Pidgeon v. Turner
 | |
| Pidgeon v. Turner | |
| Important Dates | |
| Filed: October 22, 2015 Texas Supreme Court opinion: June 30, 2017 U.S. Supreme Court remands case: December 4, 2017 Case dismissed: February 18, 2019 | |
| Outcome | |
| Ruled in favor of Turner | |
Pidgeon v. Turner was filed on October 22, 2015, in the Texas 310th District Court of Harris County.[1] Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks, two residents of Houston, Texas, filed suit against Mayor Sylvester Turner and the City of Houston.[2] Pidgeon and Hicks challenged the city's decision to offer employment benefits to married same-sex couples, citing sections of city and state law prohibiting the provision of benefits to same-sex couples. In response, the city argued that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, which invalidated the federal law prohibiting same-sex marriage, required the city to offer the same benefits to married same-sex couples that it did to married heterosexual couples. A Texas trial court issued a temporary injunction to stop the city from offering benefits to same-sex couples while the case was under consideration, and the city appealed.
While the case was on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges. In Obergefell, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the United States Constitution protected the right to same-sex marriage, invalidating same-sex marriage bans around the country. On June 30, 2017, the Texas Supreme Court sent Pidgeon v. Turner back to the trial court for new arguments and reconsideration in light of the Obergefell decision.[3] On September 15, 2017, the city of Houston asked the United States Supreme Court to review the case, arguing that the Texas Supreme Court ignored United States Supreme Court rulings.[4] On December 4, 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied Houston's petition, sending the case back to the state trial court.[5] On February 18, 2019, trial court judge Sonya Heath ruled in favor of the city of Houston and dismissed the lawsuit.[6]
| Question presented: Does the United States Constitution require the city of Houston to provide employment benefits to same-sex spouses? |
Background
In the early 2000s, Texas and the city of Houston passed provisions prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages and denying same-sex couples any employment benefits (such as health insurance for employees' same-sex spouses).[7][8] Specifically, in a section titled "Denial of benefits to same sex partners and related matters," the city charter provided that except "as required by State or Federal law, the City of Houston shall not provide employment benefits, including health care, to persons other than employees, their legal spouses and dependent children.”[3] Separately, the Texas Family Code was amended to provide that “marriage between persons of the same sex...is void in this state” and that the state "'may not give effect to' any 'right or claim to any legal protection, benefit, or responsibility asserted as a result of a marriage between persons of the same sex.'"[3]
Then, in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Windsor. The Windsor decision invalidated the federal Defense of Marriage Act and required equal treatment of married same-sex couples under federal law. Following the Windsor decision, the city of Houston announced that it would begin offering employment benefits to married same-sex couples. Pidgeon and Hicks filed suit, arguing that the city's decision violated both Texas law and the city's charter.[7][8] At the plaintiffs’ request, the trial court issued a temporary injunction to prevent the city from offering benefits to same-sex couples while the case was pending.
The city appealed the temporary injunction to the Texas Court of Appeals. While the Court of Appeals was considering the case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, ruling that the right to same-sex marriage was protected by the U.S. Constitution. Relying on Obergefell, the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit struck down Texas’s state ban on same-sex marriage in a case called De Leon v. Abbott.[9]
Citing both Obergefell and De Leon, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the temporary injunction and remanded the case back to the trial court.[3] The plaintiffs then appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.
The Texas Supreme Court's ruling
The Texas Supreme Court initially refused to hear the appeal. It reconsidered and agreed to hear the case after a number of outside parties, including the governor, urged the court to take up the case.[10] In its decision, the court ruled that Obergefell constitutes a "'change in the law' that justified the dissolution of the trial court’s injunction."[3] The court remanded the case to the trial court for proceedings in light of Obergefell and De Leon.
The court did not make a binding ruling on whether the Obergefell decision should control the outcome of this case. The court said that the parties had not yet had a chance to fully litigate their arguments on Obergefell's effect and therefore needed an opportunity to make those arguments. However, the court also said it agreed with Pidgeon and Hicks that Obergefell "did not address and resolve [the] specific issue...whether and the extent to which the Constitution requires states or cities to provide tax-funded benefits to same-sex couples."[3]
Houston employees' federal lawsuit
Following the Texas Supreme Court's ruling, on August 10, 2017, several Houston city employees filed suit in federal court to maintain their spousal benefits.[11] The employees, who have same-sex spouses, argued that Obergefell, De Leon, and Pavan rendered Texas laws restricting same-sex marriage benefits unconstitutional and unenforceable. Therefore, they say, neither Pidgeon and Hicks nor Texas state courts may rely on those laws. Among other relief, the plaintiffs asked for a permanent injunction to ensure same-sex spousal benefits.[11]
Obergefell fallout around the country and in the U.S. Supreme Court
Several other courts around the country have also decided cases that test the scope and limits of Obergefell. The U.S. Supreme Court decided one of those cases, Pavan v. Smith, a few days before the Texas Supreme Court decided Pidgeon v. Turner. In Pavan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arkansas had to allow married same-sex couples to list both spouses on a child's birth certificate. Under Arkansas law, a married woman's male spouse was usually required to be listed as the father on the birth certificate of her child, regardless of his biological relationship to the child; the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arkansas must treat female spouses the same way. Quoting Obergefell, the Supreme Court wrote that Arkansas could not deny same-sex couples “the constellation of benefits that the State has linked to marriage.”[12]
The Texas Supreme Court cited Pavan in its Pidgeon decision. The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had just agreed to review another case on post-Obergefell rights. The court wrote that "neither Obergefell nor Pavan provides the final word on the tangential questions Obergefell’s holdings raise but Obergefell itself did not address."[3]
The debate over Obergefell's fallout focuses on the breadth of the decision. Some argue that Obergefell is a broad decision covering all benefits connected to marriage.[13] Others argue that Obergefell is a narrow decision restricted to the single issue of marriage licenses.[14]
Supreme Court makeup
The following justices served on the court at the time of the case:
Chief Justice Nathan Hecht- Justice Paul Green
- Justice Don Willett
- Justice Phil Johnson
- Justice Eva Guzman
- Justice Jeff Brown
- Justice Debra Lehrmann
- Justice John Devine
- Justice Jeffrey S. Boyd
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ The petitioners originally filed their case on December 13, 2013, but the case was eventually dismissed for procedural reasons. The petitioners refiled the case on October 22, 2015. That second suit is the one at issue here.
- ↑ When the suit was originally filed, Annise Parker was the mayor of Houston. When Parker's term ended and Sylvester Turner was elected, Turner replaced Parker in the lawsuit.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Texas Supreme Court, Pidgeon v. Turner, filed June 30, 2017
- ↑ The Texas Tribune, "Houston looks to Supreme Court to resolve same-sex marriage benefits fight," September 18, 2017
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Turner v. Pidgeon," accessed December 8, 2017
- ↑ Texas Tribune, "Houston judge tosses same-sex marriage benefits challenge, but plaintiffs pledge to appeal," February 21, 2019
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Houston City Charter, "Art. 2 Sec 22," accessed July 7, 2017
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Texas Family Code, "Title 1, Section 6.204," accessed July 7, 2017
- ↑ Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, De Leon v. Abbott, filed July 1, 2015
- ↑ Houston Public Media, "Houston Is At the Center Of Same-Sex Marriage Benefits Ruling," June 30, 2017
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Freeman v. Turner, "Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint For Preliminary And Permanent Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Judgment," filed August 10, 2017
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Today’s orders (part 1)," June 26, 2017
- ↑ GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, "Statement on TX Supreme Court Marriage Benefits Ruling," accessed August 4, 2017
- ↑ Texas Values, "Texas Values Applauds Texas Supreme Court In Taking Up Same-Sex Benefits Case," accessed August 4, 2017
Federal courts:
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: Eastern District of Texas, Western District of Texas, Northern District of Texas, Southern District of Texas • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: Eastern District of Texas, Western District of Texas, Northern District of Texas, Southern District of Texas
State courts:
Texas Supreme Court • Texas Court of Appeals • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals • Texas District Courts • Texas County Courts • Texas County Courts at Law • Texas Statutory Probate Courts • Texas Justice of the Peace Courts
State resources:
Courts in Texas • Texas judicial elections • Judicial selection in Texas
