Browse Cases

By Topic

By State

By Outcome

Join Our Mailing List

We will send you updates about the changes GLAD is winning in the law and invitations to upcoming GLAD events.

Sign Me Up

Reporters

For more information on a case,
contact Carisa Cunningham at 617-426-1350, or contact by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Representing Plaintiff(s) · Victory · Final Disposition on October 6, 2014

Kitchen v. Herbert

Update October 6, 2014: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down Utah’s marriage ban for same-sex couples, thereby permitting that decision to stand, as well as a similar decision from Oklahoma. The Court also denied review of decisions by the Fourth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, which had struck down marriage bans in Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

By denying review of the Kitchen v. Herbert case, the Court let stand the June 2014 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that found Utah’s ban on marriages by same-sex couples unconstitutional. The decision means that same-sex couples in Utah, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming—all in the Tenth Circuit—have a constitutionally protected right to marry and to have their marriages treated equally. Read the full statement from NCLR and GLAD.
 

Update September 4, 2014: Three diverse voices – those of business, states, and family and equality groups – filed amici curiae briefs in the Kitchen v. Herbert case. The briefs argue that the high court should take a case or cases in order to resolve the harm and discrimination imposed by marriage bans. The briefs can be read in the list at right.

Update August 28, 2014: —Today, the three couples challenging the State of Utah’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples asked the United States Supreme Court to accept the request of Utah state officials to review the case. In the brief filed today, the plaintiffs argue that Supreme Court review is required because same-sex couples in Utah and across the country urgently need to have the security of marriage wherever they work or travel to fully protect themselves and their families. The brief argues that only a Supreme Court decision affirming their right to marry and to have their marriages respected nationwide can resolve this fundamental inequality. Read more.
 

GLAD has joined colleagues at the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Utah attorney Peggy Tomsic as counsel in this historic federal case representing same-sex couples seeking the freedom to marry in Utah. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled June 25, 2014 that Utah's ban on the freedom to marry for same-sex couples violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review the case.

GLAD previously submitted a brief of amicus curiae in support of the plaintiffs-appellees in the appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The brief was filed on GLAD's behalf by attorneys from the firm of WilmerHale.

Case Developments Excerpted From NCLR:

On June 25, 2014, the Tenth Circuit ruled that Utah’s ban on the freedom to marry for same-sex couples violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process. The decision is the first federal appellate court ruling in a freedom to marry case since the United States Supreme Court ruled in June 2013 that the federal government must recognize the marriages of same-sex couples.

On August 5, 2014, the State of Utah asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision.  The Tenth Circuit’s decision states that Utah couples will not be able to marry until after the Supreme Court decides whether to review the case.  If the Supreme Court decides to review the case, couples will not be able to marry until after the Supreme Court issues its decision.

For further background visit www.nclrights.org

In addition to NCLR, GLAD and attorney Peggy Tomsic of Magleby & Greenwood, P.C. (Salt Lake City), the plaintiffs are also represented by the D.C. film of Hogan Lovells.