You are here

Current Cases

Bostic v. Schaefer involves a federal-court challenge to discriminatory marriage laws in Virginia.  Thomas Bostic and three other individuals challenged Virginia’s laws, which prohibit the state from recognizing as a marriage any union other than that between a man and a woman.

Bourke v. Beshear is a federal-court challenge to discriminatory marriage laws in Kentucky.  Four same-sex couples validly married outside the state have challenged Kentucky laws that prohibit the state from recognizing their marriages and that exclude them from the benefits of marriage available to married opposite-sex couples.  

Coleman-Bey v. Tollefson is a case involving the proper interpretation of the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a provision that implicates the Constitution’s guarantee of meaningful access to the courts.

DeBoer v. Snyder is a federal-court challenge to Michigan laws that prohibit the state from recognizing as a marriage any union other than that between a man and a woman.  

Halbig v. Sebelius involves a major challenge to a key component of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), a landmark law dedicated to achieving the single goal of widespread, affordable health care.  

King v. Sebelius involves a challenge to a key component of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), a landmark law dedicated to achieving widespread, affordable health care.

Kitchen v. Herbert and Bishop v. Smith involve federal-court challenges to discriminatory marriage laws in Utah and Oklahoma.  On June 25, 2014, the Tenth Circuit ruled in Kitchen, upholding the decision of the district court striking down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage.  Bishop is still pending.

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius -- consolidated for Supreme Court review -- raise the question of whether for-profit, secular corporations can deny their employees coverage for contraceptives in their group health insurance plans, a requirement under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Plaintiffs Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood argue that for-profit, secular corporations are entitled to protection under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and/or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and that the ACA’s requirements violate the corporations’ free exercise rights.  They also argue that the ACA’s requirements violate the free exercise rights of the corporations’ individual owners.

At issue in Tanco v. Haslam is the constitutionality of Tennessee’s discriminatory marriage laws.  Three same-sex couples validly married outside the state are challenging Tennessee laws that prohibit the state from recognizing their marriages and that exclude them from the benefits of marriage available to married opposite-sex couples.