Civil and Human Rights

Bostic v. Schaefer

Bostic v. Schaefer is a federal-court challenge to discriminatory marriage laws in Virginia that prohibit same-sex marriage.

Case Summary

In February 2014, the district court ruled that these laws “significantly interfere with a fundamental right” and violate the plaintiffs’ rights to due process and equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The State Registrar of Vital Records and two local clerks filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Virginia’s Attorney General has refused to defend the state’s marriage prohibition, and filed a brief in the Fourth Circuit in support of the couples challenging it.

On April 18, 2014, Constitutional Accountability Center and the Cato Institute jointly filed a friend of the court brief in the Fourth 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 Bostic, and prohibits discriminatory marriage laws.

The Fourth Circuit heard oral argument in Bostic on May 13, 2014, and on July 29, 2014, affirmed the lower court’s ruling, as CAC had urged. The panel’s 2-1 decision declares that “denying same-sex couples [the choice to marry] prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance.” With its decision in Bostic, the Fourth Circuit became the second appellate court to rule that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, following the Tenth Circuit’s decisions in Kitchen v. Herbert and Bishop v. Smith.

On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, thus allowing the 4th 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
April 6, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
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.