Garden State Equality v. Dow
433 N.J. Super. 347, 2013 N.J. Super. LEXIS 168, 79 A.3d 479 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To obtain a stay of a court order pending appeal, the moving party must demonstrate that: 1) the stay is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to them; 2) they have a settled legal claim and a reasonable probability of success on the merits; 3) the balance of hardships favors granting the stay; and 4) the public interest supports the stay. All four factors must weigh in favor of granting this extraordinary relief.
Facts:
- In a prior case, Lewis v. Harris, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the state constitution required same-sex couples to be afforded the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex married couples.
- In response to Lewis, the New Jersey Legislature enacted the Civil Union Act, creating the legal status of "civil union" for same-sex couples.
- The United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor invalidated the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
- Following the Windsor decision, numerous federal agencies began extending federal marital benefits, such as tax, veteran, and family leave benefits, only to couples who were legally "married."
- These federal agencies did not extend federal marital benefits to couples in New Jersey civil unions.
- As a result, Garden State Equality and its members, who were in same-sex civil unions in New Jersey, were denied access to a range of federal benefits available to opposite-sex married couples.
Procedural Posture:
- Garden State Equality and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the State of New Jersey in the Law Division of the New Jersey Superior Court (the state's trial court).
- Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing New Jersey's civil union law violated the state constitution's equal protection guarantee after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Windsor.
- On September 27, 2013, the trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, ordering the State to permit same-sex couples to marry, effective October 21, 2013.
- On October 1, 2013, the State filed a notice of appeal to a higher court and a motion in the trial court for a stay of its order pending the outcome of the appeal.
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 State of New Jersey meet the legal standard for a stay pending appeal of a trial court order requiring it to permit same-sex marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Jacobson, A.J.S.C.
No. The State of New Jersey does not meet the legal standard for a stay pending appeal because it has not shown irreparable harm, a likelihood of success on the merits, or that the balance of hardships and public interest favor granting the stay. A stay is an extraordinary remedy, and the State has failed to satisfy its burden on any of the required factors. The court's reasoning rested on an analysis of the four-part Crowe test: 1) Irreparable Harm: The State's claimed harm—an affront to its sovereignty by being enjoined from effectuating its statutory scheme—is abstract and unpersuasive. In contrast, the plaintiffs and other same-sex couples suffer concrete, immediate, and irreparable constitutional injuries every day they are denied federal marital benefits. This denial affects rights related to family medical leave, taxes, and spousal survivorship, harms which cannot be adequately redressed by monetary damages later. 2) Likelihood of Success: The State has not shown a reasonable probability of success on appeal. Its legal right to maintain the civil union system post-Windsor is not 'settled,' as the Crowe test requires for the party seeking a stay. The court's underlying order was a straightforward application of the state supreme court's precedent in Lewis v. Harris to the new legal landscape created by Windsor. 3) Balance of Hardships: The balance of equities heavily favors the plaintiffs. Granting a stay would perpetuate the daily constitutional deprivations suffered by same-sex couples. The State, conversely, has not demonstrated any concrete injury or significant administrative burden from allowing same-sex couples to marry. 4) Public Interest: While the issue is one of significant public importance, there is no public interest in allowing the State to continue violating its citizens' constitutional rights pending appeal. The public interest is best served by protecting the civil rights of New Jersey citizens and remedying ongoing constitutional violations.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for its rigorous application of the standard for a stay in a high-profile civil rights case, emphasizing that procedural delays will not be granted when they perpetuate clear and ongoing constitutional harm. The court prioritized the concrete, daily injuries to individuals over the State's more abstract claims of harm to its sovereignty. This ruling effectively prevented any delay in the implementation of marriage equality in New Jersey, establishing a strong precedent that 'maintaining the status quo' is not a compelling public interest when the status quo itself is unconstitutional.
