Introduction

In the landmark case of Bishop and Baldwin, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Sally Howe Smith, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit addressed the constitutionality of Oklahoma's state constitutional prohibition on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The plaintiffs, Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin, alongside Susan G. Barton and Gay E. Phillips, challenged the statute known as State Question 711 (SQ 711), which expressly defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman and refuses to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

This case not only reaffirms the federal judiciary's stance on the unconstitutionality of same-sex marriage bans but also elucidates critical legal doctrines surrounding standing and the "law of the case" doctrine. The decision has broader implications for similar cases across other jurisdictions, signaling a robust judicial opposition to state-level restrictions on marriage equality.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, declaring Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution. The court held that plaintiffs had the standing to challenge the ban despite not contesting the underlying statutory provisions, relying instead on the constitutional amendment SQ 711. Furthermore, the court applied the "law of the case" doctrine, referencing its prior decision in Kitchen v. Herbert, which similarly invalidated an anti-same-sex marriage statute.

Key findings include:

• Affirmation that the plaintiffs possess standing to challenge the constitutional prohibition.
• Application of strict scrutiny, under which Oklahoma's justifications for the ban failed to meet the narrow tailoring requirement.
• Dismissal of challenges to the non-recognition portion of SQ 711 due to lack of standing.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively cites several critical precedents that shaped its reasoning:

• Kitchen v. Herbert (10th Cir. 2014): A companion case where the court invalidated Utah's same-sex marriage ban.
• FENT v. HENRY (Okla. 2011): Established that a constitutional amendment supersedes existing statutes on the same subject matter.
• ROMER v. EVANS (517 U.S. 620, 1996): Supreme Court case that struck down Colorado's Amendment 2, which prevented protected status based on sexual orientation.
• United States v. Windsor (133 S.Ct. 2675, 2013): Supreme Court decision that struck down key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
• Nebi v. Oklahoma (Federal Practice & Procedure): Guidelines on the law of the case doctrine.

These precedents collectively underscore the judiciary's evolving stance on same-sex marriage, emphasizing protections under the Constitution over state-imposed restrictions.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning is anchored in several core principles:

• Standing: The plaintiffs demonstrated a concrete and particularized injury—denial of the ability to marry same-sex partners—which is redressable by the court's injunction against enforcing SQ 711.
• Supremacy of Constitutional Provisions: Per FENT v. HENRY, the constitutional amendment SQ 711 replaces any existing statutes on same-sex marriage, making it the operative law that the injunction targets.
• Strict Scrutiny: The court applied strict scrutiny, the highest standard of review, to evaluate whether Oklahoma's justifications for the ban served a compelling state interest and were narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The court found that Oklahoma failed to meet both prongs.
• Law of the Case Doctrine: The dismissal of the appellants' cross-appeals regarding standing was governed by the "law of the case" doctrine, which prevents re-litigation of issues already settled unless new evidence emerges.

By adhering to these principles, the court methodically dismantled Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications:

• National Trend: Affirming the unconstitutionality of same-sex marriage bans across multiple states strengthens the momentum leading towards nationwide marriage equality.
• Judicial Consistency: By referencing Kitchen v. Herbert, the court maintains consistency within the Tenth Circuit, fostering uniformity in rulings related to marriage equality.
• Standing Doctrine: The decision clarifies that challengers do not need to contest both constitutional and statutory provisions if the constitutional amendment encompasses the statutory prohibitions.
• Precedential Value: Although unpublished, decisions like Bishop I influence future litigation via the "law of the case" doctrine, guiding plaintiffs in structuring their challenges effectively.

Ultimately, this judgment propels the legal landscape towards dismantling institutionalized discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Standing

Standing is a fundamental legal concept requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate that they have suffered a concrete and particularized injury, that the injury is traceable to the defendant's actions, and that a favorable court decision would likely redress the injury. In this case, the plaintiffs showed that Oklahoma's ban directly harmed them by denying the right to marry their partners, satisfying the requirements for standing.

Law of the Case Doctrine

The Law of the Case doctrine prevents courts from reconsidering legal issues that have already been decided in the same litigation, barring exceptional circumstances like new evidence. Here, the court applied this doctrine to uphold the prior ruling that the original appellants lacked standing, unless new evidence presented would alter that determination.

Strict Scrutiny

Strict Scrutiny is the highest standard of judicial review used to evaluate laws that infringe upon fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications (e.g., race, religion). Under this standard, the law must serve a compelling state interest and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Oklahoma's marriage ban did not satisfy these stringent requirements.

Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit's decision in Bishop and Baldwin v. Smith unequivocally dismantles Oklahoma's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, reinforcing the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional protections against state-level discrimination. By meticulously applying established legal doctrines and referencing pivotal precedents, the court not only affirms the unconstitutionality of discriminatory marriage bans but also clarifies essential aspects of standing and procedural doctrine. This judgment serves as a pivotal reference point for ongoing and future litigation aimed at achieving full marriage equality across all states.