Baskin v. Bogan

Lambda Legal filed Baskin v. Bogan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on March 12, 2014, on behalf of three same-sex couples, all women. Their complaint named as defendants Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller and three county clerks, with one of the county clerks, Penny Bogan, in her official capacity, as the first-named defendant.^[1]

Baskin took precedence over the other Indiana marriage cases because one of the plaintiffs, Nikole Quasney, was terminally ill with ovarian cancer. As to her and her partner, U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young granted immediate relief, issuing a 28-day duration emergency order on April 10 and, after oral arguments on May 8 on a motion for summary judgment, a preliminary injunction directing the state parties to recognize the validity of the Quasney's Massachusetts marriage. In doing so, the court temporarily withdrew the motion for as to the rest of the plaintiffs, with Judge Young reasoning it makes a stronger case for the terminally ill couple while also allowing the rest a resolution on the merits without causing undue confusion in case of an appeal.^[2]

The state filed an interlocutory appeal of this limited injunction on May 9, 2014, and that portion of the case was briefed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit under the name of Baskin v. Zoeller, where it was docketed as No. 14-2037. Since the plaintiffs have since received a favorable ruling as to the broader issue of same-sex marriage in general, and that issue was appealed as well (see below), this more limited appeal was dismissed by the circuit court on July 14, 2014; with the emergency order remaining in place.^[3]

On June 25, 2014, the U.S. district court ruled as to the case of the remaining plaintiffs in Baskin, as well as the cases of Fujii and Lee. District Judge Richard L. Young found in favor of the plaintiff couples, granting them summary judgment and striking down Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage, while removing Indiana Governor Mike Pence from the lawsuit. Judge Young commented:

In less than a year, every Federal District Court to consider the issue has reached the same conclusion in thoughtful and thorough opinions–laws prohibiting the celebration and recognition of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional ... It is clear that the fundamental right to marry shall not be deprived to some individuals based solely on the person they choose to love. In time, Americans will look at the marriage of couples such as plaintiffs, and refer to it simply as a marriage–not a same-sex marriage. These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such.^[4]

The judge found that Indiana's ban violated the Fourteenth Amendment under both due process and equal protection theories and that the state had no rational basis for instituting its ban:

Defendants point to the one extremely limited difference between opposite-sex and same-sex couples, the ability of the couple to naturally and unintentionally procreate, as justification to deny same-sex couples a vast array of rights. The connection between these rights and responsibilities and the ability to conceive unintentionally is too attenuated to support such a broad prohibition.^[4]

The district court did not issue a stay, and as a result, Indiana clerks began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples the day of the ruling.^[5] As many as 800 to 1,000 marriage licenses may have been issued in Indiana before the Seventh Circuit brought license issuance to a halt two days later.^[6]