Civil and Human Rights

Tanco v. Haslam

At issue in Tanco v. Haslam was the constitutionality of Tennessee’s discriminatory marriage laws.

Case Summary

Three same-sex couples validly married outside the state challenged Tennessee laws that prohibited the state from recognizing their marriages and that excluded them from the benefits of marriage available to married opposite-sex couples. On March 14, 2014, District Court Judge Aleta A. Trauger ruled that Tennessee must recognize the plaintiffs’ marriages, holding that the state’s discriminatory marriage laws violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and predicted in her opinion that “proscriptions against same-sex marriage will soon become a footnote in the annals of American history.” The state appealed Judge Trauger’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which stayed that ruling pending appeal.

On June 16, 2014, Constitutional Accountability Center and the Cato Institute jointly filed a friend-of–the-court brief in Tanco, urging the court of appeals to uphold the lower court’s decision. Our brief demonstrated 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 demonstrated, the Amendment’s sweeping guarantee of equality unambiguously applied to the plaintiffs in Tanco, and prohibited the discriminatory marriage laws at issue in this case.

Tanco was one of three cases before the Sixth Circuit involving marriage equality in which CAC filed an amicus curiae brief. The others were Bourke v. Beshear and DeBoer v. Snyder. On November 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit handed down an opinion authored by Judge Jeffrey Sutton (and joined by Judge Deborah Cook) reversing the rulings of the courts below; Judge Martha Daughtrey dissented. With this decision, the Sixth Circuit became the first federal court of appeals since United States v. Windsor to uphold state laws denying marriage equality to same-sex couples and created a split among the circuit courts of appeals. Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court on November 14th, which was granted on January 16, 2015. In Tanco – and its companion cases Obergefell v. Hodges, DeBoer, and Bourke – the Supreme Court will resolve two questions, whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license the marriages of same-sex couples, and whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples legally entered into in other states.

On March 6, 2015, CAC filed an amicus curiae brief in the consolidated cases, urging the Supreme Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit’s ruling. For more information about the consolidated cases and CAC’s involvement, please visit our Supreme Court case page for Obergefell, et al.

Case Timeline

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 4, 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.