Whitewood v. Wolf

{{Infobox United States District Court case

| name = Whitewood v. Wolf

| court = U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

| image = MD_pa_seal.jpg

| imagesize =

| caption = District Court Docket: 1:13-cv-1861
Court of Appeals Docket: 14-3048

| full name = Deb Whitewood, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Michael Wolf, in his official capacity as Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Health, et al.,
Defendants.

| date decided = May 20, 2014

| citations = 992 F. Supp. 2d 410

| transcripts =

| judge = John E. Jones III, U.S.D.J.

| prosecutor =

| defendant =

| prior actions =

| subsequent actions = Petition for rehearing denied, No. 14-3048 (3d Cir. Aug. 4, 2014), application for stay denied sub nom. Santai-Gaffney v. Whitewood, No. 14A19 (U.S. Sup. Ct. July 9, 2014), denial of intervenor status summarily affirmed, appeal ordered dismissed, sub nom. Whitewood v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Health, No. 14-3048 (3d Cir. July 3, 2014); intervenor status denied (M.D. Pa. June 18, 2014)

| holding = State enjoined from enforcing same-sex marriage ban; such bans violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

| keywords =

| italic title=yes

}}

Whitewood v. Wolf is the federal lawsuit that successfully challenged the Pennsylvania Marriage Laws,{{efn|23 Pa. C.S. § 1102, as amended in 1996, defined marriage as a "civil contract by which one man and one woman take each other for husband and wife."
Furthermore, 23 Pa. C.S. § 1704 was added and read: "It is hereby declared to be the strong and longstanding public policy of this Commonwealth that marriage shall be between one man and one woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex which was entered into in another state or foreign jurisdiction, even if valid where entered into, shall be void in this Commonwealth."}} as amended in 1996 to ban same-sex marriage. The district court's decision in May 2014 held that the Marriage Laws violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Same-sex couples immediately sought and received marriage licenses and the decision was not appealed. One county clerk sought repeatedly without success to intervene to defend the law.

Lawsuit

On July 9, 2013, following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, the ACLU filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on behalf of 23 plaintiffs—10 couples, 2 of their children, and a widow—seeking to overturn Pennsylvania's 1996 statutory ban on same-sex marriage.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/us/aclu-lawsuit-aims-to-overturn-pennsylvanias-ban-on-gay-marriage.html |title=A.C.L.U. Lawsuit Aims to Overturn Pennsylvania's Ban on Gay Marriage|work=New York Times|date=July 9, 2013|access-date=November 18, 2013}} The case, originally Whitewood v. Corbett, was assigned to Judge John E. Jones III.{{cite news|last=Lord|first=Rich |title=Judge named to handle case trying to legalize gay marriage in Pennsylvania|url=http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/judge-named-to-handle-case-trying-to-legalize-gay-marriage-in-pa-694909/|access-date=July 11, 2013|newspaper=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette|date=July 10, 2013}} On July 11, Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a named defendant, said that she would not defend the statute as she "endorse[d] equality and anti-discrimination laws" and that the statute was "wholly unconstitutional".{{cite news|last=Eilperin|first=Juliet|title=Pa. attorney general says she won't defend state's gay marriage ban|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/11/sources-pa-attorney-general-wont-defend-states-gay-marriage-ban/|access-date=July 11, 2013|newspaper=Washington Post|date=July 11, 2013}} On July 30, Governor Tom Corbett announced he would defend the statute.{{cite news|last=Lindstrom|first=Natasha |title=Corbett to defend Pennsylvania's gay marriage ban|url=http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/corbett-to-defend-pennsylvania-s-gay-marriage-ban/article_905e862d-63b2-51bb-b2f6-35b92bff27c7.html |access-date=July 30, 2013|newspaper=Herald-Standard (Uniontown)|date=July 30, 2013}}

Pretrial motions

All parties agreed to having Corbett's name removed as a defendant.{{cite news|last=Lord|first=Rich|title=Corbett dropped in Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit|url=http://www.post-gazette.com/local/2013/11/02/Corbett-dropped-in-gay-marriage-lawsuit/stories/201311020090|access-date=December 2, 2013|newspaper=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette|date=November 1, 2013}} The remaining named defendants are the state health and revenue secretaries, and the Bucks County register of wills. On November 15, Judge Jones rejected the state defendants' motion to dismiss the suit. The judge found that while Baker v. Nelson was precedent, it did not require him to find that denial of marriage equality is outside federal jurisdiction because "[t]he jurisprudence of equal protection and substantive due process has undergone what can only be characterized as a sea change since 1972", foremost being the recent Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor.{{cite news|last=Warden |first=Amy|title=Judge clears way for trial on Pa. gay marriage ban |url=http://articles.philly.com/2013-11-17/news/44141203_1_marriage-ban-marriage-rights-marriage-act |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131126070223/http://articles.philly.com/2013-11-17/news/44141203_1_marriage-ban-marriage-rights-marriage-act |url-status=dead |archive-date=November 26, 2013 |access-date=November 18, 2013|newspaper=Philadelphia Inquirer|date=November 17, 2013}} In early December, the state's attorneys asked Jones to allow them to ask the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on whether Baker v. Nelson is binding precedent. Judge Jones denied this interlocutory appeal on December 17, writing "this Court is rightfully in position to consider and assess such doctrinal advancements [since Baker]."{{cite news|last=Spencer|first=Saranac Hale|title=Corbett pushing for Third Circuit to clarify law in gay marriage case|url=http://www.post-gazette.com/business/legal/2013/12/09/Corbett-pushing-for-Third-Circuit-to-clarify-law-in-gay-marriage-case/stories/201312090009|access-date=December 9, 2013|newspaper=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette |date=December 9, 2013}}{{cite news|last=Jones|first=U.S. District Judge|title=Memorandum and Order (denying interlocutory appeal), Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13-cv1861|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/192103846/1-13-cv-01861-87|access-date=April 30, 2014|newspaper=U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania|date=December 17, 2013}}

On April 21, 2014, plaintiff same-sex couples filed a motion for summary judgment in Whitewood v. Wolf, which would allow the court to rule solely on the briefs without a trial. The state defendants agreed to dispense with trial as well.{{cite news|last=ACLU of Pennsylvania|title=Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 13-CV-1861-JEJ|url=https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/plaintiffs_motion_for_summary_judgment.pdf|access-date=April 25, 2014|newspaper=U.S. Middle District of Pennsylvania, via ACLU.org|date=April 21, 2014}}

U.S. district court ruling

On May 20, 2014, Judge Jones ruled in Whitewood v. Wolf that Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional.{{cite news|agency=Reuters|title=Federal judge strikes down gay marriage ban in Pennsylvania|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gaymarriage-pennsylvania-ruling-idUSBREA4J0S820140520|access-date=May 20, 2014|date=May 20, 2014}} He applied intermediate scrutiny and declared that the ban violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution.{{citation|last=Jones|first=U.S. District Judge|title=Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13-cv1861 (See pp. 40-41)|url=http://coop.pamd.uscourts.gov/13-1861.pdf|newspaper=U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania|date=May 20, 2014|access-date=2014-08-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140521111711/http://coop.pamd.uscourts.gov/13-1861.pdf|archive-date=2014-05-21|url-status=dead}} The ruling was not stayed and same-sex couples in Pennsylvania could request and receive marriage licenses immediately and marry after a mandatory 3-day waiting period.{{cite news|last=Fox News|title=Pa. same-sex couples rush to get marriage licenses after judge overturns marriage ban|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pa-same-sex-couples-rush-for-licenses-after-judge-overturns-marriage-ban/|access-date=May 21, 2014|date=May 20, 2014}}{{cite news|last=Pink News|title=US: Couples begin to marry in Pennsylvania as same-sex marriage ruling comes into effect|url=http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/05/24/us-couples-begin-to-marry-in-pennsylvania-as-same-sex-marriage-ruling-comes-into-effect/|date=May 25, 2014}} Anticipating legal maneuvers to stay Jones' ruling, dozens of same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses the same day and some obtained waivers of the state's three-day waiting period. At least one couple managed to celebrate their wedding on May 21.{{cite news |last1=Riely|first1=Kaitlynn|title=Allegheny County marries its first same-sex couple amid smiles, tears |url=http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2014/05/21/Same-sex-couples/stories/201405210151|access-date=July 25, 2014 |work=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette|date=May 21, 2014}}{{cite news|last1=Madej|first1=Patricia|title=Wedding bells ring at art museum steps for same-sex couple|url=http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Wedding_bells_ring_at_art_museum_steps_for_same-sex_couple.html|access-date=July 25, 2014|work=Philadelphia Magazine|date=May 23, 2014}}

Pennsylvania's Republican governor Tom Corbett announced on May 21 that he would not appeal Judge Jones' decision, effectively making Pennsylvania the 19th state to recognize same-sex marriage.{{cite news |agency=Associated Press|title=Pennsylvania governor: I won't appeal court's gay marriage ruling |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/pennsylvania-governor-no-appeal-gay-marriage-ruling|newspaper=The Guardian |date=May 21, 2014}}

Proposed intervention

On June 6, the Schuylkill County court clerk responsible for responding to marriage license applications, Theresa Santai-Gaffney, filed a motion before Judge Jones to allow her to intervene in the case in her official capacity. She wanted the court to stay its decision in Whitewood v. Wolf and to allow her to appeal it.{{cite news|last1=Conrad|first1=Jeffery (Attorney for Proposed Intervenor)|title=Motion for Intervention, Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13-CV-1861|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/228544076/1-13-cv-01861-139|access-date=June 9, 2014|work=U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania|publisher=via scribd.com|date=June 6, 2014|ref=PACER Document 139}} Judge Jones denied the motion on June 18, lamenting that a private citizen would use her public office to make a "wholly disingenuous" intervention.{{cite web|title=Memorandum and order, Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13-CV-1861|url=http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/13-1861b.pdf|access-date=June 18, 2014|work=Court|author=John E. Jones III|author-link=John E. Jones III|publisher=U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania|date=June 18, 2014|ref=PACER Document 150|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140622031143/http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov//sites//default//files//opinions//13-1861b.pdf|archive-date=2014-06-22|url-status=dead}}

Santai-Gaffney immediately appealed the denial of her intervention to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and asked it to stay the lower court's ruling. She argued that the Supreme Court's order in Herbert v. Kitchen, 134 S.Ct. 893 (2014), is precedent for a stay, that she is likely to succeed on the merits, that sexual orientation is not a suspect class, and that the public interest is served by preventing same-sex marriage.{{cite news|last1=Dalton|first1=J. Caleb (Attorney, Alliance Defending Freedom)|title=Proposed Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant Theresa Santai-Gaffney's Motion for Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal, Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 14-3048|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/230435442/14-3048-54697|work=U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|agency=PACER Document 3111654843|publisher=Scribd.com|date=June 18, 2014}} The Third Circuit immediately ordered the case sent to a panel to determine if summary action was warranted.{{cite news|last1=Waldron|first1=Marcia (Clerk of the Court)|title=Order (for Determination of Summary Action), Whitewood v. Secretary Pa. Dept. of Health, No. 14-3048|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/230435442/14-3048-54697|work=U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|agency=PACER Document 3111654697|publisher=Scribd.com|date=June 18, 2014}}

=Court of Appeals dismissal=

On July 3, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit summarily affirmed Judge Jones' dismissal of the Santai-Gaffney's motion to intervene in Whitewood and ordered her appeal dismissed. U.S. Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz, in a two-sentence order, said such dismissal was warranted "[f]or essentially the reasons set forth in the Opinion of the District Court." Santai-Gaffney's lawyer then said "Our plan is to file something with the U.S. Supreme Court... The people of Pennsylvania deserve to have adequate review of this law."{{cite news|last1=Fuentes |last2=Jordan |last3=Shwartz|first3=U.S. Circuit Judges|title=Order, Whitewood v. Secretary Pa. Dep't of Health, No. 14-3048|work=U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|publisher=PACER Document 3111670016|date=July 3, 2014}}{{cite news|last1=Marchiano |first1=Amy |title=County official vows appeal after same-sex marriage setback|url=http://m.standardspeaker.com/news/county-official-vows-appeal-after-same-sex-marriage-setback-1.1714091|work=The Standard Speaker|publisher=Hazelton, PA|date=July 5, 2014}}

=U.S. Supreme Court action=

After the Third Circuit ruling, Santai-Gaffney applied for a stay of judgment from U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit, docketed sub nom. Santai-Gaffney v. Whitewood, No. 14A19 (July 7, 2014). In her application, the clerk attempted to overcome not only the questions of her interest in intervening and standing to appeal, but that she, as a public official, is suffering irreparable harm. Supreme Court rules also require it probable that four Justices grant certiorari on any question presented in order for a stay to be granted. The counsel of record in clerk Santai-Gaffney's litigation, as listed in court filings, is the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian nonprofit organization.{{cite news|last1=Babione|first1=Byron J. (Attorney for Petitioner)|title=Application to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal, Santai-Gaffney v. Whitewood, No. 14A19 |url=http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Schuylkill-clerk-application-7-3-141.pdf|work=U.S. Supreme Court|date=July 3, 2014}} On July 9, Justice Alito denied the clerk's application for a stay,{{cite news|last1=Associated Press|title=Justice Alito denies clerk's bid to halt same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania |url=http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/07/justice-alito-denies-clerks-bid-to-halt-same-sex-marriage-in-pennsylvania/|publisher=LBGTQ Nation.com|date=July 9, 2014}} referencing National Organization for Marriage v. Geiger.[https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14a19.htm Supreme Court of the United States: No. 14A19, Santai-Gaffney v. Whitewood], accessed July 10, 2014

=Petition for rehearing=

On July 17, 2014, Santai-Gaffney filed a petition in the Third Circuit to rehear her motion to intervene, or to rehear it en banc. With no judge that concurred in denying the original motion asking for rehearing, and all active judges in the circuit voting against, on August 4, 2014, the petition for rehearing was denied.{{cite news|last1=Middleton |first1=Josh |title=Theresa Santai-Gaffney Strikes Again, Filing an 'En Banc' Motion With the Third Circuit|date=July 18, 2014 |access-date=July 24, 2014|url=http://www.phillymag.com/g-philly/2014/07/18/theresa-santai-gaffney-strikes-again/ |publisher=Philadelphia Magazine}}{{cite news|first1=Patty, Circuit Judge|last1=Shwartz|title=Sur Petition for Rehearing Whitewood v. Secretary Pa. Dep't of Health, No. 14-3048|url=http://www.lgbtqnation.com/assets/2014/08/Third-Circuit-Santai-Gaffney-en-banc-denial.pdf|work=U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|agency=Scribd.com|publisher=PACER Document 3111697838|date=August 4, 2014|access-date=August 21, 2014|archive-date=October 13, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141013170905/http://www.lgbtqnation.com/assets/2014/08/Third-Circuit-Santai-Gaffney-en-banc-denial.pdf|url-status=dead}}