Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Files Amicus Brief in 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Arguing that Marriage Restrictions on Gay Couples Violate U.S. Constitution

New York, July 25, 2014—The laws of Idaho and several other western states impose a constitutionally impermissible burden on lesbians and gay men who seek to exercise their fundamental right to marry their chosen partner and have that marriage recognized, Columbia Law School’s Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic argues in an amicus brief filed today with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The clinic’s brief, authored by Columbia Law School Professor Suzanne B. Goldberg, is filed in the case of four same-sex couples in Idaho challenging a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to different-sex couples. Goldberg argues that the U.S. Constitution’s due process guarantee has long been understood to protect against government interference in fundamental personal decision making, including the choice of one’s spouse.

“Idaho, along with the other states in the Ninth Circuit, has an extensive domestic relations framework that generally takes pains to avoid restrictions on individuals’ ability to marry the person of their choice,” writes Goldberg, director of the Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic. “Matters stand otherwise with respect to individuals who would choose a spouse of the same sex in Idaho, as well as several of the other states in this Circuit, including Alaska, Arizona, Montana and Nevada. Freedom of choice is absent here.”

Goldberg’s clinic, founded in 2006, has extensive expertise in constitutional doctrine related to marriage and family recognition and has filed similar briefs in marriage equality cases across the country. Goldberg was co-counsel for plaintiffs in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, two U.S. Supreme Court cases that struck down a criminal statute punishing same-sex couples’ sexual intimacy and a law blocking antidiscrimination protections for gay people, respectively.

“Idaho is one of fourteen states where a marriage law was struck down by a district court for violating individuals’ freedom to marry and is now on appeal,” said Goldberg. “It is striking to see that states barely restrict marital choices – even minimum age rules can be waived – but forbid individuals from marrying a same-sex partner. This appeal is part of a broader wave of efforts across the country to secure full marriage equality for same-sex couples.”

Oral argument in the case is scheduled for September 8, 2014 at the Ninth Circuit’s courthouse in San Francisco.
Columbia Law School Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic student Helen Ethridge ’15 assisted with research for and preparation of the brief.

Read the brief.

# # #

Columbia Law School, founded in 1858, stands at the forefront of legal education and of the law in a global society. Columbia Law School combines traditional strengths in corporate law and financial regulation, international and comparative law, property, contracts, constitutional law, and administrative law with pioneering work in intellectual property, digital technology, tax law and policy, national security, human rights, sexuality and gender, and environmental law.

Join us on Facebook
Follow us 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.