hildren are served e9#all+ 6+ same-se&
parents and opposite-se& parents.J2 09#otin5 3arnu$ v. Brien, 36( N.$.*d
)6*, )99 0Co4a *00922. %he distri!t !o#rt never so m#!h as mentioned Heller
or Beach Co$$unications, even tho#5h the State !ited ea!h !ase repeatedl+
6efore the distri!t !o#rt. See 7OA.1603-0). /#t the pro6lems 4ith the dis-
tri!t !o#rtBs rational-6asis anal+sis 5o 6e+ond its disre5ard of 6indin5 S#-
preme "o#rt pre!edent.

1
%he efendants did not ma=e this assertion in the distri!t !o#rt, m#!h less see= to s#p-
port it 4ith eviden!e. %he distri!t !o#rtBs mista=en attri6#tion of this ar5#ment to the
State is diffi!#lt to e&plain.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 20 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

9
%he distri!t !o#rtBs rational-6asis dis!#ssion appears to rest on a 6elief
that those 4ho oppose same-se& marria5e are irrational or pre8#di!edO4hen
the disa5reements a!t#all+ arise from differen!es in val#e 8#d5ments and dif-
ferin5 vie4s over the ans4ers to disp#ted empiri!al 9#estions. See /r#!e A.
A!=erman, Beond Carolene Products, 9) <arv. :. 7ev. 31(, 3(9 019)52 0ICt is
simpl+ self-!on5rat#lator+ to s#ppose that the mem6ers of o#r o4n pers#a-
sion have rea!hed their !onvi!tions in a deepl+ refle!tive 4a+, 4hereas those
espo#sin5 opinions 4e hate are s#perfi!ial.J2. %hat ass#mption is held 6+
some 0tho#5h not all2 proponents of same-se& marria5e, and it #nder5irds
the all-too-!ommon a!!#sations that opponents of same-se& marria5e are
motivated 6+ Ianim#sJ and that traditional marria5e la4s serve onl+ to
IdemeanJ same-se& !o#ples. See, e."., .ls.B .relim. Cn8. 1ot., 7OA.119, 1*1,
153, 159N .relim. Cn8. Order, 7OA.1996, *0(4-(5.
Neither side of the same-se& marria5e de6ate 4ants to demean people,
and neither side 4ants to #ndermine the instit#tion of marria5e. %he t4o
sides often fail to #nderstand ea!h otherBs ar5#mentsOand !ome to see the
other side as irrational or immoralO6e!a#se ea!h side starts 4ith different
ass#mptions a6o#t the nat#re and primar+ p#rpose of marria5e. Cndeed, 6+
as=in5 the !o#rt to stri=e do4n %e&asBs marria5e la4s, the plaintiffs Iare re-
all+ see=in5 to have the "o#rt resolve a de6ate 6et4een t4o !ompetin5 vie4s
of marria5e.J !nited States v. *indsor, 1(( S. "t. *635, *31) 0*01(2 0Alito, >.,
dissentin52. $hat is marria5eK $hat is its nat#reK $hat are its p#rposesK
$h+ o#5ht the State to re!o5niDe itK .eople 5en#inel+ disa5ree a6o#t the an-
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 21 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

10
s4ers to these 9#estions, and it is that disa5reementOnot a desire to dis-
!riminate a5ainst an+one or to #ndermine the instit#tion of marria5eOthat
#nderlies the same-se& marria5e de6ate. Under one vie4, marria5e is primar-
il+ defined as a p#6li! solemniDation of the m#t#al love and !ommitment 6e-
t4een t4o people. -or man+ 4ho hold this vie4, the se& of the t4o people
involved has no relevan!e to 4hether a !onsens#al, lovin5 relationship
sho#ld 9#alif+ as a Imarria5e.J Cndeed, from the perspe!tive of one 4ho
vie4s marria5e this 4a+, it is eas+ to see ho4 there seems to 6e no le5itimate
reason to den+ same-se& !o#ples a!!ess to the le5al instit#tion of marria5e.
Under the !ompetin5 vie4, marria5e is ine&tri!a6l+ lin=ed to the 6iolo5i-
!al !omplementarit+ 6et4een men and 4omen. On this vie4, marria5e is the
!reation of a #ni9#e le5al #nion 6et4een t4o people 4ho on their o4n !an-
not reprod#!e 6#t 4ho to5ether !an 6e the so#r!e of ne4 life. -or those 4ho
vie4 marria5e this 4a+, the le5al instit#tion of marria5e e&ists primaril+ to
en!o#ra5e the orderl+ propa5ation of the h#man ra!e 6+ !hannelin5 nat#rall+
pro!reative heterose&#al a!tivit+ into sta6le, responsi6le relationships. As
4orth+ a p#rpose as the p#6li! affirmation of love and !ommitment is, that
aspe!t of marria5e does not define the instit#tion for those 4ho hold this
vie4.
%he pro!reation-fo!#sed vie4 of marria5e is not as 4idel+ held as it on!e
4as. /#t that does not ma=e it irrational. Ct has 6een predominant in o#r so-
!iet+ for most of its histor+, and it is refle!ted in the lan5#a5e often #sed 6+
the S#preme "o#rt to des!ri6e marria5e, in!l#din5 in one of the "o#rtBs
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 22 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

11
seminal !ivil ri5hts !ases, on 4hi!h the plaintiffs pla!e 5reat 4ei5ht. See, e.".,
Lovin" v. 3ir"inia, ()) U.S. 1, 1* 019632 0I1arria5e is . . . f#ndamental to o#r
ver+ e&isten!e and s#rvival.J2N Skinner v. .klaho$a e4 rel. *illia$son, (16
U.S. 5(5, 541 0194*2 0IL1Marria5e and pro!reation are f#ndamental to the
ver+ e&isten!e and s#rvival of the Lh#manM ra!e.J2. -or those 4ho hold this
vie4, same-se& marria5e is a !ontradi!tion in terms. No e9#al-prote!tion
!laim arises at all, 6e!a#se marria5e 6+ its ver+ nat#re re9#ires the presen!e
of a man and a 4oman, the inherentl+ !omplementar+ and ne!essar+ 6#ildin5
6lo!=s of h#man life.
/oth of these #nderstandin5s of marria5e are rational. And the people of
a soverei5n State m#st !hoose 4hi!h vie4 4ill 5overn them. %e&ans have
!hosen the traditional vie4. /+ deemin5 that !hoi!e irrational and #n!onsti-
t#tional, the distri!t !o#rt arro5ated to itself the a#thorit+ to resolve the
!omple& so!iolo5i!al, philosophi!al, and politi!al 9#estion of the nat#re and
primar+ p#rpose of marria5e. And not onl+ did the !o#rt resolve that 9#es-
tion, it did so 6+ de!larin5 the pro!reation-!entered vie4 of marria5e to 6e
irrational. %here is no 6asis for s#!h a r#lin5.
7e5ardless of oneBs perspe!tive on the nat#re of marria5e, the 6iolo5i!al
fa!ts that distin5#ish opposite-se& !o#ples from same-se& !o#ples 8#stif+
%e&asBs marria5e la4s #nder rational-6asis revie4. Opposite-se& relation-
ships have the potential to prod#!e #ni9#e e&ternalities that do not res#lt
from same-se& relationships, 4hi!h ma=es #ni9#e re5#lation of opposite-se&
relationships eminentl+ rational. As !ompared to the relative sta6ilit+ of a
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 23 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

1*
marria5e, se&#al a!tivit+ amon5 opposite-se& !o#ples 4ho are not en5a5ed in
sta6le relationships is more li=el+ to res#lt in !osts that m#st 6e 6orne 6+ so-
!iet+. Ct is a 6asi! fa!t of life that h#man 6ein5s are often 5overned 6+ their
passions. And 4hen the prod#!t of those passions !an 6e a !hild, the StateBs
interest in steerin5 those passions to4ard a responsi6le and sta6le o#tlet
!o#ld hardl+ 6e stron5er. Same-se& !o#ples feel passion and love for one an-
other as 4ell. /#t !hildren are not the immediate and dire!t res#lt. %o the
!ontrar+, the !hildren of same-se& !o#ples are 5enerall+ the res#lt of the
len5th+ refle!tion and finan!ial investment re9#ired to see= o#t ph+si!ian-
assisted fertiliDation, s#rro5ate parents, or adoption. %he StateBs de!ision to
re5#late opposite-se& relationships thro#5h marria5e flo4s from a re!o5ni-
tion of the !osts imposed on so!iet+ 4hen the pro!reative po4er of those re-
lationships is #sed irresponsi6l+, not from a desire to demean or harm an+-
one.
%he o68e!tion ma+ 6e raised that not all opposite-se& marria5es prod#!e
!hildren. Some !o#ples are infertileN some are deli6eratel+ !hildless. /#t ra-
tional-6asis revie4 does not re9#ire a perfe!t fit 6et4een means and endsN
the S#preme "o#rt has so held man+ times in !ases that the distri!t !o#rt i5-
nored. See, e."., Heller, 509 U.S. at (*1N Dandrid"e v. *illia$s, (93 U.S. 431,
4)5 019302 0ILAM State does not violate the ?9#al .rote!tion "la#se merel+
6e!a#se the !lassifi!ations made 6+ its la4s are imperfe!t.J2. Ct is eno#5h if
the State !an sho4 that opposite-se& relationships are more li=el+ than same-
se& relationships to prod#!e !hildrenOindeed, it is eno#5h if one !o#ld ra-
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 24 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

1(
tionall+ spe!#late that opposite-se& relationships $i"ht 6e more li=el+ than
same-se& relationships to prod#!e !hildren. See Beach Co$$c+ns, 50) U.S. at
(15 0IL:Me5islative !hoi!e Q ma+ 6e 6ased on rational spe!#lation #ns#p-
ported 6+ eviden!e or empiri!al data.J2. %he plaintiffs do not den+ that one
!o#ld rationall+ hold this 6eliefN the+ do not even den+ that opposite-se&
!o#ples are more li=el+ than same-se& !o#ples to !reate ne4 offsprin5. %hat
!on!edes that %e&asBs marria5e la4s s#rvive rational-6asis revie4. And in all
events, the plaintiffs and the distri!t !o#rt are 4ron5 to assert that re!o5niD-
in5 infertile or !hildless opposite-se& marria5es fails to advan!e the StateBs
interest in en!o#ra5in5 sta6le environments for pro!reation. /+ re!o5niDin5
and en!o#ra5in5 the lifelon5 !ommitment 6et4een a man and 4omanOeven
4hen the+ do not prod#!e offsprin5Othe State en!o#ra5es others 4ho (ill
pro!reate to enter into the marria5e relationship.
Opposite-se& !o#ples often !annot help 6#t prod#!e offsprin5, 4hi!h
ma=es en!o#ra5in5 the formation of sta6le le5al #nions 6et4een men and
4omen a #ni9#el+ a!#te !on!ern for so!iet+Oand therefore for the State.
7e5#lation and promotion of opposite-se& marria5es in!reases the li=elihood
that !hildren 4ill 6e 6orn into sta6le environments 4here the+ are raised 6+
their mother and their father. Ct is s#rel+ rational to 6elieve that this is 5ood
for the !hildrenBs 4ell-6ein5. And it is also 5ood for the State, 6e!a#se it in-
!reases the li=elihood that parents, rather than so!iet+, 4ill 6ear the !ost of
raisin5 these !hildren. 7e!o5niDin5 same-se& marria5e does not f#rther this
5oal to the same e&tent. And opposite-se& marria5e advan!es this interest
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 25 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

14
even 4hen one of the partners to the marria5e is infertile or the 4oman is 6e-
+ond !hild6earin5 +ears. /+ en!o#ra5in5 faithf#lness and mono5am+ 6e-
t4een a fertile person and an infertile opposite-se& spo#se, these marria5-
esOeven tho#5h infertileOserve to !hannel 6oth spo#sesB se&#alit+ into a
!ommitted relationship rather than to4ard se&#al 6ehavior that, for the fer-
tile spo#se at least, ma+ res#lt in !osts that are #ltimatel+ 6orne 6+ so!iet+.
%he distri!t !o#rt ar5#ed that re!o5niDin5 same-se& marria5e 4ill do
nothin5 to under$ine the StateBs interests in promotin5 responsi6le pro!rea-
tion, 6#t that is irrelevant 4hen !ond#!tin5 rational-6asis revie4. A State !an
rationall+ !on!l#de that re!o5niDin5 same-se& marria5es 4ill not f#rther
those interestsOor that it 4ill not f#rther these interests to the same e&tent
as opposite-se& marria5e. :e5al marria5e is in some 4a+s a 5overnment s#6-
sid+, and a State ma+ reserve its s#6sidies for 6ehaviors that are most li=el+
to 5enerate the positive e&ternalities that the State see=s to promote. See
Nat+l )ndo($ent for the Arts v. #inle, 5*4 U.S. 569, 53* 0199)2N -ust v. Sul-
livan, 500 U.S. 13(, 19( 019912 05overnment ma+ emplo+ sele!tive s#6sidies
Ito en!o#ra5e !ertain a!tivities it 6elieves to 6e in the p#6li! interestJ2N
Harris v. %c-ae, 44) U.S. *93, (15 019)02 0states ma+ #se I#ne9#al s#6sidi-
DationJ to en!o#ra5e Ia!tivit+ deemed in the p#6li! interestJ2.
%his is not to sa+Oor even to s#55estOthat same-se& marria5es do not
5enerate an+ 6enefits for so!iet+. Some have ar5#ed, for e&ample that the
re!o5nition of same-se& marria5e 4ill prod#!e e!onomi! 6enefits, s#!h as in-
!reasin5 ho#sehold 4ealth. See, e."., $illiam N. ?s=rid5e, &he Case for Sa$e-
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 26 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

15
Se4 %arria"e 6) 01st ed. 19962. As stated a6ove, there are ar5#ments le5isla-
t#res !an !onsider in de!idin5 4hether same-se& marria5e sho#ld 6e le5al.
/#t on rational-6asis revie4, it is eno#5h to sho4 that opposite-se& marria5es
prod#!e so$e so!ietal 6enefits to a "reater e4tent than same-se& marria5esO
indeed, it is eno#5h if one !o#ld rationall+ 6elieve that this $i"ht 6e the !ase.
$hatever the 6enefits of same-se& marria5e, there is no 9#estion that oppo-
site-se& marria5es prod#!e different and #ni9#e so!ietal 6enefits related to
pro!reationOand that opposite-se& marria5es advan!e those interests to a
5reater e&tent than same-se& marria5es. On rational-6asis revie4, a State
does not violate the ?9#al .rote!tion "la#se 6+ !hoosin5 to p#rs#e some so-
!ietal 6enefits over others. See *illia$son v. Lee .ptical of .kla., /nc., (4)
U.S. 4)(, 4)9 019552 0I%he le5islat#re ma+ sele!t one phase of one field and
appl+ a remed+ there, ne5le!tin5 the othersJ 4itho#t violatin5 e9#al prote!-
tion2.
%his is all part and par!el of the pro!reation-fo!#sed vie4 of marria5e.
%he State does not provide le5al 6enefits toOand impose finan!ial 6#rdens
li=e !omm#nit+ propert+ and spo#sal maintenan!e onOmarried !o#ples
simpl+ to re!o5niDe their love and !ommitment to one another. Cnstead, the
primar+ p#rpose of le5al marria5e in %e&as is to 5enerate positive e&ternali-
ties 0and avoid ne5ative e&ternalities2 for so!iet+ 6+ en!o#ra5in5 responsi6le
6ehavior amon5 nat#rall+ pro!reative !o#ples, not to p#6li!l+ re!o5niDe the
love and !ommitment of t4o people. %his pro!reation-!entered perspe!tive
on marria5e is ass#redl+ rational, and the vie4 that marria5e inherentl+ re-
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 27 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

16
9#ires a man and a 4oman has 6een a 6edro!= of so!iet+ for tho#sands of
+ears in ever+ !orner of the 5lo6e. $hile it is em6ra!ed 6+ man+ reli5io#s
people, it lon5 pre-dates "hristianit+ or an+ other modern reli5ion. And this
vie4 !ontin#es to 6e held 6+ man+ tho#5htf#l and distin5#ished s!holars as
4ell as millions of ordinar+ Ameri!ans. See, e."., $itherspoon Cnstit#te, %ar-
ria"e and the Public 'ood9 &en Principles 0*00)2, http'AA6it.l+A1D=m0al 0si5ned
6+ over 30 s!holars2N Cnstit#te for Ameri!an ;al#es, %arria"e and the La(9 A
State$ent of Principles 0*0062, http'AA6it.l+A19?hf3# 0si5ned 6+ more than
100 s!holars2.
%he distri!t !o#rtBs fail#re to #nderstand 4h+ so man+ of his fello4
Ameri!ans oppose same-se& marria5e sho#ld not have led the distri!t !o#rt
to de!lare their 6eliefs irrational. Cnstead, it sho#ld have led the !o#rt to read
some of the man+ reasoned defenses of traditional marria5eOnone of 4hi!h
the !o#rt so m#!h as a!=no4led5ed 0let alone ref#ted2. See, e."., Sherif ,ir-
5is, 7o6ert .. ,eor5e H 7+an %. Anderson, *hat /s %arria"e:, (4 <arv. >.:.
H .#6. .olB+ *45 0*0112N ,eor5e $. ent, >r., &raditional %arria"e9 Still
*orth Defendin", 1) /EU >. .#6. :. 419 0*0042N see also >onathan <aidt H
>esse ,raham, *hen %oralit .pposes 1ustice9 Conservatives Have %oral /ntu-
itions &hat Liberals %a Not -eco"ni0e, *0 So!ial >#sti!e 7esear!h 9), 111R1*
0*0032 0ILOMn the iss#e of 5a+ marria5e it is !r#!ial that li6erals #nderstand
the !onservative vie4 of so!ial instit#tions. "onservatives 5enerall+ 6elieve
Q that h#man 6ein5s need str#!t#re and !onstraint to flo#rish, and that so-
!ial instit#tions provide these 6enefits. Q %hese are not !raD+ ideas.J2N >esse
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 28 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

13
,raham, >onathan <aidt H /rian Nose=, Liberals and Conservatives -el on
Different Sets of %oral #oundations, 96 >o#rnal of .ersonalit+ and So!ial .s+-
!holo5+ 10*9 0*0092. On rational-6asis revie4, the plaintiffsB 6#rden is to
ne5ate ever conceivable rationale that mi5ht 6e offered for a la4Oand that
re9#ires them 0at the ver+ least2 to ref#te ever+ defense that has 6een offered
for traditional marria5e, as 4ell as s!holars 0s#!h as <aidt2 4ho defend the
rationalit of those 4ho s#pport traditional marria5e. See Beach Co$$c+ns,
50) U.S. at (15 0IL%Mhose atta!=in5 the rationalit+ of the le5islative !lassifi-
!ation have the 6#rden to ne5ative ever+ !on!eiva6le 6asis 4hi!h mi5ht s#p-
port it.J2 0internal 9#otations omitted2. One does not ref#te ar5#ments 6+
i5norin5 them.
1ore importantl+, it is not possi6le to Iref#teJ the idea that the le5al in-
stit#tion of marria5e is the StateBs 4a+ of red#!in5 the so!ietal !osts asso!i-
ated 4ith #nre5#lated and irresponsi6le heterose&#al a!tivit+ and en!o#ra5-
in5 mothers and fathers to 8oin to5ether in !arin5 !are for the !hildren their
relationships tend to prod#!e. %he plaintiffs and the distri!t !o#rt ma+ disa-
"ree 4ith that #nderstandin5 of the p#rpose of marria5e, 6#t that is a norma-
tive val#e 8#d5ment and it does not s#ppl+ a 6asis for a !onstit#tional hold-
in5. Normative disa5reements a6o#nd in other areas of la4, and this does not
lead one side to de!lare the other Iirrational.J Some 6elieve, for e&ample,
that the primar+ p#rpose of tort la4 is deterrin5 ne5li5ent 6ehavior 6+ tort-
feasorsN others emphasiDe the !orre!tive-8#sti!e !on!erns of ens#rin5 !om-
pensation for a!!ident vi!tims. Some 6elieve that antitr#st la4 sho#ld p#rs#e
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 29 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

1)
e!onomi! effi!ien!+ and !ons#mer 4elfareN others thin= it sho#ld prote!t
Ismall dealers and 4orth+ menJ from !ompetitive mar=et for!es. Some 6e-
lieve that food la4 sho#ld p#rs#e li6ertarian aimsN others thin= it sho#ld
promote n#trition or ens#re the ethi!al treatment of animals. .eople 4ho
disa5ree over these iss#es do not !all their opponentsB vie4s IirrationalJ or
I#n!onstit#tional.J Cnstead, the+ re!o5niDe that their opponents are pro-
!eedin5 from a different normative frame4or= that emphasiDes !ertain val-
#es over othersOand the+ f#rther re!o5niDe that rational people !an disa5ree
over 4hi!h val#es sho#ld ta=e priorit+. %hose 4ho s#pport traditional mar-
ria5e deserve similar !o#rtes+ from their fello4 parti!ipants in the on5oin5
demo!rati! de6ate a6o#t same-se& marria5e.
%he distri!t !o#rt did not appl+ hei5htened s!r#tin+ to the plaintiffsB
e9#al-prote!tion !laims, 6#t the plaintiffs are li=el+ to ar5#e for it. %here is
no need to remand this 9#estion to the distri!t !o#rt, as hei5htened s!r#tin+
is impermissi6le for man+ reasons. -irst, neither the S#preme "o#rt nor this
"o#rt has ever held that se&#al orientation is a Is#spe!t !lassifi!ationJ that
tri55ers hei5htened s!r#tin+, and the over4helmin5 4ei5ht of appellate a#-
thorit+ re8e!ts the idea. See, e."., Cook v. 'ates, 5*) -.(d 4*, 6* 01st "ir.
*00)2N Scarbrou"h v. %or"an Cnt. Bd. of )duc., 430 -.(d *50, *61 06th "ir.
*0062N Lofton v. Sec+ of Dept. of Children and #a$il Servs., (5) -.(d )04,
)1) 011th "ir. *0042N *al$er v. Dep+t of Defense, 5* -.(d )51, )54 010th "ir.
19952N Steffan v. Perr, 41 -.(d at 304.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 30 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

19
Se!ond, the ar5#ments for s#spe!t-!lass stat#s are (eaker no4 than the+
4ere at the time of these appellate-!o#rt r#lin5s. %he politi!al infl#en!e of
the 5a+-ri5hts movement has onl+ 5ro4n sin!e the time of the man+ !o#rt
de!isions re8e!tin5 s#spe!t-!lass stat#s. %he movementBs man+ re!ent s#!-
!esses are 4ell =no4n. %o !ite 8#st t4o e&amples, "on5ress repealed the mil-
itar+Bs IonBt As=, onBt %ellJ poli!+, and re!entl+ the .resident si5ned an
e&e!#tive order prohi6itin5 se&#al-orientation dis!rimination 6+ federal !on-
tra!tors. 1ore and more ele!ted offi!ialsOin!l#din5 the .residentOare an-
no#n!in5 their s#pport for same-se& marria5e, and Attorne+ ,eneral <older
and several state attorne+s 5eneral too= the e&traordinar+ step of ref#sin5 to
defend traditional marria5e la4s in !o#rt. Cn the !#rrent !limate, the !laim
that same-se& !o#ples Ila!= s#6stantial politi!al po4erJ !annot 6e ta=en se-
rio#sl+, parti!#larl+ 4hen !o#rts re8e!ted this !laim de!ades a5o, 4hen the
5a+-ri5hts movement 4as less infl#ential than it is toda+. See 7OA.1061N see
also Ben-Shalo$ v. %arsh, ))1 -.*d 454, 466 03th "ir. 19)92 0ICn these times
homose&#als are provin5 that the+ are not 4itho#t 5ro4in5 politi!al po4er. Ct
!annot 6e said the+ have no a6ilit+ to attra!t the attention of the la4ma=-
ers.J2 0internal 9#otation mar=s omitted2.
%hird, even if one 4ere to a!!ept the plaintiffsB !ontention that the+
9#alif+ as a Is#spe!t !lass,J %e&asBs marria5e la4s still 4o#ld not re!eive
hei5htened s!r#tin+ 6e!a#se the+ do not !lassif+ 6ased on se&#al orientation.
All persons in %e&asOre5ardless of se&#al orientationOare s#68e!t to the
same definition of marria5e, and the plaintiffs are as free to marr+ an oppo-
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 31 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

*0
site-se& spo#se as an+one else in the State. And all persons in %e&asO
re5ardless of their se&#al orientationOare ineli5i6le to marr+ a same-se&
spo#se. A la4 that applies e9#all+ to ever+one does not dis!riminate or den+
Ie9#al prote!tionJ simpl+ 6e!a#se some 5ro#p of people 4ants to violate it.
See %cCullen v. Coakle, 1(4 S. "t. *51), *5(4 0*0142 0fa!iall+ ne#tral 6#ffer
Done is Ineither !ontent nor vie4point 6ased,J even tho#5h the onl+ spee!h
affe!ted 4o#ld !ome from one parti!#lar vie4point2N see also -enolds v.
!nited States, 9) U.S. 145 01)3)2N )$p+t Div., Dep+t of Hu$an -es. of .r. v.
S$ith, 494 U.S. )3*, )3) 019902. %e&asBs marria5e la4s ma+ res#lt in a dis-
parate impa!t on people of a !ertain se&#al orientation, 6#t disparate-impa!t
!laims are not !o5niDa6le in e9#al-prote!tion la4. See *ashin"ton v. Davis,
4*6 U.S. **9, *4* 019362.
Lovin" v. 3ir"inia does not !han5e the fa!t that %e&asBs marria5e la4s
appl+ e9#all+ to ever+one. Lovin" str#!= do4n ;ir5iniaBs anti-mis!e5enation
la4, and altho#5h ;ir5inia defended its la4 6+ ar5#in5 that it applied e9#all+
to mem6ers of all ra!es, the "o#rt nevertheless invalidated the stat#te 6e-
!a#se it !ontained an e&pli!it ra!ial !lassifi!ation. See ()) U.S. at )-9. 7a!ial
!lassifi!ations are #n!onstit#tionalOeven 4hen the stat#te p#rports to im-
pose a #niform r#leOand a State !an no more defend an anti-mis!e5enation
stat#te on the 5ro#nd that it applies to ever+one than it !o#ld defend a se5re-
5ation ordinan!e on these 5ro#nds. See Lovin", ()) U.S. at ) 0IL$Me re8e!t
the notion that the mere Se9#al appli!ationB of a stat#te !ontainin5 ra!ial
!lassifi!ations is eno#5h to remove the !lassifi!ations from the -o#rteenth
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 32 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

*1
AmendmentBs pros!ription of all invidio#s ra!ial dis!riminations.J2N Bro(n
v. Bd. of )duc., (43 U.S. 4)(, 495 019542 0re8e!tin5 Iseparate 6#t e9#al.J2.
Lovin" !onfirmed, ho4ever, that onl stat#tes 4ith ra!ial !lassifi!ations 4ill
5enerate e9#al-prote!tion pro6lems if the la4 other4ise applies e9#all+ to
ever+one. See Lovin", ()) U.S. at 9 0ICn these !ases, involvin5 distin!tions
not dra4n a!!ordin5 to ra!e, the "o#rt has merel+ as=ed 4hether there is
an+ rational fo#ndation for the dis!riminations, and has deferred to the 4is-
dom of the state le5islat#res. Cn the !ase at 6ar, ho4ever, 4e deal 4ith stat-
#tes !ontainin5 ra!ial !lassifi!ations, and the fa!t of e9#al appli!ation does
not imm#niDe the stat#te from the ver+ heav+ 6#rden of 8#stifi!ation 4hi!h
the -o#rteenth Amendment has traditionall+ re9#ired of state stat#tes dra4n
a!!ordin5 to ra!e.J2.
%e&asBs marria5e la4s do not den+ the plaintiffs the e9#al prote!tion of
the la4s. %he+ ma=e rational distin!tions for le5itimate reasons, and the
?9#al .rote!tion "la#se does not prohi6it s#!h distin!tions. %he pro!rea-
tion-!entered vie4 of marria5e on 4hi!h %e&as la4 rests is no less rational
than the alternative vie4 of marria5e espo#sed 6+ the plaintiffs and the dis-
tri!t !o#rt. %he distri!t !o#rt disa5reed 4ith %e&as votersB vie4 of the na-
t#re and p#rposes of marria5e, 6#t that disa5reement !annot s#pport a !on-
stit#tional holdin5.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 33 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

**
II# Te$as’s %arriage La&s 'o Not (iolate Te
'ue*Process Clause#
%he distri!t !o#rt held that same-se& marria5e is a If#ndamentalJ !on-
stit#tional ri5ht, 6#t the !o#rt admitted that there is no lan5#a5e in the "on-
stit#tion esta6lishin5 this ri5ht. 7OA.*0*3. So the distri!t !o#rt relied on the
!ontroversial do!trine =no4n as Is#6stantive d#e pro!ess.J See >ohn <art
?l+, De$ocrac and Distrust9 A &heor of 1udicial -evie( 1) 019)02
0ISLSM#6stantive d#e pro!essB is a !ontradi!tion in termsOsort of li=e S5reen
pastel redness.BJ2N :a#ren!e <. %ri6e, &akin" &e4t and Structure Seriousl9
-eflections .n #ree-#or$ %ethod /n Constitutional /nterpretation, 10) <arv. :.
7ev. 1**1, 1*93 n.*43 019952 0a!=no4led5in5 that the I6asi! lin5#isti!
pointJ that Is#6stantive d#e pro!ess LisM an o&+moron Q has 5reat for!eJ2.
/e!a#se Is#6stantive d#e pro!essJ has no te&t#al pedi5ree in the "onstit#-
tion and 6e!a#se of its asso!iation 4ith lon5-dis!redited r#lin5s s#!h as Dred
Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. (9( 01)562, and Lochner, 19) U.S. 45, the S#preme
"o#rt has stri!tl+ limited the sit#ations in 4hi!h this !o#rt-!reated do!trine
ma+ 6e #sed to stri=e do4n demo!rati!all+ ena!ted la4s. -irst, a s#6stantive
d#e pro!ess ri5ht m#st 6e Ideepl+ rooted in this NationBs histor+ and tradi-
tion.J See 'lucksber", 5*1 U.S. at 30(. Se!ond, !o#rts m#st appl+ a I!aref#l
des!riptionJ of the alle5ed ri5ht 4hen #nderta=in5 the histori!al in9#ir+. See
id. %his means that 8#d5es !annot de!lare a ri5ht that is not Ideepl+ rooted in
this NationBs histor+ and traditionJ 0s#!h as a ri5ht to same-se& marria5e2 to
be Ideepl+ rooted in this NationBs histor+ and traditionJ 6+ 6oostin5 the lev-
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 34 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

*(
el of 5eneralit+ at 4hi!h the ri5ht is defined. See id.N U.S. "onst. art. ;N 1i-
!hael $. 1!"onnell, &he -i"ht to Die and the 1urisprudence of &radition, 1993
Utah :. 7ev. 665N -ran= <. ?aster6roo=, Abstraction and Authorit, 59 U.
"hi. :. 7ev. (49 0199*2.
%he distri!t !o#rt applied a ver+ different version of s#6stantive d#e pro-
!ess. $itho#t an+ mention of 'lucksber" or its re9#irement that s#6stantive-
d#e-pro!ess ri5hts 6e Ideepl+ rootedJ in histor+ and tradition, the distri!t
!o#rt !laimed that the d#e-pro!ess !la#se prote!ts the Iri5ht to marr+ the
partner of LoneBsM !hoosin5.J 7OA.*0*9N 7OA.1049. %his defies 'lucksber"
0and the "onstit#tion2 in t4o respe!ts. -irst, the Iri5ht to marr+ the partner
of LoneBsM !hoosin5J is not deepl+ rooted in this NationBs histor+ and tradi-
tion. %he States have al4a+s imposed restri!tions on oneBs !hoi!e of mar-
ria5e partner, for6iddin5 not onl+ same-se& marria5es 6#t also non-
!onsens#al marria5es, marria5es 6et4een !lose relatives, and marria5es in-
volvin5 persons 6elo4 the a5e of !onsent.
Se!ond, the plaintiffs and the distri!t !o#rt violate 'lucksber"Bs I!aref#l
des!riptionJ re9#irement, 6+ definin5 their proposed If#ndamental ri5htJ
at an impermissi6l+ hi5h level of a6stra!tion. %he 9#estion is not 4hether a
Iri5ht to marr+J is deepl+ rooted in this NationBs histor+ and tradition, 6#t
4hether the ri5ht to marr+ a same-se& partner has that pedi5ree. Ct does not,
and the plaintiffs and the distri!t !o#rt do not ar5#e other4ise. %heir onl+
response to 'lucksber" has 6een to i5nore it.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 35 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

*4
%here is also no stoppin5 point to this a6stra!tion mane#ver. Cf !o#rts
and liti5ants !an !reate a !onstit#tional ri5ht to same-se& marria5e 6+ defin-
in5 it as part of a more 5eneral Iri5ht to marr+,J then an !ond#!t that has
6een traditionall+ prohi6ited !an 6e!ome a !onstit#tional ri5ht simpl+ 6+ re-
definin5 it at a hi5her level of a6stra!tionOperhaps as part of a Iri5ht to 6e
let aloneJ or a Ifreedom not to !onform.J See Bo(ers v. Hard(ick, 43) U.S.
1)6, 199 019)62 0/la!=m#n, >., dissentin52N %ichael H. v. 'erald D., 491 U.S.
110, 141 019)92 0/rennan, >., dissentin52. .erhaps the plaintiffs 4ill respond
6+ sa+in5 that !o#rts need not ta=e the a6stra!tion mane#ver that farN the+
sho#ld en5a5e in a6stra!tion onl+ to the e&tent ne!essar+ to !onstit#tionaliDe
the ri5hts that the+ 4ant 0s#!h as a ri5ht to same-se& marria5e2 and no f#r-
ther. /#t that 4o#ld onl+ !onfirm the #tter ar6itrariness of their approa!h to
s#6stantive d#e pro!ess.
%he %enth "ir!#it #sed the same a6stra!tion falla!+ in its re!ent de!ision
disapprovin5 UtahBs marria5e la4s' Ct de!lared a 5eneraliDed Iri5ht to mar-
r+J to 6e Ideepl+ rootedJ in histor+ and tradition, and then anno#n!ed that
this Ideepl+ rootedJ ri5ht in!l#des the ri5ht to marr+ an+ person of oneBs
!hoi!e, in!l#din5 a same-se& partner. See Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 1(-413),
*014 $: *)6)044, at T11 010th "ir. >#ne *5, *0142. %he %enth "ir!#it
a!=no4led5ed 'lucksber"Bs I!aref#l des!riptionJ re9#irement, 6#t ar5#ed
that it !o#ld disre5ard 'lucksber"Oat least in !ases involvin5 !hallen5es to a
StateBs marria5e la4sO6e!a#se some pre-'lucksber" !ases 0Lovin", =ablocki,
and &urner2 had Idis!#ssed the ri5ht to marr+ at a 6roader level of 5enerali-
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 36 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

*5
t+.J /d. at T1*. A!!ordin5 to the %enth "ir!#it, those r#lin5s allo4 federal
!o#rts to i5nore 'lucksber" and impose same-se& marria5e on the States 6e-
!a#se the opinions did not 5o o#t of their 4a+ to e&pli!itl+ reiterate 4hat the
S#preme "o#rt had alread+ held in Baker v. NelsonOthat the Iri5ht to mar-
r+J !an e&tend onl+ to opposite-se& !o#ples. %hat is not a valid e&!#se for
ref#sin5 to follo4 the S#preme "o#rtBs instr#!tions in 'lucksber". %he dis-
!#ssion of the Iri5ht to marr+J in Lovin", =ablocki, and &urner pro!eeded in
5eneral terms 6e!a#se no one had ar5#ed 0or even tho#5ht2 that this ri5ht
!o#ld e&tend to same-se& !o#plesOnot 6e!a#se the 8#sti!es 4ere invitin5 f#-
t#re !o#rts to impose same-se& marria5e on the States. No one !ontends that
Lovin", =ablocki, or &urner esta6lished a !onstit#tional ri5ht to same-se&
marria5e, 4hi!h means that an+ dis!#ssion of the Iri5ht to marr+J in those
!ases $ust 6e interpreted to refer onl+ to opposite-se& marria5eOthe onl+
t+pe of Imarria5eJ that 4as =no4n to e&ist at the time of those de!isions.
And even if the %enth "ir!#it 4ere !orre!t to find si5nifi!an!e in the fa!t
that Lovin", =ablocki, and &urner des!ri6ed the Iri5ht to marr+J in 5eneral-
iDed terms, 'lucksber" p#t an end to the past pra!ti!e of #sin5 a6stra!tion to
invent If#ndamental ri5htsJ that have no 6asis in !onstit#tional te&t or his-
tori!al pra!ti!e. See 'lucksber", 5*1 U.S. at 3*0, 3*5N 1!"onnell, &he -i"ht to
Die and the 1urisprudence of &radition, 1993 Utah :. 7ev. 665. One !annot
disre5ard the S#preme "o#rtBs re8e!tion of a methodolo5+ 6+ pointin5 to
earlier opinions that deplo+ the rep#diated methodolo5+.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 37 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

*6
%he %enth "ir!#it also invo=ed La(rence as an e&!#se to i5nore 'lucks-
ber", 6#t La(rence did not esta6lish a f#ndamental li6ert+ interest and did not
appl+ hei5htened s!r#tin+ 0as even the %enth "ir!#it a!=no4led5ed2. See
Kitchen, *014 $: *)6)044, at T*0N See"$iller v. La3erkin Cit, 5*) -.(d
36*, 331 010th "ir. *00)2 0ILNMo4here in La(rence does the "o#rt des!ri6e
the ri5ht at iss#e in that !ase as a f#ndamental ri5ht or a f#ndamental li6ert+
interestJ2N see also *illia$s v. Attorne 'en. of Ala., (3) -.(d 1*(*, 1*(6 011th
"ir. *0042. La(rence therefore 5ives no levera5e to the plaintiffsB efforts to
ma=e same-se& marria5e into a f#ndamental ri5ht s#68e!t to hei5htened s!r#-
tin+. %he %enth "ir!#itBs opinion also leads to the sta55erin5 !on!l#sion that
ever restri!tion on the ri5ht to marr+ m#st 6e s#68e!t to stri!t s!r#tin+. Ct is
not !lear ho4 other lon5standin5 restri!tions on the ri5ht to marr+ !o#ld s#r-
vive that standardOand the %enth "ir!#it did not e&plain ho4 the+ !o#ld.
-inall+, the distri!t !o#rt and the %enth "ir!#itBs approa!h to Is#6stan-
tive d#e pro!essJ violates Arti!le ; of the "onstit#tion. ?a!h of their r#lin5s
!reates a !onstit#tional ri5ht that has no te&t#al 6asis in the do!#ment, see
7OA.*0*3 0IL%Mhe ri5ht to marr+ is not e&pli!itl+ mentioned in the te&t of
the "onstit#tionJ2, and that is not Ideepl+ rooted in this NationBs histor+
and tradition.J Cn doin5 this, the distri!t !o#rt and the %enth "ir!#it are #s-
in5 Is#6stantive d#e pro!essJ to enfor!e ri5hts that some 8#d5es 6elieve
should 6e prote!ted 6+ the "onstit#tion, 6#t that la!= s#ffi!ient pop#lar s#p-
port to 6e !odified as an Arti!le ; amendment to the "onstit#tion. Eet Arti-
!le ; prote!ts the opponents of same-se& marria5eOand the opponents of all
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 38 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

*3
novel and proposed I!onstit#tionalJ ri5htsO6+ imposin5 e&tensive s#per-
ma8oritarian h#rdles in the path of those 4ho 4ish to remove iss#es li=e
same-se& marria5e from the politi!al pro!ess. %he distri!t !o#rt and the
%enth "ir!#it allo4ed the s#pporters of same-se& marria5e to !ir!#mvent
those !onstit#tional prote!tions 6+ de!larin5 that same-se& marria5e has no4
6e!ome a !onstit#tional ri5htOeven tho#5h ever+one a5rees that same-se&
marria5e 4as not a !onstit#tional ri5ht 4hen the -o#rteenth Amendment
4as ratified and remains in!apa6le of o6tainin5 the s#perma8oritarian assent
that Arti!le ; re9#ires. See !ll$ann v. !nited States, (50 U.S. 4**, 4*)
019562 0INothin5 ne4 !an 6e p#t into the "onstit#tion e&!ept thro#5h the
amendator+

pro!ess.J2.
:a4+ers and 8#d5es sometimes pro!eed as if !onstit#tional provisions e&-
ist onl+ to limit the po4er of the politi!al 6ran!hes. /#t the "onstit#tionBs
allo!ation of po4ers ne!essaril+ limits the interpretive a#thorit+ of the 8#di-
!iar+, and there is a point at 4hi!h IinterpretationJ !rosses the line into
!onstit#tional amendment 6+ 8#di!ial de!ree. 7easona6le 8#rists !an de6ate
e&a!tl+ 4here this 6o#ndar+ falls, 6#t it is s#rel+ the !ase that a s#6stantive
ri5ht to marr+ a same-se& partnerO4hi!h has no te&t#al 6asis 4hatsoever in
the "onstit#tion and no histori!al pedi5reeOis a de fa!to !onstit#tional
amendment imposed #nder the 5#ise of !onstit#tional Iinterpretation.J
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 39 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

*)
III# Te Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Foreclosed B"
Ba+er ,# Nelson#
?ven if one 6elieves that the S#preme "o#rt sho#ld #ltimatel+ re9#ire
the States to permit same-se& marria5es, the distri!t !o#rtBs preliminar+ in-
8#n!tion sho#ld still 6e va!ated 6e!a#se Baker v. Nelson remains a 6indin5
pre!edent on this iss#e. Cn Baker, the 1innesota S#preme "o#rt re8e!ted a
!laim of a ri5ht to same-se& marria5e #nder the federal !onstit#tion. 409 U.S.
)10. On appeal, a #nanimo#s U.S. S#preme "o#rtOthree +ears after Lovin"
v. 3ir"iniaOheld that a !laimed !onstit#tional ri5ht to same-se& marria5e did
not even present a s#6stantial federal 9#estion. /d. %his =ind of s#mmar+
disposition 4as !ommon 4hen, prior to 19)), the S#preme "o#rt 4as re-
9#ired to hear all appeals from state s#preme !o#rt r#lin5s presentin5 federal
!onstit#tional 9#estions. See *) U.S.". G 1*53 019))2. Ct is 4ell-esta6lished
that this =ind of ILsM#mmar+ disposition of an appeal, . . . either 6+ affir-
man!e or 6+ dismissal for 4ant of a s#6stantial federal 9#estion, is a disposi-
tion on the $erits.J Hicks v. %iranda, 4** U.S. ((*, (44 019352 09#otin5 ".
$ri5ht, :a4 of -ederal "o#rts 495 0*d ed. 19302 0emphasis added22. Cndeed,
the distri!t !o#rt a!=no4led5ed that s#mmar+ dispositions 6+ the S#preme
"o#rt are

Ipre!edential and 6indin5 on lo4er !o#rts.J 7OA.*009 0!itin5
%andel v. Bradle, 4(* U.S. 13(, 136 019332 0per !#riam22. /#t it held that
Is#6se9#ent do!trinal and so!ietal developments sin!e 193*

!ompel this
"o#rt to !on!l#de that the s#mmar+ dismissal in Baker is no lon5er 6ind-
in5.J 7OA.*009.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 40 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

*9
-ederal distri!t !o#rts have no a#thorit+ to de!lare that a r#lin5 of the
S#preme "o#rt has 6een overr#led sub silentio 6+ later Ido!trinal develop-
ments.J See -odri"ue0 de 6ui7as v. Shearson8A$. )4press, /nc., 490 U.S. 433,
4)4 019)92 0ICf a pre!edent of this "o#rt has dire!t appli!ation in a !ase, +et
appears to rest on reasons re8e!ted in some other line of de!isions, the "o#rt
of Appeals sho#ld follo4 the !ase 4hi!h dire!tl+ !ontrols, leavin5 to this
"o#rt the prero5ative of overr#lin5 its o4n de!isions.J2N A"ostini v. #elton,
5*1 U.S. *0(, *(3-() 019932 0same2. %here is no do#6t that Baker is Ithe !ase
4hi!h dire!tl+ !ontrols,J as it involved pre!isel+ the same iss#e presented 6+
the plaintiffs in this !ase. %he distri!t !o#rt did not present an ar5#ment to
the !ontrar+. Cndeed, the distri!t !o#rt did not !ite or a!=no4led5e the S#-
preme "o#rtBs instr#!tions in -odri"ue0 de 6ui7as and A"ostiniOeven tho#5h
6oth !ases 4ere !ited and e&plained in detail in the StateBs 6rief. %he plain-
tiffs also i5nored the StateBs relian!e on -odri"ue0 de 6ui7as and A"ostiniO
apparentl+ ass#min5 that the S#preme "o#rtBs e&pli!it instr#!tions in those
!ases !an 6e i5nored so lon5 as there are opinions from other federal distri!t
!o#rts i5norin5 those !ases. See 7OA.13*3-*9.
?ven if one 4ere to entirel+ i5nore -odri"ue0 de 6ui7as and A"ostiniOas
the distri!t !o#rt didOthe distri!t !o#rt 4as 4ron5 to assert that *indsor
overr#led or even #ndermined Baker. Cf an+thin5, *indsor reinfor!ed Baker
6+ emphasiDin5 the need to safe5#ard the StatesB Ihistori! and essential a#-
thorit+ to define the marital relationJ free from Ifederal intr#sion.J 1(( S.
"t. at *69*N see also id. at *6)9-90 0I/+ histor+ and tradition the definition
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 41 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

(0
and re5#lation of marria5e . . . has 6een treated as 6ein5 4ithin the a#thorit+
and realm of the separate States.J2. Ct 4as pre!isel+ because the *indsor
"o#rt re5arded marria5e la4 as Ia virt#all+ e&!l#sive provin!e of the StatesJ
that it deemed O1ABs ref#sal to re!o5niDe Ne4 Eor=Bs de!ision to permit
same-se& marria5e an impermissi6le Ifederal intr#sion on state po4er.J /d.
at *6)0, *69* 0internal 9#otation mar=s omitted2.
%he distri!t !o#rt also erred 6+ s#55estin5 that Hollin"s(orth v. Perr, 1((
S. "t. *65* 0*01(2, #ndermines Baker. See 7OA.*010. Appellate 8#risdi!tion
m#st e&ist before an appellate !o#rt !an even !onsider 4hether a s#6stantial
federal 9#estion e&ists. See 1ohn v. Paullin, *(1 U.S. 5)(, 5)5 0191(2 0ILCMf Q
its appellate 8#risdi!tion 4as not properl+ invo=ed, no -ederal 9#estion 4as
6efore it for de!ision.J2N !nited States. v. %endo0a, 491 -.*d 5(4, 5(6 05th
"ir. 19342 0des!ri6in5 appellate 8#risdi!tion as a threshold iss#e2. /e!a#se
the S#preme "o#rt held in Hollin"s(orth that the petitioners la!=ed standin5
to appeal, the "o#rt la!=ed a#thorit+ to opine on 4hether the plaintiffs had
presented a s#6stantial federal 9#estion.
-inall+, even if post-Baker S#preme "o#rt r#lin5s have esta6lished
that alle5in5 a !onstit#tional ri5ht to same-se& marria5e no4 presents a
Is#6stantialJ federal 9#estion, no post-Baker de!ision has overr#led BakerBs
!on!l#sion that same-se& marria5e is not a !onstit#tional ri5ht. &hat holdin5
on the merits remains 6indin5 on ever+ federal !o#rt, and the distri!t !o#rt
provided no 8#stifi!ation for disre5ardin5 it.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 42 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

(1
I(# Te Plaintiffs’ Claims Find No Su--ort In
Te Te$t Or .istor" Of Te Fourteent
Amendment#
%he plaintiffsB and the distri!t !o#rtBs interpretation of the -o#rteenth
Amendment !ontradi!ts not onl+ the ori5inal #nderstandin5 of the amend-
ment 6#t also more than a !ent#r+ of post-ratifi!ation histor+. See, e."., Her-
nande0 v. -obles, )55 N.?.*d 1, ) 0N.E. *0062 0ILCMt 4as an a!!epted tr#th
for almost ever+one 4ho ever lived, in an+ so!iet+ in 4hi!h marria5e e&isted,
that there !o#ld 6e marria5es onl+ 6et4een parti!ipants of different se&.J2.
Eet the distri!t !o#rt !ompletel+ i5nored this defe!t in the plaintiffsB !laim.
Some ma+ 6elieve that 8#d5es sho#ld entirel+ i5nore histor+ 4hen interpret-
in5 !onstit#tional provisions. /#t 4e find it hard to 6elieve that an+ !o#rt
4o#ld a!!ept the notion that histor+ is irrelevant to !onstit#tional interpreta-
tionN no 8#rist of 4hi!h 4e are a4are has ever espo#sed s#!h a vie4. See Sch.
Dist. of Abin"ton &(p. v. Sche$pp, (34 U.S. *0(, *94 0196(2 0/rennan, >.,
!on!#rrin52 0IL%Mhe line 4e m#st dra4 6et4een the permissi6le and the im-
permissi6le is one 4hi!h a!!ords 4ith histor+ and faithf#ll+ refle!ts the #n-
derstandin5 of the -o#ndin5 -athers.J2N Col"rove v. Battin, 41( U.S. 149, 136
0193(2 01arshall, >., dissentin52 0I$hen a histori!al approa!h is applied to
the iss#e at hand, it !annot 6e do#6ted that the -ramers envisioned a 8#r+ of
1* 4hen the+ referred to trial 6+ 8#r+.J2N Nat+l Labor -elations Bd. v. Noel
Cannin", No. 1*-1*)1, *014 $: *))*090, at T9 0U.S. >#ne *6, *0142
0I%here is a 5reat deal of histor+ to !onsider here.J2.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 43 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

(*
.erhaps the plaintiffs 4ill a!=no4led5e that the histor+ !o#nts as a stri=e
a5ainst their proposed interpretation of the -o#rteenth Amendment, 6#t 4ill
ar5#e that this is o#t4ei5hed 6+ other !onsiderations. %he pro6lem 4ith that
approa!h is that there is nothin5 else that !o#ld esta6lish a !onstit#tional
ri5ht to same-se& marria5e. %here is no te&t#al ar5#ment on 4hi!h to rel+O
the -o#rteenth Amendment re9#ires Id#e pro!essJ 0not Id#e s#6stan!eJ2
and marria5e la4s 6ased on rational distin!tions that appl+ e9#all+ to ever+-
one do not den+ the Ie9#al prote!tion of the la4s.J And none of the S#-
preme "o#rt de!isions plaintiffs !ite esta6lishes a !onstit#tional ri5ht to
same-se& marria5e. %he holdin5s of Lovin", La(rence, and *indsor stop 4ell
short of re9#irin5 same-se& marria5e in all 50 States. %he plaintiffs 4o#ld
li=e this "o#rt to e4tend the holdin5s of those !ases, 6#t a !o#rt !annot e&-
tend those holdin5s a6sent a sho4in5 that %e&asBs marria5e la4s !onfli!t
4ith the Constitution, and the plaintiffs have not presented an+ ar5#ment
6ased on the "onstit#tion itself. -or all of their dis!#ssion of S#preme "o#rt
!ases and do!trinal 8ar5on, the plaintiffs !annot es!ape the fa!t that %e&asBs
marria5e la4s' 012 do not !onfli!t 4ith an+ de!ision of the S#preme "o#rtN
0*2 do not !onfli!t 4ith an+ lan5#a5e in the "onstit#tionN and 0(2 do not !on-
fli!t 4ith an+ lon5standin5 pra!ti!e or tradition. Cndeed, the plaintiffs do not
even ar5#e that an+ s#!h !onfli!t e&ists.
Cn li5ht of all of this, ho4 !an the distri!t !o#rt !on!l#de that %e&asBs
marria5e la4s are un-constitutionalK One possi6ilit+ is to rel+ on the fa!t that
past S#preme "o#rt 8#sti!es have 6een 4illin5 to !reate ne4 !onstit#tional
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 44 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

((
ri5hts 4itho#t an+ te&t#al 4arrant in the "onstit#tion and 4itho#t an+ 6asis
in lon5standin5 pra!ti!e or tradition. Lochner v. Ne( 2ork is the paradi5m for
this approa!h to 8#d5in5Oand 4hile Lochner has 6een rep#diated, the S#-
preme "o#rt has iss#ed other Lochner-t+pe de!isions that have not 6een
overr#led. See >ohn <art ?l+, &he *a"es of Crin" *olf, )* Eale :.>. 9*0
0193(2. .erhaps the plaintiffs 4ill !ontend that #ntil the S#preme "o#rt
overr#les ever+ last one of its Lochner-es9#e r#lin5s, the federal !o#rts have
free rein to em#late LochnerBs methodolo5+ 6+ p#shin5 aside demo!rati!all+
ena!ted le5islation in the name of ri5hts that have no te&t#al footin5 in the
do!#ment 6#t that 8#d5es nevertheless 6elieve should 6e prote!ted from le5-
islative interferen!e.
%his t+pe of ar5#ment !onf#ses a lo4er !o#rtBs d#t+ to obe the decisions
of the S#preme "o#rt 4ith a d#t+ to e$ulate the $ethodolo" of livin5-
!onstit#tionalismOand to e&tend that methodolo5+ into ne4 domains.
$hen the S#preme "o#rt #ses the do!trine of s#6stantive d#e pro!ess to
n#llif+ demo!rati!all+ ena!ted le5islation, those de!isions m#st 6e respe!ted
and o6e+ed, 6#t the+ are not a li!ense for federal !o#rts to e&pand this ate&-
t#al do!trine into ne4 areas. Other4ise, there is no need to sho4 that a pro-
posed !onstit#tional ri5ht to same-se& marria5e has an+ pedi5ree 6e+ond the
s#pport that it !#rrentl+ en8o+s amon5 federal 8#d5es. %his is ho4 the plain-
tiffs have ar5#ed their !ase from the o#tset' same-se& marria5e sho#ld 6e a
!onstit#tional ri5ht simpl+ 6e!a#se de!isions from other federal !o#rts s#p-
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 45 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

(4
port that ideaOnot 6e!a#se %e&asBs marria5e la4s !onfli!t 4ith !onstit#-
tional te&t.
%hat approa!h to s#6stantive d#e pro!ess destro+s not onl+ pop#lar sov-
erei5nt+ 6#t also the idea of a 5overnment of la4s and not of men. %he "on-
stit#tion !annot 6e !han5ed thro#5h !o#rt de!isions, +et the distri!t !o#rtBs
reasonin5 fails to a!=no4led5e an !onstit#tional limits on the interpretive
po4ers of the 8#di!iar+. Cf that is ho4 o#r 8#di!ial s+stem operates, then sov-
erei5nt+ resides not in the people, not in the offi!ials the+ ele!t or the la4s
those offi!ials pass, and not even in the te&t of the "onstit#tion, 6#t in the
federal 8#di!iar+Oa 8#di!iar+ that derives its po4ers not from the !onsent of
the 5overned, 6#t from the 8#d5esB o4n 6eliefs a6o#t 4hat moralit+ and 8#s-
ti!e re9#ire.
(# Legali/ation Of Same*Se$ %arriage
Troug 'emocratic Processes Is Far
Preferable To Legali/ation Troug !udi*
cial 'ecree#
?ven mem6ers of this "o#rt 4ho 6elieve that the 8#di!iar+ has the po(er
to re9#ire the States to adopt same-se& marria5e sho#ld nevertheless refrain
from doin5 so and allo4 the demo!rati! de6ate on same-se& marria5e to !on-
tin#e in the States.
-irst, same-se& marria5e has not e&isted lon5 eno#5h to 5enerate relia6le
data re5ardin5 its effe!ts. Allo4in5 the States to de!ide 4hether 0and for ho4
lon52 to pro!eed 4ith same-se& marria5e 4ill help poli!+ma=ers determine
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 46 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

(5
4hether it is in fa!t 5ood poli!+. "o#rt-ordered same-se& marria5e 4ill for-
ever esta6lish a !onstit#tional r#le, ma=in5 it harder to st#d+ the effe!ts of
same-se& marria5e 06e!a#se it 4ill no lon5er 6e possi6le to !ompare o#t-
!omes in the States that permit the pra!ti!e 4ith o#t!omes in the other
States2, and disa6lin5 le5islat#res from !han5in5 !o#rse if it t#rns o#t that
same-se& marria5e has some ne5ative or #nintended side effe!ts. %his is one
of the prin!ipal reasons that !onstit#tional federalism e&istsOand it 4o#ld
6e fr#strated 6+ a nation4ide r#le re9#irin5 same-se& marria5e. See Ne(
State /ce Co. v. Lieb$ann, *)5 U.S. *6*, (11 019(*2 0/randeis, >., dissentin52
0ICt is one of the happ+ in!idents of the federal s+stem that a sin5le !o#ra-
5eo#s State ma+, if its !itiDens !hoose, serve as a la6orator+N and tr+ novel
so!ial and e!onomi! e&periments 4itho#t ris= to the rest of the !o#ntr+.J2N
!nited States v. Lope0, 514 U.S. 549, 5)1 019952 0@enned+, >., !on!#rrin52
0IL%Mhe theor+ and #tilit+ of o#r federalism are revealed, for the States ma+
perform their role as la6oratories for e&perimentation to devise vario#s sol#-
tions 4here the 6est sol#tion is far from !lear.J2. Css#es are often more !om-
ple& than 8#d5es and la4+ers thin=, and their le5al trainin5 5ives them no
!omparative advanta5e in resolvin5 the !omple& val#e 8#d5ments and empir-
i!al 9#estions that 5o into de!idin5 9#estions s#!h as 4hether same-se& mar-
ria5e sho#ld 6e le5al. See 1i!hael $. 1!"onnell, &he /$portance of Hu$ilit
in 1udicial -evie(9 A Co$$ent on -onald D(orkin+s ;%oral -eadin"< of the
Constitution, 65 -ordham :. 7ev. 1*69, 1*9* 019932 0ILAMn essential element
of responsi6le 8#d5in5 is a respe!t for the opinions and 8#d5ments of others,
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 47 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

(6
and a 4illin5ness to s#spend 6elief, at least provisionall+, in the !orre!tness
of oneBs o4n opinions.J2.
Se!ond, same-se& marria5e 4o#ld find more p#6li! a!!eptan!e and le5it-
ima!+ if it 4ere le5aliDed 6+ demo!rati!all+ ele!ted le5islat#res rather than
imposed 6+ a 8#di!ial order. See 1i!hael $. 1!"onnell, &he Constitution and
Sa$e-Se4 %arria"e, $all St. >. 01ar!h *1, *01(2, on.4s8.!omA1m=nE/
0I"han5e that !omes thro#5h the politi!al pro!ess has 5reater demo!rati!
le5itima!+.J2. As one of the leadin5 a!ademi! proponents of same-se& mar-
ria5e has e&plained'
Cn a representative demo!ra!+ s#!h as o#rs, most important po-
liti!al de!isions sho#ld 6e made 6+ the politi!al 6ran!hes, pri-
maril+ "on5ress and se!ondaril+ the ?&e!#tive. >#di!ial revie4
in a demo!ra!+ is e&!eptional and sho#ld 6e deplo+ed 6+ #ne-
le!ted 8#d5es onl+ 4hen there is a !lear in!onsisten!+ 6et4een a
stat#te or re5#lation and the "onstit#tion.
$illiam N. ?s=rid5e, >r. H .hilip .. -ri!=e+, 6uasi-Constitutional La(9 Clear
State$ent -ules as Constitutional La($akin", 45 ;and. :. 7ev. 59(, 6(0
0199*2 0footnotes omitted2.
-inall+, the 8#di!ial imposition of same-se& marria5e 4o#ld reinfor!e
per!eptions of the federal 8#di!iar+ as a politi!al instit#tion that !reates and
enfor!es !onstit#tional ri5hts a!!ordin5 to so!ietal trends. %his is a dan5er-
o#s path to ta=eOeven for those 4ho 6elieve that same-se& marria5e is 5ood
poli!+. Cf a ri5ht to same-se& marria5e !an 6e !onstit#tionaliDed 6+ 8#di!ial
de!ree, then almost an+ poli!+ !an 6e!ome !onstit#tionaliDed thro#5h the
!o#rts. %hat 4ill !a#se interest 5ro#ps to in!rease their demands for 8#d5es
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 48 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

(3
4ho 4ill impose their preferred poli!ies from the 6en!h, and the alread+-
d+sf#n!tional 8#di!ial-!onfirmation pro!ess 4ill 6e!ome f#rther poisoned as
ideolo5i!al !onformit+ overrides !onsiderations of le5al a6ilit+. Cndeed, 8#-
rists 4ho envision a modest or restrained role for the 8#di!iar+ in resolvin5
o#r nationBs disp#tesOs#!h as Oliver $endell <olmes, :earned <and, or
<enr+ -riendl+O4ill li=el+ 6e!ome #n-appointa6le. As the federal 8#di!iar+
moves to !onstit#tionaliDe more areas of Ameri!an p#6li! poli!+, the fo!#s of
8#di!ial appointments shifts a4a+ from findin5 8#rists of a6ilit+ and distin!-
tion, and to4ard findin5 8#d5es 4ho 4ill impose poli!ies that the .resident
and Senate are #na6le to attain thro#5h the demo!rati! pro!ess.
%hose of a li6eral or pro5ressive pers#asion sho#ld 6e espe!iall+ tro#6led
6+ this prospe!t. 7#le 6+ 8#d5es is t4o-4a+ street, and the 8#d5e-empo4erin5
interpretative methodolo5ies emplo+ed 6+ the distri!t !o#rt have histori!all+
6een #sed 6+ the S#preme "o#rt to invalidate man+ la4s favored 6+ li6erals
and pro5ressives. Lochner, 19) U.S. at 64N A.L.A. Schechter Poultr Corp. v.
!nited States, *95 U.S. 495 019(52 0stri=in5 do4n federal minim#m-4a5e and
ma&im#m-ho#rs re5#lations for po#ltr+ 4or=ers2N %orehead v. Ne( 2ork e4
rel. &ipaldo, *9) U.S. 5)3 019(62 0invalidatin5 minim#m-4a5e la4 for 4om-
en2N Se$inole &ribe of #la. v. #lorida, 513 U.S. 44 019962N Bd. of &r. of !niv. of
Ala. v. 'arrett, 5(1 U.S. (56 0*0012. Some people ass#me that do!trines li=e
s#6stantive d#e pro!ess 4ill 6e #sed onl+ to invalidate la4s that the+ disli=e,
6#t there is no me!hanism to ens#re that 4ill happen. On!e Is#6stantive d#e
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 49 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

()
pro!essJ is severed from histor+ and traditionOas in the distri!t !o#rtBs r#l-
in5Othen there is no 4a+ to !ontrol ho4 it 4ill 6e #sed 6+ f#t#re !o#rts.
(I# Tis Court Sould Rule E,en If Te
Su-reme Court 0rants Certiorari In
1itcen ,# .erbert#
Ct is possi6le that the S#preme "o#rt 4ill 5rant !ertiorari in Kitchen v.
Herbert, *014 $: *)6)044, 6efore this "o#rt de!ides the appeal. Cf that
happens, the State respe!tf#ll+ re9#ests that this "o#rt nevertheless r#le
promptl+ on the appeal and not sta+ the pro!eedin5s. %he S#preme "o#rtBs
!onsideration of these iss#es 4ill 6enefit from a tho#5htf#l opinion from this
"o#rt, even if this "o#rt disa5rees 4ith the StateBs ar5#ments. And the dis-
tri!t !o#rtBs preliminar+ in8#n!tion a5ainst the StateBs marria5e la4sOeven
tho#5h it has 6een sta+edOis a !ontin#in5 affront to the StateBs soverei5nt+
and its le5alit+ sho#ld 6e resolved as soon as possi6le. -inall+, there is no
5#arantee that Kitchen 4ill prod#!e a r#lin5 on the merits, as there are 8#ris-
di!tional iss#es l#r=in5 in that !ase and the 8#sti!es ma+ de!ide to avoid the
merits as the+ did in Hollin"s(orth v. Perr, 1(( S."t. *65*.
Ct is also !r#!ial that this "o#rt !orre!t the distri!t !o#rtBs rational-6asis
anal+sis. Ct has 6e!ome all too !ommon for federal distri!t !o#rts to misappl+
the rational-6asis standard, either 6+ demandin5 that a State s#pport its la4s
4ith eviden!e, or 6+ re9#irin5 a pre!ise means-end fit 6et4een the la4 and
the StateBs asserted 5oal. Ct 4o#ld 6e a mista=e for this "o#rt to allo4 the
fa#lt+ rational-6asis anal+sis in the distri!t !o#rtBs opinion to standOeven if
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 50 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

(9
one thin=s the S#preme "o#rt is li=el+ to resolve the same-se& marria5e iss#e
6+ the end of its ne&t term.
Conclusion
%he preliminar+ in8#n!tion sho#ld 6e va!ated, and the !ase remanded
4ith instr#!tions to enter 8#d5ment for the defendants.
7espe!tf#ll+ s#6mitted.

Gre$ %&&ott
Attorne+ ,eneral of %e&as

Daniel "( Ho'$e
-irst Assistant Attorne+ ,eneral

AsA >onathan -. 1it!hell
)onathan *( Mitchell
Soli!itor ,eneral

+yle D( Hi$hf,l
-eth +l,smann
Michael P( M,rphy
Assistant Soli!itors ,eneral

Office of the %ttorney General
..O. /o& 1*54) 01" 0592
A#stin, %e&as 3)311-*54)
051*2 9(6-1300

Counsel for Defendants-Appellants
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 51 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

40
Certificate of Ser,ice
C !ertif+ that this do!#ment has 6een filed 4ith the !ler= of the !o#rt and
served 6+ ?"- on >#l+ *), *014, #pon'

/arr+ Alan "hasnoff
aniel 1!Neel :ane, >r.
1atthe4 ?d4in .eppin5
%kin G,mp !tra,ss Ha,er . *el', L(L(P(
(00 "onvent Street, S#ite 1600
Nations/an= .laDa
San Antonio, %F 3)*05

>essi!a 1. $eisel
%kin G,mp !tra,ss Ha,er . *el', L(L(P(
*0*9 "ent#r+ .ar=, ?., S#ite *400
:os An5eles, "A 90063-0000

1i!hael .. "oole+
Andre4 -orest Ne4man
%kin G,mp !tra,ss Ha,er . *el', L(L(P(
1300 .a!ifi! Aven#e, S#ite 4100
allas, %F 35*04



AsA >onathan -. 1it!hell
)onathan *( Mitchell
Counsel for Defendants-Appellants

Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 52 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

41
Certificate of Electronic Com-liance
"o#nsel also !ertifies that on >#l+ *), *014, this 6rief 4as transmitted to
1r. :+le $. "a+!e, "ler= of the United States "o#rt of Appeals for the -ifth
"ir!#it, via the !o#rtBs "1A?"- do!#ment filin5 s+stem,
https'AAe!f.!a5.#s!o#rts.5ovA.
"o#nsel f#rther !ertifies that' 012 re9#ired priva!+ reda!tions have 6een
made, /th Cir( R( *5.*.1(N 0*2 the ele!troni! s#6mission is an e&a!t !op+
of the paper do!#ment, /th Cir( R( *5.*.1N and 0(2 the do!#ment has 6een
s!anned 4ith the most re!ent version of S+mante! ?ndpoint .rote!tion and
is free of vir#ses.


AsA >onathan -. 1it!hell
)onathan *( Mitchell
Counsel for Defendants-Appellants

Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 53 Date Filed: 07/28/2014

4*
CERTIFICATE OF CO%PLIANCE
$ith %+pe-;ol#me :imitation, %+pefa!e 7e9#irements,
and %+pe-St+le 7e9#irements

1. %his 6rief !omplies 4ith the t+pe-vol#me limitation of -ed. 7. App. ..
(*0a20320/2 6e!a#se'

LFM this 6rief !ontains 9609 4ords, e&!l#din5 the parts of the 6rief
e&empted 6+ -ed. 7. App. .. (*0a20320/20iii2, or

L M this 6rief #ses a monospa!ed t+pefa!e and !ontains Lstate the
n#m6er ofM lines of te&t, e&!l#din5 the parts of the 6rief e&empted 6+ -ed. 7.
App. .. (*0a20320/20iii2.

*. %his 6rief !omplies 4ith the t+pefa!e re9#irements of -ed. 7. App. ..
(*0a2052 and the t+pe-st+le re9#irements of -ed. 7. App. .. (*0a2062 6e!a#se'

LFM this 6rief has 6een prepared in a proportionall+ spa!ed t+pefa!e
#sin5 1i!rosoft $ord for 1a! *011, version 14.4.( in ?9#it+ 14-point t+pe-
fa!e, or

L M this 6rief has 6een prepared in a monospa!ed t+pefa!e #sin5
Lstate name and version of 4ord pro!essin5 pro5ramM 4ith Lstate n#m6er of
!hara!ters per in!h and name of t+pe st+leM.


AsA >onathan -. 1it!hell
)onathan *( Mitchell
Counsel for Defendants-Appellants


Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 54 Date Filed: 07/28/2014