Civil and Human Rights

Baskin v. Bogan

Baskin v. Bogan was a federal-court challenge to discriminatory marriage laws in Indiana that prohibit same-sex marriage.

Case Summary

In June 2014, the district court ruled that these laws violate the plaintiffs’ rights to due process and equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that “[f]undamental rights, once recognized, cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights.”  Indiana filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

On August 5, 2014, Constitutional Accountability Center and the Cato Institute jointly filed a friend of the court brief in the Seventh Circuit, urging the court of appeals to uphold the lower court’s decision.  Our brief demonstrates that the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee equality under the law and require equality of rights for all classes of persons and groups, including gay men and lesbians.  The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment recognized the right to marry as a basic civil right of all persons.  As our brief demonstrates, the Amendment’s sweeping guarantee of equality unambiguously applies to the plaintiffs in Baskin, and prohibits discriminatory marriage laws.  Baskin was consolidated with another Seventh Circuit case, Wolf v. Walker (a federal-court challenge to discriminatory marriage laws in Wisconsin), for purposes of oral argument and disposition.

On August 26, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit heard oral argument in Baskin and Wolf, and, only nine days later, on September 4, unanimously affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, agreeing that the discriminatory marriage laws of Indiana and Wisconsin violate the Fourteenth Amendment.  Judge Richard Posner, author of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion, criticized the states’ various arguments as “so full of holes that [they] cannot be taken seriously.”  Sexual orientation, he wrote, is an “immutable characteristic,” and thus discrimination against same-sex couples is constitutionally suspect.

On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, thus allowing the 7th Circuit’s decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage to stand, clearing the way for marriage equality in all of the states within that Circuit.

Case Timeline

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional. 
Civil and Human Rights
March 14, 2025

Equality and Protection: The Forgotten Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment

102 Denv. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025)
Civil and Human Rights
North Dakota Supreme Court

Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley

In Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley, the North Dakota Supreme Court is considering whether North Dakota’s abortion ban violates the state constitution.