Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31037/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31037-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-31037

JONATHAN P. ROBICHEAUX; DEREK PENTON; 

NADINE BLANCHARD; COURTNEY BLANCHARD,

 Plaintiffs–Appellants,

versus

JAMES D. CALDWELL, 

 in His Official Capacity as the Louisiana Attorney General, 

 Also Known as Buddy Caldwell,

 Defendant–Appellee.

* * * * *

JONATHAN P. ROBICHEAUX; DEREK PENTON; NADINE BLANCHARD;

COURTNEY BLANCHARD; ROBERT WELLES; GARTH BEAUREGARD,

Plaintiffs–Appellants,

versus

DEVIN GEORGE, in His Official Capacity as the State Registrar 

 and Center Director at Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals;

TIM BARFIELD, 

 in His Official Capacity as the Louisiana Secretary of Revenue;

KATHY KLIEBERT, in Her Official Capacity as 

 the Louisiana Secretary of Health and Hospitals,

Defendants–Appellees.

* * * * *

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 1, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-31037 Document: 00513102238 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2015
No. 14-31037

2

FORUM FOR EQUALITY LOUISIANA, INCORPORATED; 

JACQUELINE M. BRETTNER; M. LAUREN BRETTNER; 

NICHOLAS J. VAN SICKELS; ANDREW S. BOND; HENRY LAMBERT; 

R. CAREY BOND; L. HAVARD SCOTT, III; SERGIO MARCH PRIETO,

Plaintiffs–Appellants,

versus

TIM BARFIELD, in His Official Capacity as 

 Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue; 

DEVIN GEORGE, in His Official Capacity as Louisiana State Registrar,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

The plaintiffs are seven same-sex couples and an organization whose 

membership includes same-sex couples and their families. The couples seek to 

marry in Louisiana or to have their marriage in another state recognized in

Louisiana. They sued the state defendants for declaratory and injunctive 

relief, asking the district court to declare unconstitutional article XII, § 15 of 

the Louisiana Constitution, article 3520(B) of the Louisiana Civil Code, and 

any other Louisiana law that prohibits same-sex couples from marrying in Louisiana or having their marriages recognized. The various plaintiffs claimed 

Case: 14-31037 Document: 00513102238 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2015
No. 14-31037

3

violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth 

Amendment, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 

actions were consolidated. 

On September 3, 2014, the district court, without the benefit of subsequent controlling Supreme Court precedent, granted defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The 

plaintiffs appealed. After full briefing, including participation by numerous 

amici curiae, this court heard expanded oral argument on January 9, 2015. 

While this appeal was under submission, the Supreme Court decided 

Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4250 (U.S. June 26, 2015). 

In summary, the Court declared that

the 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 this liberty 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. 

Id. at *41–42. “It follows that the Court must also hold—and it now does hold—

that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful samesex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex 

character.” Id. at *50. 

Having addressed fundamental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court, importantly, invoked the First Amendment, as well:

 Finally, it 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 

Case: 14-31037 Document: 00513102238 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/01/2015
No. 14-31037

4

and persons 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 samesex 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 *48–49. 

Obergefell, in both its Fourteenth and First Amendment iterations, is the 

law of the land and, consequently, the law of this circuit1 and should not be 

taken lightly by actors within the jurisdiction of this court. We express no view 

on how controversies involving the intersection of these rights should be 

resolved but instead leave that to the robust operation of our system of laws 

and the good faith of those who are impacted by them.

This court sought and promptly received letter advisories from plaintiffs 

and the state, asking their respective positions on the proper disposition in 

light of Obergefell. They are agreed that the judgment should be reversed and 

remanded for entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs. 

Because this court agrees that that is the required result, the judgment 

appealed from is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED for entry of 

judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The district court must act expeditiously

on remand, especially in view of the declining health of plaintiff Robert Welles. 

 

1 If it were suggested that any part of the quoted passages is obiter dictum, we need 

only recall that although “[w]e are not bound by dicta, even of our own court [,] [d]icta of the 

Supreme Court are, of course, another matter.” United States v. Becton, 632 F.2d 1294, 

1296 n.3 (5th Cir. 1980). “[W]e give serious consideration to this recent and detailed discussion of the law by a majority of the Supreme Court.” Geralds v. Entergy Servs., Inc., 709 F.3d 

448, 452 (5th Cir. 2013) (Reavley, J.). 

Case: 14-31037 Document: 00513102238 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/01/2015
No. 14-31037

5

The court should enter final judgment on the merits (exclusive of any collateral 

matters such as costs and attorney fees) by July 17, 2015, and earlier if reasonably possible.2

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

 

2 Any pending motions are denied as moot.

Case: 14-31037 Document: 00513102238 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/01/2015