Protect Marriage from the Courts Act of 2015

Bill: 114-s-1080
Sponsor: full_name: Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]
Introduced: 2015-04-23
Policy area: Law
Subjects: Federal appellate courts

Federal district courts

Judicial review and appeals

Jurisdiction and venue

Marriage and family status

Sex, gender, sexual orientation discrimination

Supreme Court
Latest action: action_date: 2015-04-23
text: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Summaries:
action_date: 2015-04-23
action_desc: Introduced in Senate
text: <p><b>Protect Marriage from the Courts Act of 2015</b></p> <p>Prohibits federal courts from having jurisdiction to adjudicate or enforce any claim pertaining to the validity, under the U.S. Constitution, of a state law or a state administrative or judicial decision that: (1) defines marriage as limited to the union of one man and one woman, or (2) refuses state recognition of, or allows the state to refuse recognition of, same-sex marriages performed and licensed in other states.</p> <p>Allows final judgments entered by federal courts before the enactment of this Act to remain binding on the parties to the case, but persons who are not a party to such a case are not obligated to comply with such decisions.</p>

tv_txt: II 114th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 1080 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES April 23, 2015 Mr. Cruz introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts to consider cases involving same-sex marriage.

1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Protect Marriage from the Courts Act of 2015 . 2. Legislative findings The Senate makes the following findings: (1) In Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a State law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman against a constitutional challenge by a same-sex couple seeking to marry. The Court rejected the challenge in a one-sentence order that read, The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. . (2) The Supreme Court’s judgment in Baker is as sound today as it was then. Challenging a State marriage law on the basis that it does not extend to same-sex couples raises no substantial Federal question because nothing in the text or history of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States even arguably indicates a general public understanding at the time of ratification that the ratifiers had adopted a constitutional principle that invalidated State laws defining marriage as a male-female union. (3) It follows that the power to decide whether to extend the legal status and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples does not belong to the courts, but rests instead with the people through their elected State representatives, unless their State constitutions provide otherwise. The Constitution of the United States leaves it to the people of each State to decide for themselves through their democratic processes how to redefine the legal meaning of marriage for purposes of their respective State laws. (4) Numerous Federal courts, including the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, have nevertheless invalidated State marriage laws that do not allow the licensing of same-sex marriages. In so doing, these courts have exceeded their authority under the Constitution and have usurped the people’s exclusive authority to decide this issue. Pending before the Supreme Court are 4 related cases challenging the marriage laws in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. (5) The purpose of this Act (including the amendment made by this Act) is to maintain the authority of the States to define marriage and to prevent, consistent with the Constitution, any further unlawful action by Federal courts until such time as an amendment to the Constitution is enacted unequivocally guaranteeing that the States have the power to define marriage as limited to the union of one man and one woman. (6) This Act prevents that unlawful action by eliminating the jurisdiction of all courts created by Federal law, as well as the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, to adjudicate claims pertaining to the constitutionality of State marriage laws. Because section 1 of article III of the Constitution gives Congress the power to ordain and establish inferior Courts , the Supreme Court has long held that Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts. See Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389, 400–01 (1973). In addition, section 2 of article III of the Constitution gives Congress the power to make Exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court itself has acknowledged that this power applies even to cases that are pending before the Court. See Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514 (1869). (7) Finally, this Act makes clear that a court’s judgment only applies to the parties before the court and that nonparties have no legal obligation to comply with the decision until so ordered by a court. 3. Limitation of jurisdiction (a) In general Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 1632. Limitations on Federal jurisdiction (a) No court created by Federal law shall have jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to adjudicate or enforce any claim pertaining to the validity, under the Constitution of the United States, of a State law, or State administrative or judicial decision, that— (1) defines marriage as limited to the union of one man and one woman; or (2) refuses State recognition of or allows the State to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed and licensed in other States. (b) To the extent that either a court created by Federal law or the Supreme Court has entered a final judgment on a claim described in subsection (a) before the effective date of this section, that judgment binds only the parties to the case. No person who is not a party to the case shall have any obligation to comply with the decision in the case. . (b) Severability If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance shall not be affected. (c) Effective date and application (1) Effective date This Act (including the amendment made by this Act) takes effect on the date of enactment of this Act. (2) Application This Act applies to all claims pending on or after that date of enactment. (d) Amendments to the table of sections The table of sections for chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 1632. Limitations on Federal jurisdiction. .