Garden State Equality v. Dow
2013 WL 5687193, 79 A.3d 1036, 216 N.J. 314 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's statutory scheme that provides same-sex couples with civil unions but not marriage violates the state constitution's equal protection guarantee when that classification prevents couples from receiving federal benefits available only to legally married spouses.
Facts:
- In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis v. Harris held that same-sex couples were constitutionally entitled to the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex married couples.
- In response to Lewis, the New Jersey Legislature enacted the Civil Union Act, creating a legal status for same-sex couples parallel to marriage but not allowing them to marry.
- Plaintiffs in this case are Garden State Equality, an advocacy group, and six same-sex couples and their children who are in civil unions under the Act.
- In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor struck down the part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
- Following Windsor, various federal agencies began extending federal marital benefits, such as tax, immigration, Medicare, and military spousal benefits, only to same-sex couples who were legally 'married'.
- Because their legal status was a 'civil union' and not a 'marriage', the plaintiff couples were denied access to these federal benefits.
Procedural Posture:
- Garden State Equality and six same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against State officials in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division (a trial court).
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor.
- The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion, ordering state officials to begin permitting same-sex marriage on October 21, 2013.
- The State, as defendants, moved for a stay of the trial court’s order, which the trial court denied.
- The State appealed the trial court's decision and again moved for a stay pending appeal. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted the State's motion for direct certification, taking immediate jurisdiction over the stay motion.
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 New Jersey's civil union law, which denies same-sex couples the right to marry, violate the state constitution's equal protection guarantee when that denial prevents them from receiving federal benefits available only to married couples following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rabner
Yes, New Jersey's civil union law violates the state constitution's equal protection guarantee under these new circumstances. The court denied the State's motion to stay a lower court ruling that required it to permit same-sex marriage. The court's reasoning focused on an application of the Crowe factors for granting a stay. It concluded the State was not likely to succeed on the merits because the central promise of Lewis v. Harris—that same-sex couples would receive the 'full rights and benefits' of marriage—was no longer being met. After the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Windsor, federal agencies began offering substantial benefits exclusively to 'married' couples, a status New Jersey law denied to the plaintiffs. This denial of federal benefits based on the state-created 'civil union' label constitutes a violation of the State Constitution's equal protection guarantee. The court found that the plaintiffs faced immediate, concrete, and irreparable harm from the denial of these benefits, whereas the State's asserted harm was abstract. The balance of hardships and the public interest in upholding constitutional rights weighed heavily against granting the stay.
Analysis:
This opinion effectively legalized same-sex marriage in New Jersey by refusing to stay the trial court's order. The decision is significant because it illustrates how a change in federal law can render a previously adequate state-level solution unconstitutional under the state's own constitution. It demonstrates that a 'separate but equal' legal status like a civil union fails to provide true equality when it intersects with federal laws and regulations that recognize only the specific status of 'marriage.' The ruling underscores that equal protection requires not just identical state-level benefits but also equal access to all benefits, including federal ones, that are contingent on marital status.
