Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01186/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01186-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1186

___________________________

Jennie Rosenbrahn; Nancy Rosenbrahn; Jeremy Coller; Clay Schweitzer; Lynn

Serling-Swank; Monica Serling-Swank; Krystal Cosby; Kaitlynn Hoerner; Barbara

Wright; Ashley Wright; Greg Kniffen; Mark Church

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

Dennis Daugaard, in his official capacity as Governor; Marty Jackley, in his

official capacity as Attorney General; Kimberley Malsam-Rysdon, in her official

capacity as Secretary of Health; Trevor Jones, in his official capacity as Secretary

of Public Safety; Carol Sherman, in her official capacity as Brown County

Register of Deeds

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants

------------------------------

Liberty, Life, and Law Foundation; North Carolina Values Coalition; Foundation

for Moral Law; Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund; David Boyle;

Robert Oscar Lopez

lllllllllllllllllllllAmici on Behalf of Appellant(s)

Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic; COLAGE; Family Equality

Council; Americans United For Separation of Church and State; American

Association for Marriage and Family Therapy; American Psychiatric Association;

American Psychoanalytic Association; American Psychological Association;

Arkansas Psychological Association; National Association of Social Workers;

National Association of Social Workers Missouri, Arkansas, South Dakota, and

Nebraska Chapters; Leadership Conference Education Fund; Leadership

Appellate Case: 15-1186 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2015 Entry ID: 4304560 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights; American Sociological Association;

Affirmation; Covenant Network of Presbyterians; Friends for Lesbian, Gay,

Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns; General Synod of the United Church

of Christ; Methodist Federation for Social Action; More Light Presbyterians;

Muslims for Progressive Values; Parity; President of the House of Deputies of the

Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Bishops of Missouri and Nebraska;

Reconciling Ministries Network; Reconciling Works: Lutherans for Full

Participation; Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; Reconstructionist

Rabbinical College and Jewish Reconstructionist Communities; Religious

Institute, Inc.; Union for Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist Association;

Historians of Marriage; 24 Employers; Historians of Antigay Discrimination;

Constitutional Law Scholars; Gary J. Gates

lllllllllllllllllllllAmici on Behalf of Appellee(s)

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls

____________

 Submitted: July 15, 2015

 Filed: August 11, 2015

[Published] 

____________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs are six same-sex couples seeking to marry in South Dakota orto have

their marriage in another state recognized in South Dakota. They also seek state

benefits incident to marriage. The district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for

1

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States DistrictJudge for the District 1

of South Dakota.

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1186 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2015 Entry ID: 4304560 
summary judgment, finding laws denying them the right to marry (in Article 21, § 9

of the South Dakota Constitution and South Dakota Codified Laws §§ 25-1-1, 25-1-

38) violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. 

In addition to a declaratory judgment, the court issued a permanent injunction, but

stayed it pending appeal. South Dakota appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, this court affirms.

While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v.

Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), abrogatingCitizensfor Equal Protection v. Bruning,

455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006). Plaintiffs filed a suggestion to summarily affirm and

a motion to vacate the district court’s stay. South Dakota filed a suggestion of

mootness and a motion to vacate the district court’s judgment.

South Dakota no longer disputes the merits of the district court’s ruling. The

challenged laws are unconstitutional. As Obergefell concluded:

[T]he right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the

person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the

Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of

that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples

may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may thisliberty

be denied to them. Baker v. Nelson [, 409 U.S. 810 (1972),] must be and

now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these

cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples

from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex

couples.

Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2604-05. The Supreme Court also noted,

[I]t must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious

doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction

that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. 

The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-1186 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/11/2015 Entry ID: 4304560 
are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are

so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep

aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The

same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. 

In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or

indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular

belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and

searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State

to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded

to couples of the opposite sex.

Id. at 2607. 

South Dakota suggeststhat Obergefell mootsthis case. But the Supreme Court

specifically stated that “the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are

now held invalid.” Id. at 2605 (emphasis added). Cf. United States v. Nat’l Treasury

Emps. Union, 513 U.S. 454, 477-78 (1995) (limiting relief to the parties before the

Court and noting “we neither want nor need to provide relief to nonparties when a

narrower remedy will fully protect the litigants”). The Court invalidated laws in

Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee—not South Dakota. See Campaign for

S. Equal. v. Bryant, 2015 WL 4032186, at *2 (5th Cir. July 1, 2015) (ordering district

court to enter final judgment that Texas laws denying same-sex couples the right to

marry are unconstitutional); Conde-Vidal v. Rius-Armendariz, No. 14-2184 (1st Cir.

July 8, 2015) (judgment vacating and remanding district court judgment that

dismissed challenge to law denying same-sex marriage). And the Court did not

determine all issues raised by Plaintiffs here (for example, name-changes on driver’s

licenses). South Dakota has not repealed the challenged laws. 

South Dakota’s assurances of compliance with Obergefell do not moot the

case. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S.

167, 190 (2000) (“[A] defendant claiming that its voluntary compliance moots a case

bears the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly

wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.”). These assurances

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-1186 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/11/2015 Entry ID: 4304560 
may, however, impact the necessity of continued injunctive relief. The district court

is better positioned to consider the issue on appropriate motion. See United States v.

Bailey, 571 F.3d 791, 804 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting this court reviews permanent

injunctionsfor abuse of discretion, reversing when the injunction is based on “a legal

error or a clearly erroneous finding of fact”). This court leaves to the court’s

discretion whether to vacate the stay of the injunction.

The judgment is affirmed. All pending motions are denied.

______________________________

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-1186 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/11/2015 Entry ID: 4304560