Latta v. Otter

Brief Filed: 7/25/2014
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Year of Decision: 2014

Read full-text amicus briefopens in new window (PDF, 106KB)

At issue is a federal challenge to Idaho's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and corresponding statutes, as well as state recognition of out-of-state marriages.

Sexual Orientation (discrimination; same sex-marriage)

Four same-sex couples filed a federal lawsuit challenging Idaho’s laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying and refusing to respect the legal marriages of same-sex couples who married in other states. 

The case was heard before Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale on May 5, 2014. On May 13, she issued her ruling granting the plaintiff same-sex couples' motion for summary judgment, declaring Idaho marriage laws that ban same-sex marriage unconstitutional, and enjoining state officials from enforcing any law to the extent it restricts same-sex couples from marrying or from having their marriages recognized. The defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit and a three-judge panel issued a temporary stay of Dale's injunction.

APA’s amicus briefs present an accurate and comprehensive summary of the current state of scientific and professional knowledge concerning sexual orientation, same-sex relationships, and the children of same-sex couples. Drawing on the cumulative scientific knowledge in these areas, APA makes four main arguments 1) that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality, is generally not chosen, and is highly resistant to change; 2) that same-sex relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects; and, that excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage denies them social, psychological and health benefits; 3) that there is no scientific basis for concluding that same-sex couples are not fit parents or that children of same-sex couples are any less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted than children of heterosexual couples; and 4) that denying same-sex couples access to marriage is an instance of stigma.

On Oct. 7, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of marriage equality. The opinion relied on the APA’s brief as follows:

As one of the Nevada plaintiffs’ experts testified, there is no empirical support for the idea that legalizing same-sex marriage would harm — or indeed, affect — opposite-sex marriages or relationships. That expert presented data from Massachusetts, a state which has permitted same-sex marriage since 2004, showing no decrease in marriage rates or increase in divorce rates in the past decade. See Amicus Brief of Massachusetts et al. 23–27; see also Amicus Brief of American Psychological Association et al. 8–13. It would seem that allowing couples who want to marry so badly that they have endured years of litigation to win the right to do so would reaffirm the state’s endorsement, without reservation, of spousal and parental commitment. From which aspect of same-sex marriages, then, will opposite-sex couples intuit the destructive message defendants fear? Defendants offer only unpersuasive suggestions.