Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health case brief summary
957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008)
FACTS: Plaintiffs, eight same-sex couples, commenced an action claiming that the state statutory prohibition against same sex marriage, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-38nn, violated their rights to substantive due process and equal protection under the state constitution. The Connecticut trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of defendants, state and local officials, and the couples appealed.
HOLDING:
-The supreme court concluded that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carried with it a status and significance that the classification of civil unions did not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constituted a cognizable harm.
ANALYSIS:
(1) the state scheme discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation,
(2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender were considered quasi-suspect for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the U.S. constitution, sexual orientation constituted a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, state statutes discriminating against gay persons were subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and
(3) the state failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage.
-As the state's disparate treatment of same sex couples was deficient under an intermediate level of scrutiny, the couples' claims implicating a stricter standard of review were not reached.
OUTCOME: The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded with direction to grant the couples' motion for summary judgment and application for injunctive relief.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008)
FACTS: Plaintiffs, eight same-sex couples, commenced an action claiming that the state statutory prohibition against same sex marriage, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-38nn, violated their rights to substantive due process and equal protection under the state constitution. The Connecticut trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of defendants, state and local officials, and the couples appealed.
HOLDING:
-The supreme court concluded that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carried with it a status and significance that the classification of civil unions did not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constituted a cognizable harm.
ANALYSIS:
(1) the state scheme discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation,
(2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender were considered quasi-suspect for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the U.S. constitution, sexual orientation constituted a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, state statutes discriminating against gay persons were subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and
(3) the state failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage.
-As the state's disparate treatment of same sex couples was deficient under an intermediate level of scrutiny, the couples' claims implicating a stricter standard of review were not reached.
OUTCOME: The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded with direction to grant the couples' motion for summary judgment and application for injunctive relief.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment