Adams v. Howerton
673 F.2d 1036 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The term 'spouse' under Section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act refers exclusively to a partner in a heterosexual marriage. This classification is constitutionally permissible because Congress has plenary power over immigration, and its legislative distinctions are subject only to limited judicial review under a rational basis standard.
Facts:
- Richard Adams, a male United States citizen, and Anthony Sullivan, a male alien, were in a relationship.
- After Sullivan's visitor's visa expired, he and Adams obtained a marriage license from the county clerk in Boulder, Colorado.
- A minister performed a marriage ceremony for Adams and Sullivan in Colorado.
- Following the ceremony, Adams petitioned the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to classify Sullivan as his spouse and an 'immediate relative' of a U.S. citizen for immigration purposes.
Procedural Posture:
- Adams filed a petition with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to classify Sullivan as his spouse.
- The INS denied the petition.
- Adams appealed the denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed the INS's decision.
- Adams and Sullivan then filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, challenging the final administrative decision.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court (a trial court) entered judgment in favor of Howerton (INS).
- Adams and Sullivan, as appellants, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the term 'spouse' under Section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act include a partner in a same-sex marriage, and if not, does this interpretation violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Wallace, J.
No, the term 'spouse' under the Immigration and Nationality Act does not include a partner in a same-sex marriage, and this interpretation is constitutional. The court employed a two-step analysis for marriage recognition in immigration: state law validity and federal statutory qualification. Bypassing the question of the marriage's validity under Colorado law, the court focused on congressional intent. It determined that in the absence of a statutory definition, words like 'spouse' and 'marriage' should be given their ordinary, common meaning, which at the time contemplated a relationship between a man and a woman. This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that the same 1965 amendments that created the 'immediate relative' preference for spouses also mandated the exclusion of homosexuals, making it illogical that Congress would simultaneously grant them preferential status. Constitutionally, the law withstands scrutiny because Congress possesses 'almost plenary power' over immigration, subjecting its decisions to only limited judicial review. The court applied a rational basis test and found that Congress's decision to favor heterosexual marriages for immigration purposes was rationally related to legitimate interests, such as concern for family integrity, the fact that such marriages are recognized in most states, and adherence to traditional societal mores.
Analysis:
This decision solidified the traditional, opposite-sex definition of 'spouse' within federal immigration law, effectively barring same-sex couples from obtaining spousal visa benefits for decades. It affirmed the principle of judicial deference to Congress in immigration matters, establishing that classifications based on sexual orientation in this context would only be subject to rational basis review, not the stricter scrutiny often applied to fundamental rights like marriage. This precedent remained controlling authority until it was functionally superseded by landmark Supreme Court decisions, particularly United States v. Windsor (2013), which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages.
