Amicus Brief Filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Argues Exclusion of Lesbian and Gay Couples From Marriage Violates U.S. Constitution’s Equality and Due Process Guarantees

Media Contact: Public Affairs, 212-854-2650 or

Brief can be viewed here.

Full Press Release can be viewed here.

New York, October 25, 2013—The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should find that bans on marriage for lesbian and gay couples in Nevada and Hawaii violate the Constitution’s guarantees of liberty and equal protection under the law, the Columbia Law School Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic argues in an amicus brief filed with the court today.

The Clinic’s brief supports the claims of Beverly Sevcik and Mary Baranovich and seven other same-sex couples from Nevada, and Natasha Jackson and Janin Kleid of Hawaii, who challenge their exclusion from marriage in their respective states. Sevcik and Baranovich are grandparents and have been together since they exchanged rings more than forty years ago.

“This nation’s promise is equality for all, not equality for some,” said Columbia Law School Professor Suzanne B. Goldberg, who directs the Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic, and is the brief’s primary author. “This promise applies with special importance to the right to marry, which has long been understood as a key part of our individual liberty.”

The Clinic’s brief demonstrates that the history of the 14th Amendment and a string of U.S. Supreme Court cases—including the historic June decision in U.S. v. Windsor striking down the main provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act—make clear that all people have equal access to rights that have been deemed fundamental.

The right to marry is “defined by the content of the protected conduct, not by who exercises [this] right,” the brief argues. “Far from advancing the institutions of marriage and family, the state law that grants the right to marry to some but not others demeans the right’s fundamental character and robs that right of its core meaning.”

Columbia Law School students and Clinic participants Sara Nies ’14 and Rosie Wang ’14 assisted in writing the brief, together with co-counsel Rita Lin and Laura Weissbein of Morrison & Foerster. The cases are Sevcik v. Sandoval and Jackson v. Abercrombie.

Join us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter:

Join Columbia Law on Facebook
Follow Columbia Law on Twitter:


Add a comment

Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.



"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Activism Adoption adultery Advocacy Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Clinic Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Earth Day Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Feminism Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy Gender Justice GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton Hiring HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Intersectional Feminism Islamophobia Israel Jobs Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Marriage Equality Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Obergefell Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Exemptions Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work Silencing of voices SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Solidarity Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Work Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.