Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 1 of 26

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 2 of 26
sex couples, in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), violated the principles of due process and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, because its purpose was “to impose inequality” on individuals who are homosexual. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ---, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2694 (June 26, 2013). 2. In striking down the federal ban on same-sex marriage in Windsor, the Supreme Court also went out of its way to note that the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects an individual’s rights of due process and equal protection against state action, makes these rights “all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved.” 133 S. Ct. at 2695. Thus, the logic of Windsor is as follows: just as DOMA’s denial of marriage to same-sex couples was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment, a state’s denial of marriage to same-sex couples is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. 3. At least fourteen states, plus the District of Columbia, currently provide marriage equality to individuals who are homosexual. And more states, such as Hawaii and Oregon, are moving in that direction. 4. Meanwhile, lawsuits seeking to enforce marriage rights—relying in part on Windsor—are now pending in other states, including Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. 5. And courts in Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Ohio have already relied in part on Windsor to rule against state laws that refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. 6. The State of Texas, through Article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution and sections 2.001 and 6.204 of the Texas Family Code, imposes inequality on gays and lesbians in exactly the same way that DOMA did—by

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 3 of 26
denying them the basic right to marry. 7. Plaintiffs therefore ask this Court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to protect and enforce their rights and the rights of the Plaintiff Class under the United States Constitution, by declaring Article I, section 32 and sections 2.001 and 6.204 unconstitutional, and by enjoining permanently the enforcement of these and any other provisions of Texas law that would seek to deny same-sex couples equal access to civil marriage in Texas.
Jurisdiction and Venue 8. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the Plaintiff Class under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Constitution of the United States; therefore, this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 9. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all Defendants reside in this district, and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. 10. This Court has authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to provide injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65, and to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are domiciled in the State of Texas.
The Parties 12. Plaintiff Shannon Zahrn is a Texas resident in Travis County, Texas.

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 4 of 26
13. Plaintiff Catherine Zahrn is a Texas resident in Travis County, Texas. 14. Plaintiff Alexius Augustine is a Texas resident in Travis County, Texas. 15. Plaintiff Andrew Simpson is a Texas resident in Travis County, Texas. 16. Defendant Rick Perry is the Governor of the State of Texas. In his official capacity he is the chief executive officer of the State of Texas. The Governor’s office is located in the Austin Division of this Judicial District. 17. Defendant Greg Abbott is the Attorney General of the State of Texas. In his official capacity he is the chief legal officer of the State of Texas, and it is his duty to see that the State’s laws are uniformly and adequately enforced. The Attorney General’s office is located in the Austin Division of this Judicial District. 18. Defendant Dana DeBeauvoir is the County Clerk of Travis County, Texas. In her official capacity she is responsible for maintaining marriage records, issuing marriage licenses, and performing civil marriages. The County Clerk’s office is located in the Austin Division of this Judicial District. 19. Defendants and those subject to their supervision, direction, and control are responsible for the enforcement of sections 2.001 and 6.204 of the Texas Family Code and Article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution, and any other Texas law that denies same-sex couples the right to civil marriage in Texas. The relief requested in this action is sought against each Defendant as well as against each Defendant’s officers, employees, and agents, and against all persons acting in cooperation with Defendant(s), under their supervision, at their direction, or under their control.

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 5 of 26
Facts 20. Individuals who are homosexual have suffered a long history of discrimination and unequal treatment in the United States and in Texas. 21. Laws against homosexual sex, for example, date back to before the nation was founded. Texas passed its first codified anti-sodomy law in 1860 (imposing a penalty of up to 15 years in prison), and updated its law to single out homosexual sex for criminalization in 1973. In some states, homosexual sex was at one time punishable by death. 22. More recently, in 1992, the voters in the State of Colorado amended their state constitution to prevent cities and municipalities from outlawing discrimination against homosexuals. In other words, the amendment was designed to enable discrimination against gays and lesbians, in contexts such as housing, employment, education, health services, and public accommodations. 23. In 1996, the federal government enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), codifying a federal ban against same-sex marriage. Section 3 of DOMA stated that, for the purposes of federal law, “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” 1 U.S.C. § 7. And section 2 of DOMA says that no state shall be required to “give effect” to same-sex marriages created in other states. 1 U.S.C. § 1738C. 24. One year after DOMA was enacted, in 1997, the State of Texas enacted its own laws against same-sex marriage, adding section 2.001 to the Texas

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 6 of 26
Family Code, which states: “A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex.” Tex. Fam. Code § 2.001(b). 25. In 2003, Texas added its own version of DOMA, in section 6.204 of the Family Code, which states: “A marriage between persons of the same sex . . . is contrary to the public policy of this state and is void in this state. The state or an agency or political subdivision of the state may not give effect to a public act, record, or judicial proceeding that creates, recognizes, or validates a marriage between persons of the same sex . . . in this state or in any other jurisdiction.” Tex. Fam. Code § 6.204(b)–(c). 26. And in 2005, for added measure, the Texas Constitution was amended to declare: “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” Tex. Const. art. I, § 32(a). 27. But these various efforts to impose inequality on individuals who are homosexual have not gone unanswered. 28. The United States Supreme Court struck down the voter-approved Colorado constitutional amendment that enabled widespread discrimination against homosexuals, because the Court found it was motivated by “animus” and held that “a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.” The Court therefore determined that the Colorado law could not survive even the most deferential review under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632–634 (1996) (internal quotations omitted). 29. Just a few years later, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas laws that criminalized adult, consensual, homosexual sex because, according to the Court, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause “gives substantial

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 7 of 26
protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 572 (2003). In fact, the Court declared that the Due Process Clause broadly protects “the autonomy of the person,” including “personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.” Id. at 573–574 (citing Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992)) (emphasis added). Lawrence stemmed from the criminal prosecution of two gay men in Houston who had been arrested in their bedroom. 30. And this past summer, the Supreme Court determined that the federal government’s restriction of marriage to only opposite-sex couples, through DOMA, was—like the Colorado law—motivated by “animus,” and that its “principal purpose” was “to impose inequality” on same-sex couples. Citing both Romer and Lawrence, the Court declared that DOMA’s restrictive definition of marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman” violated the principles of due process and equal protection, and was therefore unconstitutional. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2695–2696. 31. In the face of these rulings, the State of Texas continues to discriminate against gays and lesbians by doing exactly what the federal government sought to do through DOMA—namely, to deny same-sex couples equal access to the rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage. 32. Sections 2.001 and 6.204 of the Texas Family Code were inspired by DOMA’s passage in 1996. In fact, section 6.204 is likewise titled the “Defense of Marriage Act,” and the official website for the Office of the Governor— Defendant Perry’s office—states explicitly that section 6.204 “mirrors” the

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 8 of 26
federal DOMA. 33. Moreover, the text of Article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution, which restricts marriage to only “the union of one man and one woman,” mimics the very text in section 3 of DOMA that was stricken as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Windsor. 34. These laws discriminate against same-sex couples on their face, and the State of Texas has even judicially admitted, in other proceedings, that the purpose of these laws is to “favor” opposite-sex couples. This is merely the inverse of saying that the purpose of these laws is to single out homosexuals for disfavored treatment. Or, in other words, the purpose of these Texas laws is “to impose inequality.” Cf. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694.
Shannon & Catherine 35. Plaintiffs Shannon Zahrn and Catherine Zahrn have suffered harm as a result of the State’s enforcement of Texas law. 36. Shannon and Catherine have known each other for nearly twenty years. They first met and became friends while at school in Virginia, in 1995, and they reconnected and started dating while living in Georgia, in 2002. 37. In 2005 the couple wanted to get married, but state laws denied them the right to do so. To nevertheless demonstrate their love for and commitment to one another, they invited friends and family to a commitment ceremony, which they performed on September 17, in South Carolina. They have celebrated that date every year since then, as their “anniversary.” 38. That same year, Shannon also legally changed her last name to match

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 9 of 26
Catherine’s, to outwardly demonstrate her commitment to the relationship. 39. In 2006, the couple moved to Austin, Texas, for Shannon’s job. 40. Catherine gave birth to a baby girl in 2011. Shannon legally adopted the child as a “second parent” a few months later, and the Zahrns legally became a family. But they still could not legally get married. 41. Shannon’s sister became very ill, and passed away in December, 2011. Shannon’s father also passed away shortly thereafter, in April, 2012. 42. As a result, Shannon’s niece came to live with Shannon and Catherine in 2012, because they could provide her with a stable and loving home environment. Shannon and Catherine became legal conservators of Shannon’s niece in 2013. 43. In short, Shannon and Catherine have been together for over ten years and are the loving parents of two children. 44. The Zahrns are like any other typical Texan family, and deserve the same rights, privileges, protections, and responsibilities enjoyed by other Texan families. They own and share a home together; they have joint bank accounts; they are parents and have children together. They have a life together. They love each other. Like thousands of other similarly situated couples in Texas and the United States, they desire to formalize their relationship through civil marriage. 45. Shannon and Catherine wanted to get married nearly eight years ago, on September 17, 2005, but state laws deprived them of that right. They have wanted to get married since moving to Texas in 2006, but Texas state law has prevented them from doing so.

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 10 of 26
46. On July 12, 2013—two weeks after the Supreme Court declared that DOMA’s restriction of marriage to only opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional—Shannon and Catherine went to the Travis County Clerk's Office at 5501 Airport Blvd., Austin, Texas, to apply for a marriage license. 47. But the couple was not permitted to even apply for a Texas marriage license. Instead, when they asked for an application they were given the runaround, told they were a “special case,” and then made to wait for a manager to assist them. The manager then gave Shannon and Catherine a printed copy of section 2.001 of the Family Code (stating “A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex.”), and told them that she was not allowed even to give them an application for a license. When asked, the manager also said that, for opposite-sex couples, the application can be completed onsite, and the license can be issued immediately. 48. Shannon and Catherine’s inability to have their relationship formalized by the State, and recognized legally with the same dignity and respect accorded to married opposite-sex couples, has caused them significant hardship—including but not limited to the deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and stigma. 49. Shannon and Catherine have wanted to marry for as long as they have lived in Texas (over seven years), and each day that they are denied the freedom to marry they suffer irreparable harm as a direct result of Defendants’ enforcement of Texas state law. 50. If sections 2.001 and 6.204 of the Texas Family Code, and article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution—and all other Texas laws that prevent or prohibit same-sex marriage in Texas—are not enjoined, Defendants will

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 11 of 26
continue to enforce them and thereby continue to deprive Shannon and Catherine, and others who are similarly situated, of their constitutional rights. 51. For these reasons, Shannon and Catherine, as Plaintiffs, bring this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.
Alex & Andy 52. Plaintiffs Alexius Augustine and Andrew Simpson have suffered harm as a result of the State’s enforcement of Texas law. 53. Alex and Andy have known each other for ten years. They first met in 2003, when Alex was a university student in Malaysia and Andy was working for a computer company. They hit it off, Alex legally immigrated to the United States, and the couple bought a house together in Austin. They have been living together since January 2004. 54. In 2005 the couple wanted to get married, but Texas law denied them the right to do so. To demonstrate their commitment to each other, that year they executed wills and estate-planning documents together, naming each other as beneficiaries. 55. In 2006 Alex graduated with a degree in International Relations from St. Edwards University. He later earned a masters degree in Global Issues, and he works as a student admissions advisor and program coordinator. Andy holds an MBA from St. Edwards and continues to work in the computer industry. 56. The couple has had joint bank accounts since 2004. They officially proposed to each other in 2012. And they have discussed having children and

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 12 of 26
plan to adopt in the near future. 57. In short, Alex and Andy have been together for ten years and are deeply committed to each other. They are like any other typical American couple, and they deserve the same rights, privileges, protections, and responsibilities enjoyed by other American couples. They have a life together. They love each other. Like thousands of other similarly situated couples in Texas and the United States, they wanted to formalize their relationship through civil marriage. So they did. 58. A few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Windsor, Alex and Andy traveled to York, Maine, where they were legally married by a judge, on a mountainside, on July 17, 2013. 59. But Texas law, on its face, refuses to recognize the validity of a same-sex marriage legally created in another state. Tex. Fam. Code § 6.204. And State officials, including Defendant Greg Abbott, have officially declared (and judicially admitted) that the State will not “give effect” to Alex and Andy’s marriage. In other words, though Alex and Andy have formalized their relationship by legally marrying under the laws of another state, the State of Texas seeks to deprive them of their marital status—and of their right to be married. 60. The State’s refusal to recognize Alex and Andy’s marriage—and particularly its refusal to accord their legal out-of-state marriage with the same dignity and respect accorded to opposite-sex couples who are legally married in another state, constitutes a harm and a hardship to Alex and Andy, which includes but is not limited to the deprivation of their rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and stigma.

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 13 of 26
61. The State’s refusal to recognize the validity of Alex and Andy’s out-ofstate marriage also harms them by denying them the rights, benefits, and protections associated with marriage, such as hospital visitation rights, the right to make medical decisions for one’s spouse, spousal survivorship rights, the right not to testify against one’s spouse, the right to loss-of-consortium damages in civil lawsuits, and so on. 62. Alex and Andy have wanted to be married for almost as long as they have lived in Texas (roughly nine years). They celebrated their marriage in Maine just a few months ago—but the State of Texas refuses to recognize its validity or to “give effect” to that marriage. And each day that they are deprived of their right to be recognized as legally married they suffer irreparable harm as a direct result of Defendants’ enforcement of Texas law. 63. If sections 2.001 and 6.204 of the Texas Family Code, and article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution—and all other Texas laws that prevent or prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages legally created in other states— are not enjoined, Defendants will continue to enforce them and thereby continue to deprive Alex and Andy, and others who are similarly situated, of their constitutional rights. 64. For these reasons, Alex and Andy, as Plaintiffs, bring this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.
The Plaintiff Class 65. The Plaintiff Class consists of all individuals who, like Shannon and Catherine, reside in the State of Texas and otherwise meet the legal requirements to marry in Texas, but wish to marry someone of the same sex,

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 14 of 26
and for that reason are denied the right to marry by Texas law. The Plaintiff Class also includes all individuals who, like Alex and Andy, reside in the State of Texas and have been legally married under the laws of another state, but to someone of the same sex, and whose marriage for that reason is not recognized as valid under Texas law. 66. The declaratory and injunctive relief sought by the Named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and of the Plaintiff Class, will remedy their harm as follows:
(1) by requiring county clerks in Texas, such as Defendant DeBeauvoir, to issue a marriage license to Plaintiffs Shannon Zahrn and Catherine Zahrn (and to others similarly situated), so that they can be legally married under Texas law; and (2) by requiring Defendants Perry and Abbott, in their official capacities as Governor and Attorney General of Texas, respectively, to recognize the out-of-state marriage of Alex and Andy (and of others similarly situated), as legally valid in Texas. By the relief sought, the Named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class will become equally privy to all the rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage in Texas.
Claim One: Equal Protection 67. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–66, above, as if fully set forth herein. 68. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 15 of 26
consideration of whether the classifications drawn by a state law constitute “an arbitrary and invidious discrimination.” Loving, 388 U.S. at 10. A state law that singles out individuals who are homosexual for disfavored treatment, and imposes on them inequality, violates the principle of equal protection under the law. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694–2696. 69. Sections 2.001 and 6.204, and article I, section 32, restrict access to civil marriage to only opposite-sex couples, thereby denying individuals who are homosexual the right and freedom to marry the person of their choosing. These laws treat similarly situated persons differently—or, in other words, they impose inequality—by providing the status, dignity, rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage to heterosexual couples but not to homosexual couples. Put another way, these Texas laws single out individuals who are homosexual for disfavored treatment. 70. Defendants and other state officials have openly expressed the animus held toward homosexuals that motivates these laws. In a 2011 campaign ad, Defendant Perry, speaking as the Governor of Texas while running for the GOP presidential nomination, said “something’s wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military.” Perry, who signed section 6.204 into law, has repeatedly stated that he believes God disapproves of same-sex relationships. And at a rally held earlier this year—on the same day that oral arguments were heard in Windsor—Perry said he found the push for equal marriage rights “unsettling.” 71. On the day that Windsor was decided, Todd Staples—a state legislator and co-author of article I, section 32 (the Texas Marriage Amendment)— criticized the Supreme Court’s recognition of marriage equality as “the

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 16 of 26
definition of absurdity.” 72. And perhaps most notably, Defendant Abbott has, as Texas Attorney General, judicially admitted that the unequal treatment of same-sex couples is “precisely the point” of these Texas laws against same-sex marriage. 73. Sections 2.001 and 6.204 of the Texas Family Code and article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution, both on their face and as applied to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, single out individuals who are homosexual for disfavored treatment, stigmatizing them as “second class” and denying them the same status, dignity, rights, benefits, and protections of marriage that are provided by law to individuals who are heterosexual. Therefore, these Texas laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Claim Two: Due Process 74. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–73, above, as if fully set forth herein. 75. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals against the deprivation of their rights or liberty without due process of law. “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom . . . is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without the due process of law.” Loving, 388 U.S. at 12. 76. Sections 2.001 and 6.204 of the Texas Family Code and article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution, both on their face and as applied to Plaintiffs, deprive individuals who are homosexual of their freedom to marry—or, if they have already married in another state, deprive them of their rightful legally-

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 17 of 26
married status. Therefore, these Texas laws violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Claim Three: Right to Travel 77. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–76, above, as if fully set forth herein. 78. The right and freedom “to enter and abide in any State in the Union” has been recognized as “a basic right under the Constitution.” Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 901–902 (1986). When a state law serves to “penalize” individuals for their migration to that state, that law impinges on the right to travel. Id. at 903. 79. Section 6.204 of the Texas Family Code and article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution, both on their face and as applied to Plaintiffs Augustine and Simpson, and to the Plaintiff Class, refuse to recognize the validity of a same-sex marriage that was legally entered into in another state. Or, in other words, these laws serve to penalize same-sex couples who are legally married in another state and then migrate to Texas, by depriving them of their legallymarried status. Therefore, these Texas laws violate the constitutional right to travel.
Claim Four: Full Faith and Credit 80. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–79, above, as if fully set forth herein. 81. The U.S. Constitution states: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 18 of 26
state.” U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1. Thus, just as Texas gives full faith and credit to the legal out-of-state marriage of an opposite-sex couple, it must—under the Full Faith and Credit Clause—give full faith and credit to the legal out-ofstate marriage of a same-sex couple. 82. But section 6.204 of the Texas Family Code and article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution, both on their face and as applied to Plaintiffs Augustine and Simpson, and to the Plaintiff Class, refuse to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages that are legally created in another state. Therefore, these Texas laws violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause. 83. Article IV does provide that “Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which [the public acts of other states] shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1. And section 2 of DOMA exploits this provision to declare that “[n]o state . . . shall be required to give effect to any public act” by another state that creates a same-sex marriage. 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. 84. But it is a fundamental principle of American law that a statute cannot undo, overrule, or otherwise supersede a constitutional provision. If a statute and a constitutional provision are in conflict, the statute must bow to the supremacy of the Constitution. 85. Article IV requires each state to give “full faith and credit” to the public acts of another state. And Article IV also permits Congress to “prescribe the manner in which such Acts . . . shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” But Article IV does not allow Congress to simply undo the Full Faith and Credit Clause altogether. 86. Therefore, to the extent section 2 of DOMA purports to wholly

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 19 of 26
circumvent or supersede the Full Faith and Credit Clause, by authorizing states to give no effect to same-sex marriages created by another state, section 2 of DOMA exceeds the power granted to Congress under Article IV, and is therefore unconstitutional. 87. In short, the Texas laws refusing to “give effect” to out-of-state same-sex marriages violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause—and these state laws cannot seek cover under section 2 of DOMA, because section 2 of DOMA is itself an unconstitutional overreach of congressional authority.
Claim Five: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 88. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–87, above, as if fully set forth herein. 89. By enforcing sections 2.001 and 6.204 of the Texas Family Code and article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution to deny Plaintiffs equal access to civil marriage in Texas, or to refuse to recognize the validity of Plaintiffs’ civil marriage from another state, Defendants, under color of Texas state law, are depriving and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class of rights secured by the U.S. Constitution. This violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Irreparable Injury 90. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–89, above, as if fully set forth herein. 91. Because Defendants have been and are currently enforcing sections 2.001 and 6.204 of the Texas Family Code and article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution to the detriment of Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, an actual

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 20 of 26
and judicially cognizable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants, over whether these provisions of Texas law are unconstitutional. 92. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class have been and are now severely and irreparably injured by sections 2.001 and 6.204 of the Texas Family Code, and by article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution. This injury includes, but is not limited to, the deprivation of rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and stigma caused by the State’s refusal to allow Plaintiffs and each member of the Plaintiff Class to marry the person he or she loves, or by the State’s refusal to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages created in other states. Marriage is a highly valued legal and social status, and married couples are often treated differently from unmarried couples. Being married reflects and expresses a couple’s commitment to one another—it represents the significance and value that the couple (and society) has placed on or invested in the relationship. By denying Plaintiffs and each member of the Plaintiff Class the right to marry in Texas, or to have their out-of-state marriage recognized in Texas, the State publicly and officially devalues each Plaintiff’s respective relationship. By the operation and enforcement of the laws at issue, Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class are denied access to the same status, respect, and dignity, and to the same rights, benefits, and protections that are provided to opposite-sex couples. 93. Moreover, this public and official devaluing of same-sex relationships sends a public and official message to the children of same-sex couples, telling them their parents are in a relationship that is “less worthy” than the relationships of others. Cf. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2696. Put another way, the State’s legal “differentiation” between opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships, and its provision of marriage to one and not the other,

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 21 of 26
“demeans” same-sex relationships and thereby “humiliates” the children of the Named Plaintiffs and of the members of the Plaintiff Class. Cf. id. at 2694. 94. By denying Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class the right to marry, or to have their marriage recognized, the State also denies Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class access to numerous state-law benefits and protections. For example, Plaintiffs cannot claim intestacy rights, see Tex. Probate Code §§ 38, 45; a Plaintiff cannot file a wrongful death suit if his or her partner is killed, see Tex. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.004; Plaintiffs cannot claim the spousal privilege to avoid testifying against one another, see Tex. R. Evid. 504; and a Plaintiff cannot, without a written agreement, make health care or burial decisions pertaining to the care of his or her partner. 95. Furthermore, Plaintiffs Augustine and Simpson, and members of the Plaintiff Class, are irreparably injured by section 2 of DOMA, to the extent that it authorizes the State of Texas to refuse to recognize or give effect to a same-sex marriage legally created in another state—and to thereby stigmatize Plaintiffs and deny them equal status and equal access to the benefits and protections listed above. 96. In short, Defendants’ enforcement of the laws at issue has caused and continues to cause Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class irreparable harm, by denying them their constitutional rights, by stigmatizing them, by humiliating their children, and by denying them access to numerous state-law benefits and protections. 97. These injuries can be redressed only if this Court
(1) declares unconstitutional sections 2.001 and 6.204 of the Texas Family Code and article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution—and

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 22 of 26
any other Texas law that bars or refuses to recognize same-sex marriage; and (2) enjoins Defendants in their official capacities from enforcing these laws.
Class Allegations 98. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1–97, above, as if fully set forth herein. 99. Plaintiffs Shannon Zahrn, Catherine Zahrn, Alex Augustine, and Andy Simpson bring this action on behalf of themselves and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, all others who are similarly situated. 100. The Plaintiff Class, as proposed, consists of
(a) all individuals who, like Shannon and Catherine, reside in the State of Texas and otherwise meet the legal requirements to marry in Texas, but wish to marry someone of the same sex, and for that reason are denied the right to marry by Texas law; and (b) all individuals who, like Alex and Andy, reside in the State of Texas and have been legally married under the laws of another state, but to someone of the same sex, and whose marriage for that reason is not recognized as valid under Texas law. 101. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. According to one study, based on the 2010 U.S. Census, there are 46,401 samesex couples residing in Texas. An estimated 6,000 of those couples have been legally married in another state. And upon information and belief many of the

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 23 of 26
remaining Texas couples would marry here in Texas, if Texas law permitted them to do so. 102. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class. Factually, all members of the Class are either already legally married under the laws of another state or desire to be married in Texas, but they cannot get married—or their out-of-state marriage is not recognized—due to Texas law and Defendants’ enforcement thereof. The legal questions common to the Class include, but are not limited to, (a) whether Texas laws against same-sex marriage violate the Equal Protection Clause; (b) whether these laws violate the Due Process Clause; (c) whether these laws violate the constitutional right to travel; (d) whether they violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause; and (e) whether the State’s deprivation of these rights violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants are expected to raise common defenses to these claims. 103. These common questions of law and fact predominate over any individual questions that might exist, because there are not likely to be any individual issues material to Plaintiffs’ claims. 104. The claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the Plaintiff Class, as they all arise from the enforcement of Texas laws against allowing or recognizing same-sex marriage in Texas. 105. The Named Plaintiffs are capable of fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the Plaintiff Class because they have no interests antagonistic to the Class, and because they are represented by counsel experienced in complex class action litigation—and in litigation involving constitutional claims and same-sex marriage rights in Texas.

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 24 of 26
106. This action is maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) because prosecution of separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications, resulting in some Texas couples having access to marriage or recognition of their out-of-state marriage, and others not. 107. This action is also maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) because Defendants’ enforcement of Texas law applies generally to the Class, by precluding all members from marrying or from having their legal out-of-state marriage recognized in Texas. Thus the declaratory and injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs is appropriate as to the Class as a whole.
Prayer Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows: 108. Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to declare that this suit is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Rule 23. 109. Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, to construe sections 2.001 and 6.204 of the Texas Family Code and article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution, and to enter a declaratory judgment stating that these laws—and all other Texas laws that bar or that refuse to recognize or give effect to same-sex marriage—violate the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 110. Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court also to construe section 2 of DOMA, and to enter a declaratory judgment stating that, to the extent section 2 purports to circumvent or supersede the Full Faith and Credit

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 25 of 26
Clause—or to the extent that it purports to permit a state such as Texas to avoid its obligation to give full faith and credit to a same-sex marriage legally created by another state—section 2 exceeds the authority granted to Congress under Article IV, and is therefore unconstitutional. 111. Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to enter a preliminary and a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement or application of all Texas laws that bar same-sex marriage, or that refuse the recognize or “give effect” to same-sex marriages legally created in another state. 112. Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the declaratory and injunctive relief requested be granted against each Defendant in his or her official capacity; against each Defendant’s officers, employees, and agents; and against all persons acting in concert or participation with any Defendant, or under any Defendant’s supervision, direction, or control. 113. Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to award to Plaintiffs all costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as well as any further relief to which the Court determines Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.
Dated: 10 / 31 / 2013
By: /s/ Jason P. Steed
Jason P. Steed, SBN 24070671 BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP 3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 1400 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (214) 740-1411, Fax: (214) 740-5711 jasons@bellnunnally.com

Case 1:13-cv-00955-SS Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 26 of 26
James J. Scheske, SBN 17745443 JAMES J. SCHESKE PLLC 5501-A Balcones #109 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (512) 371-1790, Fax: (512) 323-2260 jscheske@austin.rr.com
S. Leigh Jorgeson, SBN 24070026 (pro hac vice application pending)
Ian Pittman, SBN 24064131 (pro hac vice application pending)
JORGESON PITTMAN LLP 4505 Spicewood Springs Road, Suite 335 Austin, Texas 78759 Phone: (512) 320-0999, Fax: (512) 320-0025 leigh@jptexaslaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Shannon Zahrn, Catherine Zahrn, Alexius Augustine, and Andrew Simpson

 </s> Case: 1:13-cv-955 As of: 03/22/2018 10:44 PM CDT 1 of 6
U.S. District Court [LIVE] Western District of Texas (Austin) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13−cv−00955−SS

CLOSED

Zahrn et al v. Perry et al Assigned to: Judge Sam Sparks Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff Shannon Zahrn
Plaintiff Catherine Zahrn

Date Filed: 10/31/2013 Date Terminated: 09/22/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 950 Constitutional − State Statute Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Ian E. Pittman Jorgeson Pittman, LLP 4505 Spicewood Springs Road Suite 335 Austin, TX 78759 512.320.0999 Fax: 512.320.0025 Email: ian@jptexaslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James J. Scheske James J. Scheske, PLLC 5501−A Balcones, #109 Austin, TX 78731 (512) 371−1790 Fax: 512/323−2260 Email: jscheske@scheskepllc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason P. Steed Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 2001 Ross Ave Suite 4400 Dallas, TX 75201 214−922−7100 Fax: 214−853−5731 Email: jsteed@kilpatricktownsend.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Leigh Jorgeson Jorgeson Pittman, LLP 4505 Spicewood Springs Road Suite 335 Austin, TX 78759 512.320.0999 Fax: 512.320.0025 Email: leigh@jptexaslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ian E. Pittman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James J. Scheske

Case: 1:13-cv-955 As of: 03/22/2018 10:44 PM CDT 2 of 6

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason P. Steed (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Leigh Jorgeson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Alexius Augustine

represented by Ian E. Pittman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James J. Scheske (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason P. Steed (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Leigh Jorgeson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Andrew Simpson on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by Ian E. Pittman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James J. Scheske (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason P. Steed (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Leigh Jorgeson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Rick Perry in his official capacity as Governor of Texas

represented by Michael P. Murphy Texas Attorney General Office of the Solicitor General

Case: 1:13-cv-955 As of: 03/22/2018 10:44 PM CDT 3 of 6

209 W. 14th Street, 7th Floor P. O. Box 12548, Austin, TX 78711−2548 Austin, TX 78701 512−936−2995 Fax: 512−474−2697 Email: michaelp.murphy@oag.texas.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William T. Deane Office of the Attorney General General Litigation Division−019 P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711−2548 (512) 463−2120 Fax: 512/320−0667 Email: Bill.Deane@oag.texas.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Greg Abbott in his official capacity as Attorney General of Texas

represented by Michael P. Murphy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William T. Deane (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dana DeBeauvoir in her official capacity as County Clerk of Travis County, Texas

represented by Andrew M. Williams County Attorney, Travis County PO Box 1748 Austin, TX 78767 512−854−9513 Fax: 512−854−4808 Email: andrew.williams@traviscountytx.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elaine A. Casas Travis County Attorney's Office P.O. Box 1748 Austin, TX 78767−1748 (512) 854−9197 Fax: 512/854−4808 Email: elaine.casas@co.travis.tx.us TERMINATED: 04/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Kraber Travis County Attorney's Office P.O. Box 1748 Austin, TX 78767 (512)854−9531 Fax: 512/854−4808 Email: jennifer.kraber@co.travis.tx.us TERMINATED: 04/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-955 As of: 03/22/2018 10:44 PM CDT 4 of 6
Sherine Elizabeth Thomas Assistant County Attorney Travis County, Texas P.O. Box 1748 Austin, TX 78767 (512) 854−9513 Fax: 512/854−4808 Email: sherine.thomas@traviscountytx.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/31/2013 10/31/2013 10/31/2013 10/31/2013 10/31/2013 10/31/2013 10/31/2013 11/01/2013 11/04/2013
11/04/2013
11/04/2013
11/18/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0542−5980553), filed by Shannon Zahrn, Andrew Simpson, Alexius Augustine, Catherine Zahrn. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Steed, Jason) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
2 NOTICE of Constitutional Questions by Alexius Augustine, Andrew Simpson, Catherine Zahrn, Shannon Zahrn re 1 Complaint (Steed, Jason) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
3 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by Alexius Augustine, Andrew Simpson, Catherine Zahrn, Shannon Zahrn. (Steed, Jason) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
Case Assigned to Judge Sam Sparks. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS (SS) AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER: 1:13−cv−955−SS. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (kkc) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
4 Summons Issued as to Greg Abbott, Dana DeBeauvoir, Rick Perry. (kkc) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
6 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Ian E. Pittman ( Filing fee $ 25 receipt number A428493) by Alexius Augustine, Andrew Simpson, Catherine Zahrn, Shannon Zahrn. (dm) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
7 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by S. Leigh Jorgeson ( Filing fee $ 25 receipt number A428494) by Alexius Augustine, Andrew Simpson, Catherine Zahrn, Shannon Zahrn. (dm) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Alexius Augustine, Andrew Simpson, Catherine Zahrn, Shannon Zahrn Amended Certificate of Service 2 Notice (Other) (Steed, Jason) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Shannon Zahrn, Andrew Simpson, Alexius Augustine, Catherine Zahrn. Greg Abbott served on 11/1/2013, answer due 11/22/2013; Dana DeBeauvoir served on 11/1/2013, answer due 11/22/2013; Rick Perry served on 11/1/2013, answer due 11/22/2013. (Steed, Jason) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
9 ORDER GRANTING 7 Motion for S. Leigh Jorgeson to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (klw) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
10 ORDER GRANTING 6 Motion for Ian E. Pittman to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (klw) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
11 RESPONSE Response to Defendants' Motion to Consolidate (filed in Case No. A13−CV−0631) by Alexius Augustine, Andrew Simpson, Catherine Zahrn, Shannon Zahrn. (Steed, Jason) (Entered: 11/18/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-955 As of: 03/22/2018 10:44 PM CDT 5 of 6

11/21/2013 11/21/2013 11/22/2013 12/11/2013 12/20/2013 01/06/2014 01/06/2014 01/09/2014 01/10/2014 01/23/2014
01/28/2014 02/28/2014 03/12/2014 04/17/2014 04/21/2014 09/10/2014

12 Defendants' ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Greg Abbott, Rick Perry.(Deane, William) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
13 Order for Proposed Scheduling Order. Plaintiff shall submit a proposed scheduling order to the Court within sixty (60) days after the appearance of any defendant. Proposed Scheduling Order due by 1/20/2014,. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (dm) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
14 DEFENDANT DANA DEBEAUVOIR'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Dana DeBeauvoir.(Casas, Elaine) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
15 ORDER, All Pending Matters/Status Conference set for 1/9/2014 02:00 PM before Judge Sam Sparks. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (dm) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
16 NOTICE (United States' Acknowledgement of Constitutional Challenge) by United States Of America re 2 Notice (Other) (Lin, Jean) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
17 Certificate of Service by Michael P. Murphy on behalf of Greg Abbott, Rick Perry. Attorney Michael P. Murphy added to party Greg Abbott(pty:dft), Attorney Michael P. Murphy added to party Rick Perry(pty:dft) (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Certificate of Service)(Murphy, Michael) Modified on 1/7/2014 (dm). (Entered: 01/06/2014)
18 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Michael P. Murphy on behalf of Greg Abbott, Rick Perry (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
19 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sam Sparks: Status Conference held on 1/9/2014 (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.). (Court Reporter Lily Reznik.)(dm) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
20 ORDERED that the parties shall have TEN (10) days from entry ofthis order to file letters with each other (and later with the Court) indicating the parties' respective expectations concerning scheduling matters. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (dm) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
21 Transcript filed of Proceedings held on January 9, 2014, Proceedings Transcribed: All Pending Matters. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Lily I. Reznik, Telephone number: 512−391−8792. Parties are notified of their duty to review the transcript to ensure compliance with the FRCP 5.2(a)/FRCrP 49.1(a). A copy may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. If redaction is necessary, a Notice of Redaction Request must be filed within 21 days. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made available via PACER without redaction after 90 calendar days. The clerk will mail a copy of this notice to parties not electronically noticed Redaction Request due 2/13/2014, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/24/2014, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/23/2014, (Reznik, Lily) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
22 ADVISORY TO THE COURT by Greg Abbott, Dana DeBeauvoir, Rick Perry. (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
23 MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by Alexius Augustine, Andrew Simpson, Catherine Zahrn, Shannon Zahrn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−F, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Steed, Jason) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
24 MOTION to Stay Case by Greg Abbott, Rick Perry. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Stay Proceedings)(Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
25 MOTION to Substitute Attorney DEFENDANT DANA DEBEAUVOIR'S MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Dana DeBeauvoir. (Thomas, Sherine) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
26 ORDER GRANTING 25 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (dm) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
27 ORDER DISMISSING 23 Motion to Certify Class; GRANTING 24 Motion to Stay Case. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (dm) (Entered: 09/10/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-955 As of: 03/22/2018 10:44 PM CDT 6 of 6

02/19/2015 02/19/2015 02/19/2015
02/19/2015 07/16/2015
07/20/2015 07/22/2015
07/23/2015 07/24/2015 08/06/2015 08/10/2015 08/19/2015 08/21/2015 09/04/2015 09/22/2015

28 NOTICE of Filing Letter Advisory by Dana DeBeauvoir (Thomas, Sherine) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
29 ATTACHMENT to Document 28, Letter Advisory to 28 Notice of Filing by Dana DeBeauvoir. (Thomas, Sherine) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
30 DEFICIENCY NOTICE to Sherine Elizabeth Thomas: re 29 Attachment. Your document is deficient as it is not in proper pleading format (including case style and number and summary of what the pleading contains) and lacks a signature and certificate of service. Please file your Amended document in FULL Pleading Form with complete Certificate of Service and attach this document as an exhibit. (klw) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
31 NOTICE of Filing Corrected Notice of Filing of Doc. #29 − Attachment to Letter Advisory Doc. #28 by Dana DeBeauvoir (Thomas, Sherine) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
32 ORDERED that within fifteen (15) days of this date any party herein mustfile a pleading to show cause why this case should remain open and specify any factual or legal issue surviving in this cause. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (dm) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
33 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Catherine Zahrn, Shannon Zahrn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Steed, Jason) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
34 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Greg Abbott, Rick Perry, re 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Shannon Zahrn, Plaintiff Catherine Zahrn and Motion to Dismiss as Moot (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Deane, William) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
35 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Catherine Zahrn, Shannon Zahrn, re 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Shannon Zahrn, Plaintiff Catherine Zahrn (Steed, Jason) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
36 REPLY In Support of Motion to Dismiss as Moot by Greg Abbott, Rick Perry. (Deane, William) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
37 SUPPLEMENT to 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Catherine Zahrn, Shannon Zahrn. (Steed, Jason) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
38 ORDER, setting hearing for all pending matters on 8/21/2015 02:00 PM before Judge Sam Sparks. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (td) (Entered: 08/11/2015)
39 RESPONSE to 37 Supplement by Greg Abbott, Rick Perry. (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 08/19/2015)
40 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sam Sparks: Hearing held on 8/21/2015 (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.). (Court Reporter Lily Reznik.)(dm) (Entered: 08/21/2015)
41 STIPULATION of Dismissal By and Among the Parties by Greg Abbott, Rick Perry. (Deane, William) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
42 ORDERED that the Stipulation of Dismissal [#41] is GRANTED in all respectsand this lawsuit is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (dm) (Entered: 09/23/2015)


[CONTENT] October 31, 2013 | two | Texas | the U.S. District Court | the Western District | Texas | 42 | 1983 ||| Texas | Texas ||| Texas | the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses | the United States |||  ||| Motion for Class Certification | February 28, 2014 ||| Texans ||| March 12, 2014 | detail.php?id=13395">De Leon v. Perry</a ||| September 10, 2014 | Sam Sparks | the Motion for Class Certification | De Leon ||| February 19, 2015 ||| the Supreme Court | June 26, 2015 ||| Court | the 14th Amendment ||| the Western District | Texas | Obergefell | July 20, 2015 | two days later ||| Sam Sparks | August 21, 2015 | September 4, 2015 ||| September 22, 2015 | Sam Sparks | Stipulation [SUMMARY] On October 31, 2013, two same-sex couples who wished to have a state-recognized marriage, filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court to declare that Texas laws prohibiting same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, to declare that Texas must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the ban on same-sex marriage, and to award the plaintiffs costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs claimed that the Texas laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violated their rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution. They further claimed that the ban interfered with their ability to be recognized as a family and obstructed the social and administrative benefits of marriage.

The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification on February 28, 2014. They wished to form a Plaintiff Class consisting of all Texans who -- though they met all other necessary qualifications -- were denied the right to marry a member of the same sex. On March 12, 2014, the defendants filed a Motion to Stay Case pending an interlocutory appeal in <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=13395">De Leon v. Perry</a>.

On September 10, 2014, Judge Sam Sparks dismissed the Motion for Class Certification and granted the Motion to Stay the Case pending the interlocutory appeal in <i>De Leon v. Perry</i>. The stay was lifted and action on the case began again on February 19, 2015.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled on a different case challenging a same-sex marriage ban, <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12787">Obergefell v Hodges</a>, on June 26, 2015. The Court held in this case that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the 14th Amendment, therefore a state cannot ban same-sex marriage.

Back in the Western District of Texas, this ruling in Obergefell led the plaintiff to file a Motion for Summary Judgment on July 20, 2015 and the defendant to file a Motion to Dismiss as Moot two days later. Judge Sam Sparks held a hearing on August 21, 2015 to hear all of these matters pending in the case, but a Stipulation of Dismissal by and among the parties was filed on September 4, 2015. 

On September 22, 2015 Judge Sam Sparks granted the Stipulation and dismissed the case with prejudice.