Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-60837/USCOURTS-ca5-14-60837-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rebecca Bickett
Appellee
Phil Bryant
Appellant
Campaign for Southern Equality
Appellee
Jim Hood
Appellant
Jocelyn Pritchett
Appellee
Andrea Sanders
Appellee
Carla Webb
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60837

CAMPAIGN FOR SOUTHERN EQUALITY; REBECCA BICKETT;

ANDREA SANDERS; JOCELYN PRITCHETT; CARLA WEBB,

 Plaintiffs–Appellees,

versus

PHIL BRYANT, 

in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Mississippi;

JIM HOOD, in His Official Capacity as Mississippi Attorney General,

 Defendants–Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

The plaintiffs are two same-sex couples and an advocacy group that 

works to promote the interests of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons. The couples seek to marry in Mississippi or to have their marriage in 

another state recognized in Mississippi. The plaintiffs sued the state defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking an injunction and a declaration 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 1, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-60837 Document: 00513102310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2015
No. 14-60837

2

that Article XIV, Section 263A of the Mississippi Constitution and 

Section 93-1-1(2) of the Mississippi Code violate the Equal Protection and Due 

Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

On November 25, 2014, the district court issued a preliminary injunction

in favor of the plaintiffs. The court stayed its order for fourteen days; this court 

on December 4, 2014, stayed the district court’s order pending appeal. The 

state appealed, and 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: 14-60837 Document: 00513102310 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2015
No. 14-60837

3

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 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 *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. Because, as both sides now agree, the injunction appealed 

from is correct in light of Obergefell, the preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED. 

This matter is REMANDED for entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. 

The court must act expeditiously on remand and 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. The stay entered by 

 

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: 14-60837 Document: 00513102310 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/01/2015
No. 14-60837

4

this court is VACATED.2

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

 

2 Any pending motions are denied as moot.

Case: 14-60837 Document: 00513102310 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/01/2015