Puerto Rico Marriage Ruling
Content
Case: 16-1313
Document: 00116982958
Page: 1
Date Filed: 04/07/2016
Entry ID: 5990404
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 1616- 1313 1313 I N RE: ADA M. CONDE VI VI DAL; MARI TZA TZA LÓPEZ LÓPEZ-- AVI LÉS; I RI S DELI DELI A RI VERA ERA- RI VERA ERA; J OSÉ A. TO TOR RRUELLASELLAS- I GLESI AS; TH THO OMAS J . ROBI NSON SON; ZUL ZULMA OL OLI VERASVERAS- VEGA; VEGA; YO YOLLAND ANDA ARR ARRO OYO YO-- PI ZARR ZARRO O; J OHANN ANNE VÉLEZVÉLEZGARCÍ ARCÍ A; FAVI AVI OLA MELÉN EL ÉND DEZ- RODRÍ GUEZ; PUERTO PUERTO RI CO PARA PARA TOD TOD@S; I VONNE ÁLVA ÁLVAR REZEZ- VÉLEZ, Pet i t i oner s . PET PETI TI ON FOR A WRI T OF MAND ANDAMUS TO TO THE UNI TED STATES DI DI STRI CT COU COURT FO F OR THE THE DI DI STRI CT OF OF PUER PUERTO TO RI CO [ Hon. J uan M. Pér ez- Gi ménez, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge] Bef or e Tor r uel l a, Thompson and Ka Kayat yat t a, Ci r cui cui t J udges. Omar Gonzál ez- Pagán, Pagán, Hayl ey Gor Gor enber enber g, Ka Karr en Loewy and Lambda bda Leg Le gal Def ense and Educa catt i on Fun Fund, I nc. , Fel Fel i ci a H. El l swo swor t h, Mar k C. Fl emi ng, St even J . Hor n, Al an E. Scho choenf el d, Adr i el I . Cepeda Der i eux, Pa Pau ul R. Q. Wol f son, son, Robb obbi e Manh anhas, and and Wi l mer Cut l er Pi cker cker i ng Hal e and Dor r , LLP, LLP, Gar y W. Kubek, Har r i et M. Ant czak, czak, J i ng Ka Kany, ny, Ryan M. Kus Kus mi n, and Debevoi ebevoi s e & Pl i mpt on, LL LLP, P, Cel i na Romanyany- Si aca and and Cel i na Rom Romany any Law Law Of f i ce ces, s, f or Pe Pett i t i one oner s Mar i t za L ópez- Avi l és, I r i s D. D. Ri ver a- Ri ver a; J os osé é A. Tor r uel l as as-I gl esi as, Thomas J . Robi nson; son; Zul ma Ol i ver ver as- Vega, Yol anda Ar Ar r oyoyoPi zar zar r o; J ohanne Vé Vél ez- Gar cí a, Fav Favi ol a Mel éndez- Rodr í guez; and Puer Puer t o Ri Ri co Par a Tod@ Tod@s. Ada M. Cond onde- Vi dal and and Con Cond de At At t or ney at Law, PSC PSC, f or Pet i t i oner I vonne Ál Ál var ez- Vél ez. J os osé é L. Ni et o and Ni et o Law Of f i ces f or Pet i t i oner oner Ada M. Conde- Vi dal . Mar gar i t a Mer ca cad do- Eche chegar ay, Sol i ci t or Gener al , Depar t ment of J ust i ce, Commonweal t h of Puer t o Ri co, f or Res espon ponden dentt s Al ej andr andr o J . Gar cí a- Padi l l a, Dr . Rí us- Ar mendár i z, Wanda Ll ovet - Dí az, and J uan C. Zar agozaagoza- Gómez.
Case: 16-1313
Document: 00116982958
Page: 2
Date Filed: 04/07/2016
Apr i l 7, 2016
- 2 -
Entry ID: 5990404
Case: 16-1313
Document: 00116982958
Per
Page: 3
Date Filed: 04/07/2016
Entry ID: 5990404
A gr oup oup of i ndi vi dual s and and advo advocacy cacy gr oup oups
Curiam.
( "Pe "Pet i t i oner s") cha chal l enge t he co con nst i t ut i onal i t y of Ar t i cl e 68 of t he Ci vi l Code of Puer t o Ri co co,, P. R. La Law ws An Ann. t i t . 31, § 22 221, and ot her l aws of t he Commonw onwea eall t h t hat pr ohi ohi bi t same- sex coup coupl es f r om mar r yi ng.
Dur i ng t he pendency of a pr i or app appeal f r omt he di smi ssal
of Pet i t i oner s' cl ai ms, t he Un Uni t ed St at es Sup Supr eme C Co our t deci ded Ober gef el l v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct . 2584 ( 2015) .
I n t he wake of t hat
deci si on, on, al l par t i es ag agr ee eed d t hat t he Commonw onwea eall t h' s ban ban on samesex mar r i age age was j udgm udgment ,
and
unconst const i t ut i onal onal .
r emanded. anded.
On
We agr agr eed,
r emand, and,
t he
vacat vacat ed t he
di s t r i ct
cour t
never t hel ess de deni ed t he par t i es' j oi nt r equest t hat t he co cou ur t ent er j udgm udgment i n f avor of Pet i t i oner oner s . memor andu andum m concl concl udi udi ng
t hat hat
t he
I nst ead, ead, t he cour t i s s ued a Com Commonw onwea eall t h' s
ban ban
was
not not
unco con nst i t ut i onal beca cau use se,, t he di st r i ct co cou ur t cl ai med, t he "r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age" age" has has not bee een n det det er mi ned t o ap appl y i n Puer Puer t o Ri co.
Pett i t i one Pe oner s now now r equest t he i ssu ss uance ance of a wr i t of mand andamus
r equi r i ng t he di st r i ct co cou ur t t o ent er j udgment i n t hei r f avor st r i ki ng down t he ban as unco con nst i t ut i onal .
Respo spondent s, i n t ur n,
move f or l eave t o j oi n i n Pet i t i oner s' r equest .
- 3 -
Case: 16-1313
Document: 00116982958
Page: 4
Date Filed: 04/07/2016
Entry ID: 5990404
The di s t r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng er r s i n s o many r espect s t hat i t i s har d t o kno know wher e t o begi n.
The co con nst i t ut i onal r i ght s at
i ssue her e ar e t he r i ght s t o due pr oce cess ss and and equal pr ot ect i on, as pr ot ect ed by bot bot h t he Fou Four t ee een nt h an and Fi Fi f t h Am Amend endment ent s t o t he Uni t ed St at es Co Const i t ut i on.
Ober gef el l , 135 S. Ct . 2584; Uni t ed St at es
v. Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . 2675 ( 2013) .
Those r i ght s ha have al r eady
been i nco corr por at ed as t o Puer t o Ri co co..
Exam xami ni ng Bd. Of Eng' r s,
Ar chi chi t ect s & Sur veyo veyorr s v. ( 1976) .
Fl or es de Ot er o,
426 U. S.
572,
600
And even i f t hey had not , t hen t he di st r i ct co cou ur t woul d
have ave bee een n abl abl e t o deci de whet her t hey shou shoul d be.
See Fl or es de
Ot er o, 426 U. S. at 590. 1 I n any event , f or pr ese sen nt pur pose sess we we need not gi l d t he l i l y. Our pr i or mand andat e was cl ear : Upon co con nsi der at i on of t he par t i es' J oi nt Respo sponse P Pu ur sua suant t o Co Cour t Or der f i l ed J une 26, 2015, we vaca catt e t he di st r i ct co cou ur t ' s J udgm udgment i n t hi s cas e and r emand t he mat t er f or f ur t her c onsi der in l i ght of Ober gef el l . . . . We agr ee wi t h t he par t i es' j oi nt posi t i on t hat t he ban i s unco con nst i t ut i onal . Mandat e to i ssue ssue f or t hwi t h. I n Fl or es de de Ot er o, t he Cour t st at ed t hat al t hough Congr ess, vi a t he Fo For aker ker Act , had " co con nveye veyed d unce cerr t ai n[ t y] of i t s own power s r espe spect i ng Puer t o Ri co and of t he ext ent t o whi ch t he Const i t ut i on appl i ed t her e. . . . i t r ec ogni zed zed, at l east i mpl i c i t l y, t hat t he ul t i mat e r eso soll ut i on of t hese quest i ons wa was t he r espo sponsi bi l i t y of t hi s Cour t . " Fl or es de Ot er o, 426 U. S. at 59 590. The use of t he wor d " ul t i mat e" sug suggest s t he i nvol vol vem vement of l ower co cou ur t s, r at her t han vi ewi ng i t se sell f as t he so soll e ar bi t er of of such such i ssue ssues. Thi s i nt er pr et at i on al i gns wi wi t h t he l i mi t ed j ur i sdi sdi ct i on of t he Supr eme Cour t . 1
- 4 -
Case: 16-1313
Document: 00116982958
Page: 5
Date Filed: 04/07/2016
Entry ID: 5990404
J udgm udgment , I n r e Condeonde- Vi dal , et al . , No. 1414- 2184 2184 ( 1st Ci r . J ul y 8, 2015) .
( Emphasi s add added. ed. )
I n r ul i ng t hat t he ban i s no not unco con nst i t ut i onal beca cau use t he appl i ca cab bl e co con nst i t ut i onal r i ght does no not appl y i n Puer t o Ri co co,, t he di st r i ct
cou co ur t
bot h
cont cont r adi adi ct ed our our
mi sco scon nst r ued
mand andat e.
t hat
r i ght
and
And i t compoun ounded i t s
di r ect l y
er er r or ( and and
si gnal ed a l ack of co con nf i dence i n i t s act act i ons) , by f ai l i ng t o ent er a f i nal j udgment t o enabl e an appeal i n or di nar y co cour se. Er r or of t hi s t ype i s no not so easi l y i nsul sul at ed f r om r evi ew. Thi s cour t may empl oy mandam andamus j ur i s di ct i on when a di s t r i ct cour t has mi sconst sconst r ued or ot her wi se f ai l ed t o ef ef f ect uat e a mandat e i ssued ssued by t hi s co cou ur t .
See Uni t ed St at es v. v. U. S. Di st . Cour t f or S. S. Di st .
of N. Y. , 334 U. S. 258, 263- 64 ( 1948) ( " I t was hel hel d t hat mand andamus was t he p prr oper oper r emedy edy t o en enf or ce compl i ance ance wi t h t he mand andat e. " ) ( ci t i ng Ci t y Na Nat . Bank of of Ft . Wor t h v. Hunt er , 152 U. S. 512, 515 ( 1894) ) ; se see e al so Ba Bal t i mor e & O. R. Co. v. Uni t ed St at es, 279 U. S. 781, 785 ( 1929) ( " When a l ower f eder al co cou ur t r ef uses t o gi gi ve ef f ect t o or mi sconst sconst r ues our our mand andat e, i t s act i on may be cont cont r ol l ed by t hi s cour cour t , ei t her upon a new app appeal or by wr i t of mand andamus. " ) ; Dep' t of Navy avy v. Fed Fed. La Lab bor Rel at i ons ons Au Aut h. , 835 F. 2d 921, 923 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ( expl xpl ai ni ng t hat mand andamus i s an app appr opr opr i at e means ans of co com mpel l i ng ef f ect uat i on of of mandat e wher e f ai l ur e t o t ake act i on mi ght "[ r ] equi r [ e] pet i t i oner t o par t i c i pat e i n t he r el i t i gat i on of i ssue ssues al al r eady deci ded") . - 5 -
Case: 16-1313
Document: 00116982958
Page: 6
Date Filed: 04/07/2016
Entry ID: 5990404
Accor ccor di ngl y, Respo spondent s' mot i on t o j oi n i n t he pet i t i on f or wr i t of mandamus i s gr gr ant ed, t he pet i t i on i t se sell f i s al al so gr ant ed, and and t he case i s r emi t t ed t o be be ass assii gned r and andoml y by by t he cl er k t o a di f f er ent j udge t o ent er j udgment i n f avor of t he Pet i t i oner s pr ompt l y, and t o con cond duct any f ur t her pr oce cee edi ngs nece necessar ssar y i n t hi s ac t i on.
- 6 -
Document: 00116982958
Page: 1
Date Filed: 04/07/2016
Entry ID: 5990404
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 1616- 1313 1313 I N RE: ADA M. CONDE VI VI DAL; MARI TZA TZA LÓPEZ LÓPEZ-- AVI LÉS; I RI S DELI DELI A RI VERA ERA- RI VERA ERA; J OSÉ A. TO TOR RRUELLASELLAS- I GLESI AS; TH THO OMAS J . ROBI NSON SON; ZUL ZULMA OL OLI VERASVERAS- VEGA; VEGA; YO YOLLAND ANDA ARR ARRO OYO YO-- PI ZARR ZARRO O; J OHANN ANNE VÉLEZVÉLEZGARCÍ ARCÍ A; FAVI AVI OLA MELÉN EL ÉND DEZ- RODRÍ GUEZ; PUERTO PUERTO RI CO PARA PARA TOD TOD@S; I VONNE ÁLVA ÁLVAR REZEZ- VÉLEZ, Pet i t i oner s . PET PETI TI ON FOR A WRI T OF MAND ANDAMUS TO TO THE UNI TED STATES DI DI STRI CT COU COURT FO F OR THE THE DI DI STRI CT OF OF PUER PUERTO TO RI CO [ Hon. J uan M. Pér ez- Gi ménez, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge] Bef or e Tor r uel l a, Thompson and Ka Kayat yat t a, Ci r cui cui t J udges. Omar Gonzál ez- Pagán, Pagán, Hayl ey Gor Gor enber enber g, Ka Karr en Loewy and Lambda bda Leg Le gal Def ense and Educa catt i on Fun Fund, I nc. , Fel Fel i ci a H. El l swo swor t h, Mar k C. Fl emi ng, St even J . Hor n, Al an E. Scho choenf el d, Adr i el I . Cepeda Der i eux, Pa Pau ul R. Q. Wol f son, son, Robb obbi e Manh anhas, and and Wi l mer Cut l er Pi cker cker i ng Hal e and Dor r , LLP, LLP, Gar y W. Kubek, Har r i et M. Ant czak, czak, J i ng Ka Kany, ny, Ryan M. Kus Kus mi n, and Debevoi ebevoi s e & Pl i mpt on, LL LLP, P, Cel i na Romanyany- Si aca and and Cel i na Rom Romany any Law Law Of f i ce ces, s, f or Pe Pett i t i one oner s Mar i t za L ópez- Avi l és, I r i s D. D. Ri ver a- Ri ver a; J os osé é A. Tor r uel l as as-I gl esi as, Thomas J . Robi nson; son; Zul ma Ol i ver ver as- Vega, Yol anda Ar Ar r oyoyoPi zar zar r o; J ohanne Vé Vél ez- Gar cí a, Fav Favi ol a Mel éndez- Rodr í guez; and Puer Puer t o Ri Ri co Par a Tod@ Tod@s. Ada M. Cond onde- Vi dal and and Con Cond de At At t or ney at Law, PSC PSC, f or Pet i t i oner I vonne Ál Ál var ez- Vél ez. J os osé é L. Ni et o and Ni et o Law Of f i ces f or Pet i t i oner oner Ada M. Conde- Vi dal . Mar gar i t a Mer ca cad do- Eche chegar ay, Sol i ci t or Gener al , Depar t ment of J ust i ce, Commonweal t h of Puer t o Ri co, f or Res espon ponden dentt s Al ej andr andr o J . Gar cí a- Padi l l a, Dr . Rí us- Ar mendár i z, Wanda Ll ovet - Dí az, and J uan C. Zar agozaagoza- Gómez.
Case: 16-1313
Document: 00116982958
Page: 2
Date Filed: 04/07/2016
Apr i l 7, 2016
- 2 -
Entry ID: 5990404
Case: 16-1313
Document: 00116982958
Per
Page: 3
Date Filed: 04/07/2016
Entry ID: 5990404
A gr oup oup of i ndi vi dual s and and advo advocacy cacy gr oup oups
Curiam.
( "Pe "Pet i t i oner s") cha chal l enge t he co con nst i t ut i onal i t y of Ar t i cl e 68 of t he Ci vi l Code of Puer t o Ri co co,, P. R. La Law ws An Ann. t i t . 31, § 22 221, and ot her l aws of t he Commonw onwea eall t h t hat pr ohi ohi bi t same- sex coup coupl es f r om mar r yi ng.
Dur i ng t he pendency of a pr i or app appeal f r omt he di smi ssal
of Pet i t i oner s' cl ai ms, t he Un Uni t ed St at es Sup Supr eme C Co our t deci ded Ober gef el l v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct . 2584 ( 2015) .
I n t he wake of t hat
deci si on, on, al l par t i es ag agr ee eed d t hat t he Commonw onwea eall t h' s ban ban on samesex mar r i age age was j udgm udgment ,
and
unconst const i t ut i onal onal .
r emanded. anded.
On
We agr agr eed,
r emand, and,
t he
vacat vacat ed t he
di s t r i ct
cour t
never t hel ess de deni ed t he par t i es' j oi nt r equest t hat t he co cou ur t ent er j udgm udgment i n f avor of Pet i t i oner oner s . memor andu andum m concl concl udi udi ng
t hat hat
t he
I nst ead, ead, t he cour t i s s ued a Com Commonw onwea eall t h' s
ban ban
was
not not
unco con nst i t ut i onal beca cau use se,, t he di st r i ct co cou ur t cl ai med, t he "r i ght t o same- sex mar r i age" age" has has not bee een n det det er mi ned t o ap appl y i n Puer Puer t o Ri co.
Pett i t i one Pe oner s now now r equest t he i ssu ss uance ance of a wr i t of mand andamus
r equi r i ng t he di st r i ct co cou ur t t o ent er j udgment i n t hei r f avor st r i ki ng down t he ban as unco con nst i t ut i onal .
Respo spondent s, i n t ur n,
move f or l eave t o j oi n i n Pet i t i oner s' r equest .
- 3 -
Case: 16-1313
Document: 00116982958
Page: 4
Date Filed: 04/07/2016
Entry ID: 5990404
The di s t r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng er r s i n s o many r espect s t hat i t i s har d t o kno know wher e t o begi n.
The co con nst i t ut i onal r i ght s at
i ssue her e ar e t he r i ght s t o due pr oce cess ss and and equal pr ot ect i on, as pr ot ect ed by bot bot h t he Fou Four t ee een nt h an and Fi Fi f t h Am Amend endment ent s t o t he Uni t ed St at es Co Const i t ut i on.
Ober gef el l , 135 S. Ct . 2584; Uni t ed St at es
v. Wi ndsor , 133 S. Ct . 2675 ( 2013) .
Those r i ght s ha have al r eady
been i nco corr por at ed as t o Puer t o Ri co co..
Exam xami ni ng Bd. Of Eng' r s,
Ar chi chi t ect s & Sur veyo veyorr s v. ( 1976) .
Fl or es de Ot er o,
426 U. S.
572,
600
And even i f t hey had not , t hen t he di st r i ct co cou ur t woul d
have ave bee een n abl abl e t o deci de whet her t hey shou shoul d be.
See Fl or es de
Ot er o, 426 U. S. at 590. 1 I n any event , f or pr ese sen nt pur pose sess we we need not gi l d t he l i l y. Our pr i or mand andat e was cl ear : Upon co con nsi der at i on of t he par t i es' J oi nt Respo sponse P Pu ur sua suant t o Co Cour t Or der f i l ed J une 26, 2015, we vaca catt e t he di st r i ct co cou ur t ' s J udgm udgment i n t hi s cas e and r emand t he mat t er f or f ur t her c onsi der in l i ght of Ober gef el l . . . . We agr ee wi t h t he par t i es' j oi nt posi t i on t hat t he ban i s unco con nst i t ut i onal . Mandat e to i ssue ssue f or t hwi t h. I n Fl or es de de Ot er o, t he Cour t st at ed t hat al t hough Congr ess, vi a t he Fo For aker ker Act , had " co con nveye veyed d unce cerr t ai n[ t y] of i t s own power s r espe spect i ng Puer t o Ri co and of t he ext ent t o whi ch t he Const i t ut i on appl i ed t her e. . . . i t r ec ogni zed zed, at l east i mpl i c i t l y, t hat t he ul t i mat e r eso soll ut i on of t hese quest i ons wa was t he r espo sponsi bi l i t y of t hi s Cour t . " Fl or es de Ot er o, 426 U. S. at 59 590. The use of t he wor d " ul t i mat e" sug suggest s t he i nvol vol vem vement of l ower co cou ur t s, r at her t han vi ewi ng i t se sell f as t he so soll e ar bi t er of of such such i ssue ssues. Thi s i nt er pr et at i on al i gns wi wi t h t he l i mi t ed j ur i sdi sdi ct i on of t he Supr eme Cour t . 1
- 4 -
Case: 16-1313
Document: 00116982958
Page: 5
Date Filed: 04/07/2016
Entry ID: 5990404
J udgm udgment , I n r e Condeonde- Vi dal , et al . , No. 1414- 2184 2184 ( 1st Ci r . J ul y 8, 2015) .
( Emphasi s add added. ed. )
I n r ul i ng t hat t he ban i s no not unco con nst i t ut i onal beca cau use t he appl i ca cab bl e co con nst i t ut i onal r i ght does no not appl y i n Puer t o Ri co co,, t he di st r i ct
cou co ur t
bot h
cont cont r adi adi ct ed our our
mi sco scon nst r ued
mand andat e.
t hat
r i ght
and
And i t compoun ounded i t s
di r ect l y
er er r or ( and and
si gnal ed a l ack of co con nf i dence i n i t s act act i ons) , by f ai l i ng t o ent er a f i nal j udgment t o enabl e an appeal i n or di nar y co cour se. Er r or of t hi s t ype i s no not so easi l y i nsul sul at ed f r om r evi ew. Thi s cour t may empl oy mandam andamus j ur i s di ct i on when a di s t r i ct cour t has mi sconst sconst r ued or ot her wi se f ai l ed t o ef ef f ect uat e a mandat e i ssued ssued by t hi s co cou ur t .
See Uni t ed St at es v. v. U. S. Di st . Cour t f or S. S. Di st .
of N. Y. , 334 U. S. 258, 263- 64 ( 1948) ( " I t was hel hel d t hat mand andamus was t he p prr oper oper r emedy edy t o en enf or ce compl i ance ance wi t h t he mand andat e. " ) ( ci t i ng Ci t y Na Nat . Bank of of Ft . Wor t h v. Hunt er , 152 U. S. 512, 515 ( 1894) ) ; se see e al so Ba Bal t i mor e & O. R. Co. v. Uni t ed St at es, 279 U. S. 781, 785 ( 1929) ( " When a l ower f eder al co cou ur t r ef uses t o gi gi ve ef f ect t o or mi sconst sconst r ues our our mand andat e, i t s act i on may be cont cont r ol l ed by t hi s cour cour t , ei t her upon a new app appeal or by wr i t of mand andamus. " ) ; Dep' t of Navy avy v. Fed Fed. La Lab bor Rel at i ons ons Au Aut h. , 835 F. 2d 921, 923 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ( expl xpl ai ni ng t hat mand andamus i s an app appr opr opr i at e means ans of co com mpel l i ng ef f ect uat i on of of mandat e wher e f ai l ur e t o t ake act i on mi ght "[ r ] equi r [ e] pet i t i oner t o par t i c i pat e i n t he r el i t i gat i on of i ssue ssues al al r eady deci ded") . - 5 -
Case: 16-1313
Document: 00116982958
Page: 6
Date Filed: 04/07/2016
Entry ID: 5990404
Accor ccor di ngl y, Respo spondent s' mot i on t o j oi n i n t he pet i t i on f or wr i t of mandamus i s gr gr ant ed, t he pet i t i on i t se sell f i s al al so gr ant ed, and and t he case i s r emi t t ed t o be be ass assii gned r and andoml y by by t he cl er k t o a di f f er ent j udge t o ent er j udgment i n f avor of t he Pet i t i oner s pr ompt l y, and t o con cond duct any f ur t her pr oce cee edi ngs nece necessar ssar y i n t hi s ac t i on.
- 6 -
