Civil and Human Rights

Robicheaux v. Caldwell

Robicheaux v. Caldwell was a federal-court challenge to discriminatory marriage laws in Louisiana that prohibited same-sex couples from marrying.

Case Summary

On September 3, 2014, District Judge Martin Feldman of the Eastern District of Louisiana became the first federal judge to uphold a state’s discriminatory ban on same-sex marriage following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor. In his opinion, Judge Feldman justified denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry by asserting that Louisiana “has a legitimate interest . . . [in] addressing the meaning of marriage through the democratic process,” adding that “fundamental social change, in this instance, is better cultivated through democratic consensus.” Following Judge Feldman’s order, the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

On October 24, 2014, Constitutional Accountability Center and the Cato Institute jointly filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Robicheaux, urging the court of appeals to overturn Judge Feldman’s ruling. Our brief demonstrated that in denying same-sex couples the right to marry and empowering the people of Louisiana to impose a badge of inferiority on those couples, Judge Feldman “misapprehended the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection . . . and disregarded vital principles of constitutional supremacy.” As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, “[states] cannot use the democratic process to write inequality into law or deny to minorities core aspects of liberty.” Contrary to Judge Feldman’s opinion, there is simply no “will of the majority” exception to the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of individual liberty against state infringement and guarantee of equality under the law.

On November 20, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment with the Supreme Court, requesting that the Court hear this case and address the constitutionality of the Louisiana ban on same-sex marriage before the Fifth Circuit ruled. The Supreme Court denied the petition on January 12, 2015. A few days later, on January 16, the Supreme Court agreed in Obergefell v. Hodges to review the constitutionality of the laws of Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky denying gay men and lesbians the freedom to marry.

On June 26, 2015, in an historic 5-4 ruling authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held in Obergefell that the Fourteenth Amendment requires marriage equality and that all states must allow same-sex couples to marry as well as recognize same-sex marriages entered into out-of-state. On June 29, the Fifth Circuit asked the parties in Robicheaux to file letter briefs addressing the appropriate disposition of the case in light of the Supreme Court’s controlling ruling in Obergefell. In those submissions, both sides agreed that, in light of Obergefell, Judge Feldman’s ruling upholding Louisiana’s discriminatory marriage laws must be reversed. On July 1, the Fifth Circuit reversed Judge Feldman’s ruling and remanded the case to the District Court for entry of judgment in favor of those who had challenged the discriminatory laws.

Case Timeline

  • October 24, 2014

    CAC co-files amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with CATO Institute

    5th Circuit Amicus Brief

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2024

Podcast (We the People): Can Tennessee Ban Medical Transitions for Transgender Minors?

National Constitution Center
A Tennessee law prohibits transgender minors from receiving gender transition surgery and hormone therapy. Professor Kurt...
Civil and Human Rights
December 4, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court Should Not Turn Equal Protection Clause on its Head in Case about Medical Care for Transgender Adolescents

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in United States...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District

In Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether lost educational opportunities are compensable under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Skrmetti

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender adolescents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Civil and Human Rights
July 31, 2024

Supreme Court Allows Cities to Punish Homelessness

The Regulatory Review
At the end of its 2023-24 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several divided decisions...
By: Brian R. Frazelle