Baker v Nelson, same-sex marriage

[mightymoose]

Anyone around here familiar with Baker v Nelson, a case that arose out of Minnesota in the late 60's/early 70's?
This is a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that state laws prohibiting same sex marriage do not violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, or any other part for that matter. The court recognized the fundamental difference of sex as sufficient reason why Loving v Virginia did not apply, since even the Loving court assumed the male/female relationship and was decided solely on race.

Now, I don't want to get people riled up over whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong.... but I do want to find out how the US Supreme Court's later dismissal of the appeal for lack of a federal issue applies as precedent. As I understand it, the Baker dismissal is considered a decision on the merits of the case, establishing precedent even though the case was not heard.

Next month, here in California, the court battle resumes over same-sex marriage, but this time in federal court. The argument being made is EXACTLY the same as Baker, claiming equal protection violations. It seems to me that any court other than the Supreme Court that hears these cases must be bound by Baker to dismiss.... that ONLY the US Supreme Court can reverse its position on Baker. Though public opinion may have swayed over the years, the Constitution remains the same (at least with regard to the relevant parts). If there was no federal issue to be decided then, then there must still be no federal issue to be decided now... unless some kind of new argument is made, which there is not.

So, what I am wondering is, if the lower courts are obligated to abide by the Baker precedent, what will happen if the Federal District Court in this California case issues a ruling that the 14th is violated? Will the ruling even be valid if it conflicts with the Baker precedent?

Other federal courts in recent years have cited Baker as controlling precedent (Wilson v Ake, and others), so for the life of me, I can't understand why the California case is proceeding.

Any thoughts?

 

[dee_dub]

As I understand the doctrine of controlling precedent (in other words, "Wikipedia tells me...") in the US judicial system, it prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issues the Court necessarily considered in dismissing the case. I'm guessing the argument is that Baker can be distinguished - there must be some arguably relevant difference beween the case in California and Baker. Whatever ruling the court makes would then not conflict with Baker per se.

 

[mightymoose]

Well that is just the thing... the ongoing case right now is making the same argument that the state law prohibiting same-sex marriages violates equal protection laws... which is exactly what Baker was based upon.
I am of the impression that the judge in this case wants to establish a case history in the federal system, and can run the case all the way through his court even though he knows that he will have to dismiss it or rule against it in the end.
so far this issue has only been heard in state courts and repeatedly cast out of federal courts. I don't think the standing precedent obligates him to dismiss at the beginning... it just means that he can't rule contrary.

Still... I am looking for insight as to how strong the Baker precedent is since it is based upon a dismissal and the case was never actually heard on appeal to the Supreme Court (there is no actual ruling).

 

[fredrikklaw]

In the context of what is now dubbed as "The Prop 8 Lawsuit," the Baker precedent is not only weak, but has been rendered irrelevant! That is because the argument, or the arguments rather, that are presented by this lawsuit are quite different from Baker and if the ruling on the defendant's pre-trial motion for summary judgment is anything to go by, the good money should be on the plaintiff prevailing in the case.

First and foremost, unlike Minnesota, California's Constitution did recognize (or allow) same-sex marriage and its Supreme Court ruled against a ban on same-sex marriage which compelled local governments to recognize gay marriages and to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples accordingly.

Then came along Proposition 8 which was a ballot initiative approved by the voters in last year's November elections.

Therefore, Prop 8 lawsuit's first and foremost arguments contends that Proposition 8 initiative proposal amounted to (California) constitutional revision and not an amendment and as such should not have been put on a ballot for voter approval.

The plaintiff also argues that while the Supreme Court's one line ruling in Baker did not extend the right to marry to homosexuals, it did not restrict it to a particular group of people either, and Prop 8 language expressly singles out gays as the group to be prohibited from marrying and denied the bonds of matrimony.

All in all, Prop 8 is not going to court cap in hand to rehash the same arguments of violation of equal rights and equal protection. What it is saying in essence, is this: California's Constitution recognized and expressly permitted same sex marriage, but later banned it on the strength of Prop 8; Prop 8 is an illegitimate measure, remains illegitimate, and was illegitimate ab initio.

Defendant's motion for summary judgment sought an order dismissing the case arguing that that due to Baker precedent, there is "no dispute as to any material facts of the case" and that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of the law of Baker. The motion was denied because the judge concluded that plaintiff has raised facts different and separate in nature and quality to that of Baker and so not subject to its controlling effects. So, the drama continues and I cannot wait for the trial to start.

Thank you for a great subject matter!

fredrikklaw

 

[mightymoose]

All in all, Prop 8 is not going to court cap in hand to rehash the same arguments of violation of equal rights and equal protection. What it is saying in essence, is this: California's Constitution recognized and expressly permitted same sex marriage, but later banned it on the strength of Prop 8; Prop 8 is an illegitimate measure, remains illegitimate, and was illegitimate ab initio.

This is actually the issue that was most recently decided in the California Supreme Court. This is not an argument that will be heard on the federal level. Also, the CA Constitution never expressly permitted same-sex marriage. The ruling that allowed the marriages to begin simply stated that the existing state statute prohibiting the marriages was not strong enough of a law to prevent the marriages.

What they are now claiming in federal court is that the new amendment violates equal protection laws in the 14th Amendment, just like in Baker. From a federal perspective, the argument is still the same. The federal court will not overturn the California amendment without finding some grounds in the US Constitution to do so.... and according to Baker, there is no federal issue.

This following explanation from Justice Kennard of the California Supreme Court is what convinces me that Baker is still relevant (as well as the other modern federal cases that cite Baker on dismissal of these same issues):

From Kennard's opinion in Lockyer v San Francisco (2004)

In restricting marriages to couples consisting of one woman and one man, California's marriage laws are not plainly or obviously unconstitutional under either the state or the federal Constitution. Neither Constitution expressly prohibits limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, and neither Constitution expressly grants any person a right to marry someone of the same sex. Nor does any judicial decision establish beyond reasonable dispute that restricting marriage to heterosexual couples violates any provision of the California Constitution or the United States Constitution.

Indeed, there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, binding on all other courts and public officials, that a state law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate the federal Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota laws preventing marriages between persons of the same sex did not violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States Constitution ( Baker v. Nelson (1971) 291 Minn. 310 [191 N.W.2d 185]), the decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal law then permitted (see 28 U.S.C. former § 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high court later dismissed that appeal "for want of substantial federal question." ( Baker v. Nelson (1972) 409 U.S. 810 [34 L. Ed. 2d 65, 93 S. Ct. 37].)

As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a dismissal on the ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal question is a decision on the merits of the case, establishing that the lower court's decision on the issues of federal law was correct. ( Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176 [53 L. Ed. 2d 199, 97 S. Ct. 2238]; Hicks v. Miranda (1975) 422 U.S. 332, 344 [45 L. Ed. 2d 223, 95 S. Ct. 2281].) Summary decisions of this kind "prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." ( Mandel v. Bradley, supra, at p. 176.) Thus, the high court's summary decision in Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, prevents lower courts and public officials from coming to the conclusion that a state law barring marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal protection or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution.

The binding force of a summary decision on the merits continues until the high court instructs otherwise. ( Hicks v. Miranda, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 344.) That court may release lower courts from the binding effect of one of its decisions on the merits either by expressly overruling that decision or through " 'doctrinal developments' " that are necessarily incompatible with that decision. ( Id. at p. 344.) The United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, nor do any of its later decisions contain doctrinal developments that are necessarily incompatible with that decision.​

From what I can gather, though the Baker argument was denied by Judge Walker in this present case, his only intention is to establish a federal record on the issue. (he has stated this) Can't he deny the motion, still allow the trial, and dismiss or rule against the plaintiffs according to Baker at the end? The short way out is dismissal now, knowing the necessary outcome, but he wants to have a record in federal court to assist in settling the issue as it moves through the appeals process, as Walker has also acknowledged that his court won't be the final say.

I respect your opinions and appreciate the thoughts, but really, I do not see that the present issue is asking a new question of the federal court that it did not already deal with in Baker.