article: On February 28, 2014, a same-sex couple married outside of the state of Florida filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against the state of Florida. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983, declaratory judgment, and costs. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed the state ban against same-sex marriage violated their rights under the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment (right to associate), and violated the Supremacy Clause and the Establishment Clause. This case was captioned as <i>Brenner v. Scott</i>. On March 12, 2014, several same-sex couples married outside of the state of Florida, represented by the ACLU and private counsel, filed essentially an identical lawsuit, also in the Northern District of Florida. This case was captioned as <i>Grimsley v. Scott</i>. On April 21, 2014, the Court (Judge Robert L. Hinkle), upon a joint motion, consolidated the two cases for case management purposes. Both cases are addressed in this summary and Clearinghouse case record. On April 24, 2014, Judge Hinkle denied permission to Florida Family Action, a "cultural action organization" that opposes same-sex marriage, to intervene as a party. FFA was permitted, however, to file amicus briefs. 298 F.R.D. 689 (N.D. Fla. 2014). On August 21, 2014, Judge Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction, finding Florida's ban on same-sex marriage a violation of plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses (using strict scrutiny in the analysis). The court stayed the preliminary injunction in these cases until ninety-one days after similar stays were denied or lifted in three cases pending in the Fourth and Tenth Circuit Courts—<i>Bostic v. Schaefer</i>, 2014 WL 3702493 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014); <i>Bishop v. Smith</i>, 2014 WL 3537847 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014); and <i>Kitchen v. Herbert</i>, 2014 WL 2868044 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014). Brenner v. Scott, -- F.Supp.2d --, 2014 WL 4113100 (N.D. Fla. 2014). On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held, in <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12787">Obergefell v. Hodges</a>, that the right to marry was fundamental. In the opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that it demeans gay and lesbian couples to deprive them of access to marriage. The Fourteenth Amendment thus did not allow states to ban same-sex marriage. Kennedy was joined without further writing by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor. Each of the four dissenters—Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—wrote a dissent. On August 4, 2015, the <i>Grimsley</i> plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. The defendants opposed, arguing that the court should not grant summary judgment but rather dismiss the case as moot. Meanwhile, the defendants moved for voluntarily dismissal of the appeal at the Eleventh Circuit. On October 19, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit granted the voluntary dismissal transferred consideration of attorney's fees to the district court. On January 12, 2016, the issue of appellate's attorney's fees was also transferred to the district court for consideration. On March 2, 2016, the <i>Brenner</i> plaintiffs filed a separate motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs asked that the court not dismiss this case as moot because the same-sex marriage ban was not repealed and Florida's Surgeon General persisted in refusing to issue birth certificates to the children of same-sex couples. On March 30, 2016, Judge Hinkle granted the plaintiffs summary judgment and declared the Florida Constitution, Article I, § 27 as well as Florida Statutes § 741.212 and §741.04(1) as unconstitutional. Judge Hinkle also issued an injunction to prohibit the defendants from enforcing or applying the Florida provisions that were declared unconstitutional. The court granted and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot; it dismissed the claims against the Clerk of Court as moot but not the claims against the Surgeon General and Secretary. Subsequently, the court entered judgment for the plaintiffs against the Secretary of the Department of Management Services and the Surgeon General, but the court dismissed without prejudice the claims against all other defendants. On April 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs, which the court granted and determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to a fee award. The parties, however, then filed a joint notice of settlement on attorney’s fees and costs. (The amount that the parties settled on is not publicly available.) On June 16, 2016, the plaintiffs officially withdrew their fee petition and notified the court that they received their settlement funds. This case is now closed.
summary: In 2014, several same-sex couples who were married outside the state of Florida but who wanted their marriages recognized in the state of Florida sued in the Northern District of Florida to have the state's ban on same-sex marriage declared unconstitutional. In August of 2014, Judge Robert Hinkle entered a preliminary injunction in the plaintiffs' favor, but immediately stayed it, pending resolution of similar cases in the 4th and 10th Circuits. After the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage across the United States, the defendant's appeal was dismissed. In March 2016, the plaintiffs filed a separate motion for summary judgment which the court granted and declared Florida's Constitution and Statutes that banned same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. It also entered judgment for the plaintiffs against the Secretary and Surgeon General and dismissed without prejudice the claims against all other defendants. The parties settled the attorney's fees and costs in June 2016 and the case closed.