Fisher-Borne v. Smith
Docket: Nos. 1:12CV589, 1:14CV299
Court: District Court, M.D. North Carolina; October 14, 2014; Federal District Court
Plaintiffs in two cases have filed complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the constitutionality of North Carolina’s laws that prohibit same-sex marriage and the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. The North Carolina Attorney General has been dismissed as a defendant, allowing the State to intervene. Both cases have received Answers from the Defendants, which concede that the Plaintiffs are entitled to certain relief. Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings have been filed by the Plaintiffs, with consent from all parties. Additionally, motions to intervene by the Speaker of the North Carolina House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate have been granted under specified conditions. The court confirms that the Plaintiffs have standing and jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6), unchallenged allegations are considered admitted. Based on the admitted matters and the Fourth Circuit's ruling in Bostic v. Schaefer, which invalidated similar Virginia laws as violating the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court finds that the Plaintiffs’ requested relief should be granted. The Bostic case addressed a constitutional amendment that defined marriage strictly as a union between one man and one woman and determined such prohibitions unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal related to Bostic, affirming the Fourth Circuit's mandate, which is binding on this court as it operates within the same federal judicial circuit. Decisions from this court remain authoritative unless overturned by the appellate court or the Supreme Court. The doctrine of stare decisis establishes that decisions made on legal points in one case are binding precedents in future cases within the same court and others that must adhere to those decisions, unless overturned by a higher court or rendered obsolete by changes in law. The court reviewed statutes and constitutional amendments from Virginia and North Carolina, finding no significant differences between them. It determined that North Carolina’s constitutional provision regarding marriage, which restricts legal recognition to heterosexual unions, is unconstitutional in light of the Fourth Circuit's ruling in Bostic v. Schaefer. Consequently, the court has ordered that North Carolina’s laws preventing same-sex marriage and the recognition of lawful out-of-state same-sex marriages are unenforceable. Additionally, the court dismissed several of the plaintiffs’ claims as moot and denied motions for preliminary injunctions. Claims regarding attorneys’ fees will be assessed separately. The order also notes the agreement among parties regarding the dismissal of certain claims and individuals. While North Carolina's amendment allows private contractual agreements, this does not exempt it from the implications of Bostic. The court used language consistent with Bostic to outline its judgment, indicating no need for modification at this time.