409:, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court of Nevada, held an initial hearing on August 10, 2012. The parties had agreed in advance on how they wanted the court to handle motions in the case. The plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the request by the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, the original backers of the constitutional amendment and now based in Boise, Idaho, to intervene as a defendant. The defendants agreed that the court should postpone consideration of its arguments for summary dismissal until the case was fully briefed. Both sides asked the court to allow them to present expert testimony. Jones did not rule out expert testimony but expressed strong reservations, that it would require him to act "as a legislature". He said: "This area you're talking about ... is so broad it's across the entire United States. You're asking them to summarize thousands of incidences." Noting that several related cases were nearing possible consideration by the Supreme Court, he agreed the case should be expedited: "It makes sense to get this decided and off with the circus train." He thought
462:(1990). He explained his agreement with that case's determination that "homosexuals are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class" requiring a higher standard of review because "where no lingering effects of past discrimination are inherited, it is contemporary disadvantages that matter for the purpose of assessing disabilities due to discrimination. Any such disabilities with respect to homosexuals have been largely erased since 1990." He also argued that homosexuals have gained significant political power, citing the rarity of anti-homosexual messages in the national media and attributing the president's acceptance of same-sex marriage to "the homosexual-rights lobby". He disputed the Second Circuit's finding in
468:(2012) that homosexuals are a politically powerless class: "The question of 'powerlessness' under an equal protection analysis requires that the group's chances of democratic success be virtually hopeless, not simply that its path to success is difficult or challenging because of democratic forces." He states that no action should be taken on unclear Constitutional rules, such as "equal protection of the laws", which is a vague clause of the Constitution whose enforcement is "a usurpation of democratic governance via judicial whim—a judicial practice much in vogue today". Having determined that there is no clear Constitutional prohibition, he cited a
31:
377:
of discrimination that really are not credible in Nevada. For example, it is often argued in these cases that there is an interest relating to children and parenting. But in Nevada, separate and apart from the constitutional amendment, the state treats same-sex couple equally as parents in other respects. And so that can't be what the marriage amendment is about, because it has no effect on parenting." The plaintiffs argued that Nevada's contrast of marriage and domestic partnership, which it called a "second-class status", distinguished their case from
Minnesota's lack of any provision for same-sex couples in 1972, when the
600:
holdings final and issued its mandate. On
October 8, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, apparently by mistake, ordered the Ninth Circuit's mandate temporarily stayed as part of his response to a request from Idaho officials in a related case. He amended his order to exempt this case from that stay. The same day, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage asked the U.S. Supreme Court to suspend implementation of its ruling, referencing the arguments made by Idaho state officials in
631:. Among other arguments, it presented a statistical analysis that called into question the randomness of the Circuit's method of assigning judges to cases. Attorneys for the same-sex couples, while contending that the method of judge selection could not be grounds for rehearing the case, disputed the Coalition's statistical methodology. After at least one circuit judge called for a vote on the petition for rehearing
332:, remanding the case back to district court with direction to enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. This effectively legalized same-sex marriage in Nevada. After at least one judge on the Court of Appeals asked for a vote on the defendants' petition to have the case reheard by a larger, 11-judge panel, a majority of judges on the Ninth Circuit did not agree; thus making the ruling final on January 9, 2015.
719:... did not decide the issue, finding it unnecessary to look beyond rational basis review both because the state's attempt to strip gay people of all antidiscrimination protections was a 'denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense,' and because the state's action 'confound' and 'defie' rational basis review."
489:. If marriage is extended to same-sex couples, he wrote, "it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had ... leading to an increased percentage of out-of-wedlock children, single-parent families, ... or other
394:
standard. They did not assert a fundamental right to marry nor a due process claim, but focused on the equal protection claim and Nevada's disparate treatment of same-sex couples, being "so convinced that our equal protection claim is correct that we wanted to keep the focus of the case there.... And
564:
on
January 21 established that laws that make a distinction based on sexual orientation are subject to "heightened scrutiny", making the arguments that state had made based on the less demanding "rational basis" standard "likely no longer tenable in the Ninth Circuit." On February 10, Masto withdrew
553:
with the
Supreme Court, asking that court to take up the case without waiting for action by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court denied that petition on June 27, 2013. On October 18, 2013, Lambda Legal filed its opening brief. On January 21, 2014, the state of Nevada submitted its reply brief. On
376:
and three county clerks. Lambda
Attorney Tara Borelli explained the plaintiffs' argument: "e are relying on the Nevada domestic partnership law to help illustrate how irrational the unequal treatment of same-sex couples is, because there are a number of rationales they have articulated for this kind
350:
was amended in 2002 to incorporate
Article 1, Section 21, which reads: "Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state," restricting marriage to different-sex couples. Voters first approved a ballot question endorsing this amendment to that effect
371:
rights advocacy organization, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada on behalf of eight same-sex couples. Four of the couples had been denied marriage licenses by county clerks in Nevada. The other four had married in other jurisdictions (California and Canada) and wanted
599:
On
October 7, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the federal district court in Nevada and remanded it back to the district court, ordering it to immediately issue an injunction to bar enforcement of the Nevada same-sex marriage ban amendment. It immediately made its
612:
On remand, the plaintiffs submitted a motion asking the district court for an injunction preventing the state from enforcing its same-sex marriage ban and providing the court with its suggested language. Judge Jones recused himself and the case was reassigned to Judge
402:, who was representing him, tended to avoid public controversy and "both ... refused to fully engage in the political debate. They're framing their roles as technocrats doing an administrative job rather than politicians or ideologues wading into an emotional issue."
510:
addressed, he wrote, "an extreme case concerning a novel and ambitious type of law ... prevalent only under totalitarian regimes." Nevada's definition of marriage by contrast was "not based purely upon anti-homosexual animus, as the constitutional provision in
565:
the state's brief defending Nevada's ban on same-sex marriage. Governor
Sandoval agreed: "It has become clear that this case is no longer defensible in court". On February 12, 2014, the Ninth Circuit issued an order vacating the previous order scheduling the
853:
351:
on
November 7, 2000, with 70% of the vote. Its principal sponsor was the Coalition to Protect Marriage, a local organization. Because Nevada requires a constitutional amendment be approved by the voters twice, Nevada voters considered the same
493:." He stated that Nevada has not decreased same-sex couples' rights (having no right to marry to begin with) and that their exclusion from marriage but not from a separate-but-parallel institution can only be seen as "benevolence".
997:
861:
1643:
458:
966:
445:
does not control..." He identified the discrimination Nevada makes between marriages the state does and does not recognize as a distinction based not on gender, which would require him to use
1141:
715:"Although the Supreme Court has not yet ruled that sexual orientation classifications are suspect, that is because the Supreme Court has not yet found it necessary to resolve the question.
485:, stating that the prevention of "abuse of an institution the law protects" is a valid state interest. He found that the state may rely on speculation alone for its rational basis, citing
422:
Jones scheduled oral argument for November 26 on all issues in the case, but on September 19 he canceled the oral argument and announced he would rule on the basis of the briefs alone.
288:
895:
1220:
1065:
524:
306:
645:, a majority of active duty judges—as required by Ninth Circuit rules—would not agree to the petition; therefore such petition was denied as of January 9, 2015. Circuit Judge
1005:
479:
Finally, applying rational basis review, Jones found that "he protection of the traditional institution of marriage ... is a legitimate state interest" and quoted
1638:
280:
87:
449:, but on sexual orientation, stating that the state maintains "heterosexual superiority ... by relegating (mainly) homosexual legal unions to a lesser status".
430:
On November 29, Jones ruled against the plaintiffs. He held that "the present challenge is in the main a garden-variety equal protection challenge precluded by
596:, and a third case. It overturned the district court's ruling on October 7, finding Nevada's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples unconstitutional.
1553:
57:
1618:
1145:
1303:
190:
The judgment of the district court is reversed and the case remanded with an order to enjoin Nevada from enforcement the state's same-sex marriage ban.
974:
341:
268:
1633:
1492:
1415:
390:
As part of their equal protection claim, the plaintiffs argued that the court should evaluate distinctions based on sexual orientation using the
696:
691:
502:(1996) only to note that the Supreme Court in that case had found it unnecessary to consider more than rational basis review. Jones discussed
441:
Jones also analyzed the plaintiffs' other arguments "so that the Court of Appeals need not remand for further proceedings should it rule that
1467:
1277:
1568:
854:"Sevcik v. Sandoval: A conversation with Tara Borelli, staff attorney at Lambda Legal and lead counsel on Nevada's marriage equality case"
1582:
903:
378:
1168:
30:
926:
398:
A Nevada reporter noted that both Republican Gov. Sandoval, the principal defendant in the suit, and Democratic Attorney General
1079:
1653:
1363:
1028:
798:
1116:
1537:
387:
refused to hear a challenge to Minnesota's restrictive marriage definition "for want of a substantial federal question."
745:
1658:
1247:
1193:
534:
823:
550:
1598:
1345:
1328:
527:. The Court originally planned to hear the case on a parallel track with a similar Hawaii same-sex marriage case,
771:
545:
464:
352:
1648:
646:
291:
617:. On October 9, Judge Mahan issued the injunction and same-sex couples began obtaining marriage licenses.
555:
539:
529:
490:
438:, i.e., whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from refusing to permit same-sex marriages."
399:
347:
318:
549:
on June 26, 2013. The Coalition for the Protection of Marriage on December 5, 2012, filed a petition for
476:
that the Supreme Court should not decide sensitive issues at the very time they are under consideration.
1389:
1221:"Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allows Hawaii and Nevada marriage cases to be heard on a parallel track"
1066:"Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allows Hawaii and Nevada marriage cases to be heard on a parallel track"
686:
446:
1092:
666:
650:
1104:
391:
305:
the complaint against the Nevada government officials named in it. The plaintiffs appealed to the
559:
469:
406:
298:
250:
1603:
577:
481:
246:
203:
998:"An analysis of the initial hearing in the Nevada marriage equality case Sevcik v. Sandoval"
395:
courts often like to decide questions no more broadly than they need to, to resolve a case.
284:
242:
581:
383:
208:
1440:
1052:
1613:
1608:
1583:"Nevada Supreme Court Retroactively Recognizes Pre-Obergefell Marriages – Gay City News"
882:
720:
372:
Nevada to recognize their relationships as marriages. The suit named as defendants Gov.
951:
637:
498:
453:
415:
373:
324:
302:
93:
558:
announced she was reviewing the state's brief because the Ninth Circuit's decision in
1627:
1248:"2014-02-12 Order (ID 8975693) for cases No. 12-16995, No. 12-16998 and No. 12-17668"
585:
328:, on September 8, 2014. On October 7, the panel reversed the lower court's ruling in
272:
213:
1514:
1128:
1304:"Federal appeals court finds Idaho, Nevada same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional"
364:
1441:"Plaintiffs' Proposed Order Granting Permanent Injunctive Relief, October 7, 2014"
1278:"Appeals Court Appears Ready To Strike Down Idaho, Nevada Same-Sex Marriage Bans"
496:
He also addressed issues not raised by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs had referenced
614:
506:
at length to show how it did not apply to Nevada's marriage restriction, since
654:
625:
The Coalition to Protect Marriage asked the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case
1569:"Nevada retroactively recognizes same-sex marriages in lesbian divorce case"
276:
604:. It withdrew that request the next day and then renewed it on October 13.
533:, until Hawaii's legalization of same-sex marriage as of December 2, 2013,
1169:"Federal Appeals Court Says Jurors Can't Be Excluded Because They Are Gay"
1117:
Sevcik v. Sandoval, Plaintiffs-Appellant's Opening Brief, October 18, 2013
523:
Attorneys for the plaintiffs filed an appeal on December 3, 2012 with the
670:
537:. The Court placed the case on hold pending the Supreme Court rulings in
456:
standard applies to distinctions based on sexual orientation, relying on
238:
896:"Lambda Legal Files Federal Lawsuit Seeking Marriage Equality in Nevada"
1142:"Nevada Attorney General backs off defense of state's gay marriage ban"
627:
434:.... The equal protection claim is the same in this case as it was in
1515:"Plaintiffs' Response to Intervenor's Petition for Rehearing En Banc"
674:
264:
1468:"Conservative Nevada Judge Recuses Himself From Ending Marriage Ban"
1093:
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari before Judgment, December 5, 2012
1029:"Federal Judge Rules Nevada Can Ban Same-Sex Couples From Marriage"
576:
The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on September 8 before Judges
1129:
Appellee Governor Sandoval's answering brief in Sevcik v. Sandoval
1053:
Sevcik v. Sandoval, Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal, December 3, 2012
179:
Stay of mandate ordered in error; amended order vacated this stay.
312:
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in
301:
ruled against the plaintiff same-sex couples, granting in part a
1493:"Federal judge signs injunction allowing gay marriage in Nevada"
413:
would make a good complement to the Ninth Circuit's decision in
368:
967:"Federal judge agrees to hear Nevada marriage equality lawsuit"
459:
High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office
163:
Judgment entered for plaintiffs, permanent injunction ordered.
355:
on November 5, 2002, and approved it by a margin of 67%–33%.
721:
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement, September 10, 2012
1609:
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, September 10, 2012
883:
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, September 10, 2012
121:
Judgment for defendants, motion to dismiss granted in part.
1644:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cases
927:"Governor, attorney general stick to book on gay marriage"
287:. These couples challenged the denial on the basis of the
1416:"Group withdraws request to keep Nevada gay marriage ban"
1080:"Nevada's state Assembly taking action on pro-LGBT bills"
669:
to "retroactively" apply same-sex marriage (in terms of
283:
on April 10, 2012, on behalf of several couples denied
1536:
Dwyer, Molly (Clerk of the Court) (January 9, 2015).
561:
SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories
1364:"Court Says It Erred in Halting Nevada Gay Marriage"
1255:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1390:"Coalition's Application for Stay, October 8, 2014"
232:
224:
219:
199:
194:
184:
168:
144:
Response to petition for rehearing en banc ordered.
126:
110:
105:
79:
71:
63:
53:
23:
1614:District Court hearing transcript, August 10, 2012
1538:"Order (Denying Petition for Rehearing En Banc),
847:
845:
281:U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
263:is the lead case that successfully challenged
799:"Question 2 opponents appeal to young voters"
271:as mandated by that state's constitution and
8:
925:Schwartz, David McGrath (December 3, 2012).
1554:U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
297:On November 26, 2012, Chief District Judge
58:U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1194:"Gay Marriage Ban Support Slips in Nevada"
746:"Marriage proposal heading to Legislature"
740:
738:
29:
20:
657:, filed a written dissent of the denial.
1604:District Court ruling, November 29, 2012
677:) - even before 2014 legal recognition.
342:Recognition of same-sex unions in Nevada
289:U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment
1495:. Reno Gazette-Journal. October 9, 2014
1200:. The New York Times. February 10, 2014
734:
708:
665:In January 2021, it was decided by the
1599:Ninth Circuit Opinion, October 7, 2014
1219:Thomaston, Scottie (January 7, 2013).
1140:Damon, Anjeanette (January 24, 2013).
965:Thomaston, Scottie (August 10, 2012).
852:Thomaston, Scottie (August 13, 2012).
797:Willis, Stacey J. (October 19, 2000).
697:Same-sex marriage in the United States
692:Same-sex marriage in the Ninth Circuit
150:Petition for rehearing en banc denied.
1639:United States same-sex union case law
1246:Dwyer, Molly C. (February 19, 2014).
1068:. Equality on Trial. January 7, 2013.
824:"Petition filed to ban gay marriages"
7:
1276:Geidner, Chris (September 8, 2014).
1103:Supreme Court of the United States:
1027:Geidner, Chris (November 29, 2012).
554:January 24, Nevada Attorney General
1414:Marcus, Emerson (October 9, 2014).
1167:Geidner, Chris (January 21, 2014).
1466:Geidner, Chris (October 8, 2014).
1105:Order List 570 U.S., June 27, 2013
1082:. Equality on Trial. May 15, 2013.
772:"Drive targets same-sex marriages"
228:Reinhardt, joined by Gould, Berzon
14:
1362:Sherman, Mark (October 9, 2014).
894:Geidner, Chris (April 10, 2012).
1517:. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
1302:Snow, Justin (October 7, 2014).
996:Combs, Jacob (August 24, 2012).
1447:. US. District Court for Nevada
92:reversed and remanded sub nom.
1634:2014 in United States case law
952:"2:12-cv-00578 #32 | PDF"
525:Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
307:Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
1:
292:guarantee of equal protection
1227:. Courage Campaign Institute
1119:, accessed October 19, 2013
1055:, accessed December 4, 2012
279:was initially filed in the
269:denial of same-sex marriage
132:Court of Appeals (9th Cir.)
1675:
649:, joined by fellow judges
551:certiorari before judgment
339:
1619:Complaint, April 10, 2012
1542:, No.'s 14-35420, 35421;
237:
189:
40:Court of Appeals Docket:
28:
1107:, accessed June 27, 2013
546:United States v. Windsor
465:Windsor v. United States
336:Constitutional amendment
116:District Court (D. Nev.)
1557:. www.ca9.uscourts.gov.
1346:"Ninth Circuit Mandate"
1329:"Ninth Circuit Opinion"
491:unforeseen consequences
474:Frontiero v. Richardson
452:He found that only the
426:District court decision
316:and two related cases,
156:District Court (D. Nev)
35:District Court Docket:
621:Petition for rehearing
556:Catherine Cortez Masto
540:Hollingsworth v. Perry
530:Jackson v. Abercrombie
400:Catherine Cortez Masto
348:Constitution of Nevada
319:Jackson v. Abercrombie
45:Supreme Court Docket:
16:2014 US legal decision
1654:2014 in LGBTQ history
1144:. RGJ. Archived from
687:LGBT rights in Nevada
608:District court remand
447:intermediate scrutiny
309:on December 3, 2012.
1420:Reno Gazette Journal
1198:The Associated Press
977:on December 22, 2012
864:on November 16, 2012
667:Nevada Supreme Court
661:Nevada Supreme Court
1148:on January 26, 2014
1008:on December 5, 2012
906:on October 22, 2012
392:heightened scrutiny
363:On April 10, 2012,
119:November 26, 2012:
84:911 F. Supp. 2d 996
1659:Marriage in Nevada
1585:. January 6, 2021.
1544:Sevcik v. Sandoval
1370:. Associated Press
1351:. October 7, 2014.
1334:. October 7, 2014.
752:. November 6, 2002
470:concurring opinion
275:. The plaintiffs'
260:Sevcik v. Sandoval
251:Sexual Orientation
142:October 22, 2014:
127:Subsequent actions
24:Sevcik v. Sandoval
1225:Equality on Trial
1033:BuzzFeed Politics
1002:Prop8TrialTracker
971:Prop8TrialTracker
858:Prop8TrialTracker
830:. January 4, 2000
778:. January 4, 2000
578:Stephen Reinhardt
482:Lawrence v. Texas
303:motion to dismiss
285:marriage licenses
256:
255:
247:Same-sex marriage
204:Stephen Reinhardt
177:October 8, 2014:
161:October 9, 2014:
148:January 9, 2015:
136:October 7, 2014:
67:September 8, 2014
1666:
1587:
1586:
1579:
1573:
1572:
1565:
1559:
1558:
1550:
1533:
1527:
1526:
1524:
1522:
1511:
1505:
1504:
1502:
1500:
1489:
1483:
1482:
1480:
1478:
1463:
1457:
1456:
1454:
1452:
1437:
1431:
1430:
1428:
1426:
1411:
1405:
1404:
1402:
1400:
1386:
1380:
1379:
1377:
1375:
1359:
1353:
1352:
1350:
1342:
1336:
1335:
1333:
1325:
1319:
1318:
1316:
1314:
1299:
1293:
1292:
1290:
1288:
1273:
1267:
1266:
1264:
1262:
1252:
1243:
1237:
1236:
1234:
1232:
1216:
1210:
1209:
1207:
1205:
1190:
1184:
1183:
1181:
1179:
1164:
1158:
1157:
1155:
1153:
1137:
1131:
1126:
1120:
1114:
1108:
1101:
1095:
1090:
1084:
1083:
1076:
1070:
1069:
1062:
1056:
1050:
1044:
1043:
1041:
1039:
1024:
1018:
1017:
1015:
1013:
1004:. Archived from
993:
987:
986:
984:
982:
973:. Archived from
962:
956:
955:
948:
942:
941:
939:
937:
922:
916:
915:
913:
911:
902:. Archived from
891:
885:
880:
874:
873:
871:
869:
860:. Archived from
849:
840:
839:
837:
835:
820:
814:
813:
811:
809:
794:
788:
787:
785:
783:
768:
762:
761:
759:
757:
742:
723:
713:
573:cases together.
535:mooted that case
243:Equal Protection
195:Court membership
33:
21:
1674:
1673:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1624:
1623:
1595:
1590:
1581:
1580:
1576:
1567:
1566:
1562:
1548:
1546:, No. 14-35420"
1535:
1534:
1530:
1520:
1518:
1513:
1512:
1508:
1498:
1496:
1491:
1490:
1486:
1476:
1474:
1465:
1464:
1460:
1450:
1448:
1439:
1438:
1434:
1424:
1422:
1413:
1412:
1408:
1398:
1396:
1388:
1387:
1383:
1373:
1371:
1361:
1360:
1356:
1348:
1344:
1343:
1339:
1331:
1327:
1326:
1322:
1312:
1310:
1301:
1300:
1296:
1286:
1284:
1275:
1274:
1270:
1260:
1258:
1250:
1245:
1244:
1240:
1230:
1228:
1218:
1217:
1213:
1203:
1201:
1192:
1191:
1187:
1177:
1175:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1151:
1149:
1139:
1138:
1134:
1127:
1123:
1115:
1111:
1102:
1098:
1091:
1087:
1078:
1077:
1073:
1064:
1063:
1059:
1051:
1047:
1037:
1035:
1026:
1025:
1021:
1011:
1009:
995:
994:
990:
980:
978:
964:
963:
959:
950:
949:
945:
935:
933:
924:
923:
919:
909:
907:
893:
892:
888:
881:
877:
867:
865:
851:
850:
843:
833:
831:
822:
821:
817:
807:
805:
796:
795:
791:
781:
779:
770:
769:
765:
755:
753:
744:
743:
736:
732:
727:
726:
714:
710:
705:
683:
663:
623:
610:
582:Ronald M. Gould
521:
428:
384:Baker v. Nelson
361:
353:ballot question
344:
338:
212:
209:Ronald M. Gould
207:
169:Related actions
159:
138:Mandate issued.
75:October 7, 2014
49:
44:
39:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1672:
1670:
1662:
1661:
1656:
1651:
1649:2014 in Nevada
1646:
1641:
1636:
1626:
1625:
1622:
1621:
1616:
1611:
1606:
1601:
1594:
1593:External links
1591:
1589:
1588:
1574:
1560:
1540:Latta v. Otter
1528:
1506:
1484:
1458:
1432:
1406:
1381:
1354:
1337:
1320:
1294:
1268:
1257:. Lambda Legal
1238:
1211:
1185:
1159:
1132:
1121:
1109:
1096:
1085:
1071:
1057:
1045:
1019:
988:
957:
943:
917:
886:
875:
841:
815:
789:
763:
733:
731:
728:
725:
724:
717:Romer v. Evans
707:
706:
704:
701:
700:
699:
694:
689:
682:
679:
662:
659:
638:Latta v. Otter
622:
619:
609:
606:
520:
517:
499:Romer v. Evans
454:rational basis
427:
424:
416:Perry v. Brown
374:Brian Sandoval
360:
357:
340:Main article:
337:
334:
325:Latta v. Otter
254:
253:
235:
234:
230:
229:
226:
222:
221:
217:
216:
201:
200:Judges sitting
197:
196:
192:
191:
187:
186:
182:
181:
170:
166:
165:
128:
124:
123:
112:
108:
107:
103:
102:
94:Latta v. Otter
81:
77:
76:
73:
69:
68:
65:
61:
60:
55:
51:
50:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1671:
1660:
1657:
1655:
1652:
1650:
1647:
1645:
1642:
1640:
1637:
1635:
1632:
1631:
1629:
1620:
1617:
1615:
1612:
1610:
1607:
1605:
1602:
1600:
1597:
1596:
1592:
1584:
1578:
1575:
1570:
1564:
1561:
1556:
1555:
1547:
1545:
1541:
1532:
1529:
1516:
1510:
1507:
1494:
1488:
1485:
1473:
1472:BuzzFeed News
1469:
1462:
1459:
1446:
1442:
1436:
1433:
1421:
1417:
1410:
1407:
1395:
1391:
1385:
1382:
1369:
1365:
1358:
1355:
1347:
1341:
1338:
1330:
1324:
1321:
1309:
1305:
1298:
1295:
1287:September 18,
1283:
1282:BuzzFeed News
1279:
1272:
1269:
1256:
1249:
1242:
1239:
1226:
1222:
1215:
1212:
1199:
1195:
1189:
1186:
1174:
1170:
1163:
1160:
1147:
1143:
1136:
1133:
1130:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1113:
1110:
1106:
1100:
1097:
1094:
1089:
1086:
1081:
1075:
1072:
1067:
1061:
1058:
1054:
1049:
1046:
1034:
1030:
1023:
1020:
1007:
1003:
999:
992:
989:
976:
972:
968:
961:
958:
953:
947:
944:
932:
931:Las Vegas Sun
928:
921:
918:
905:
901:
897:
890:
887:
884:
879:
876:
863:
859:
855:
848:
846:
842:
829:
828:Las Vegas Sun
825:
819:
816:
804:
803:Las Vegas Sun
800:
793:
790:
777:
776:Las Vegas Sun
773:
767:
764:
751:
750:Las Vegas Sun
747:
741:
739:
735:
729:
722:
718:
712:
709:
702:
698:
695:
693:
690:
688:
685:
684:
680:
678:
676:
672:
668:
660:
658:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
639:
634:
630:
629:
620:
618:
616:
607:
605:
603:
597:
595:
591:
587:
586:Marsha Berzon
583:
579:
574:
572:
568:
563:
562:
557:
552:
548:
547:
542:
541:
536:
532:
531:
526:
518:
516:
514:
509:
505:
501:
500:
494:
492:
488:
487:Heller v. Doe
484:
483:
477:
475:
471:
467:
466:
461:
460:
455:
450:
448:
444:
439:
437:
433:
425:
423:
420:
418:
417:
412:
408:
403:
401:
396:
393:
388:
386:
385:
380:
379:Supreme Court
375:
370:
366:
358:
356:
354:
349:
343:
335:
333:
331:
327:
326:
321:
320:
315:
310:
308:
304:
300:
295:
293:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
273:statutory law
270:
266:
262:
261:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
231:
227:
223:
220:Case opinions
218:
215:
214:Marsha Berzon
210:
205:
202:
198:
193:
188:
183:
180:
176:
175:
174:Supreme Court
171:
167:
164:
160:
158:
157:
152:
151:
146:
145:
140:
139:
134:
133:
129:
125:
122:
118:
117:
113:
111:Prior actions
109:
104:
100:
97:
95:
89:
85:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
62:
59:
56:
52:
48:
43:
38:
37:2:12-cv-00578
32:
27:
22:
19:
1577:
1563:
1552:
1543:
1539:
1531:
1521:November 13,
1519:. Retrieved
1509:
1497:. Retrieved
1487:
1475:. Retrieved
1471:
1461:
1449:. Retrieved
1444:
1435:
1423:. Retrieved
1419:
1409:
1397:. Retrieved
1393:
1384:
1372:. Retrieved
1367:
1357:
1340:
1323:
1311:. Retrieved
1307:
1297:
1285:. Retrieved
1281:
1271:
1261:February 19,
1259:. Retrieved
1254:
1241:
1231:November 13,
1229:. Retrieved
1224:
1214:
1204:February 10,
1202:. Retrieved
1197:
1188:
1176:. Retrieved
1172:
1162:
1150:. Retrieved
1146:the original
1135:
1124:
1112:
1099:
1088:
1074:
1060:
1048:
1038:November 30,
1036:. Retrieved
1032:
1022:
1010:. Retrieved
1006:the original
1001:
991:
979:. Retrieved
975:the original
970:
960:
946:
934:. Retrieved
930:
920:
908:. Retrieved
904:the original
900:Metro Weekly
899:
889:
878:
866:. Retrieved
862:the original
857:
832:. Retrieved
827:
818:
806:. Retrieved
802:
792:
780:. Retrieved
775:
766:
754:. Retrieved
749:
716:
711:
664:
642:
636:
635:(along with
632:
626:
624:
611:
601:
598:
593:
589:
575:
570:
566:
560:
544:
538:
528:
522:
512:
507:
503:
497:
495:
486:
480:
478:
473:
463:
457:
451:
442:
440:
435:
431:
429:
421:
414:
410:
407:Robert Jones
404:
397:
389:
382:
365:Lambda Legal
362:
345:
329:
323:
317:
313:
311:
299:Robert Jones
296:
259:
258:
257:
178:
173:
172:
162:
155:
154:
153:
149:
147:
143:
141:
137:
135:
131:
130:
120:
115:
114:
106:Case history
99:771 F.3d 456
98:
91:
83:
46:
41:
36:
18:
1499:October 10,
1308:MetroWeekly
1178:January 21,
1152:January 25,
1012:December 3,
981:December 3,
936:December 3,
910:December 4,
868:December 3,
834:December 4,
808:December 3,
782:December 3,
756:December 3,
647:O’Scannlain
615:James Mahan
1628:Categories
1477:October 9,
1451:October 9,
1445:Scribd.com
1425:October 9,
1399:October 8,
1394:Scribd.com
1374:October 9,
1313:October 7,
730:References
101:(9th Cir.)
1173:Buzz Feed
651:Rawlinson
277:complaint
80:Citations
1368:ABC News
681:See also
671:property
239:Marriage
233:Keywords
225:Majority
42:12-17668
643:en banc
628:en banc
594:Jackson
571:Jackson
359:Lawsuit
185:Holding
88:D. Nev.
72:Decided
675:assets
633:Sevcik
602:Sevcik
590:Sevcik
584:, and
567:Sevcik
519:Appeal
515:was."
411:Sevcik
405:Judge
330:Sevcik
314:Sevcik
265:Nevada
64:Argued
47:14A374
1549:(PDF)
1349:(PDF)
1332:(PDF)
1251:(PDF)
703:Notes
513:Romer
508:Romer
504:Romer
443:Baker
436:Baker
432:Baker
367:, an
211:, and
54:Court
1523:2014
1501:2014
1479:2014
1453:2014
1427:2014
1401:2014
1376:2014
1315:2014
1289:2014
1263:2014
1233:2013
1206:2014
1180:2014
1154:2014
1040:2012
1014:2012
983:2012
938:2012
912:2012
870:2012
836:2012
810:2012
784:2012
758:2012
673:and
653:and
569:and
543:and
369:LGBT
346:The
322:and
655:Bea
588:in
472:in
381:in
267:'s
90:),
1630::
1551:.
1470:.
1443:.
1418:.
1392:.
1366:.
1306:.
1280:.
1253:.
1223:.
1196:.
1171:.
1031:.
1000:.
969:.
929:.
898:.
856:.
844:^
826:.
801:.
774:.
748:.
737:^
641:)
592:,
580:,
419:.
294:.
249:,
245:,
241:,
1571:.
1525:.
1503:.
1481:.
1455:.
1429:.
1403:.
1378:.
1317:.
1291:.
1265:.
1235:.
1208:.
1182:.
1156:.
1042:.
1016:.
985:.
954:.
940:.
914:.
872:.
838:.
812:.
786:.
760:.
206:,
96:,
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
