Скачать или смотреть Varnum v. Brien Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Varnum v. Brien | 763 N.W.2d 862 (2009)

The Equal Protection Clause, and state-law equivalents, protect disadvantaged groups against discriminatory laws and policies. When analyzing whether a law violates the Equal Protection Clause, a court first determines if the law classifies similarly situated people differently and then applies the appropriate level of scrutiny. In Varnum versus Brien, the Iowa Supreme Court considered what level of scrutiny should be applied to a law prohibiting same-sex marriage.

In 1998, the Iowa legislature amended its marriage statute to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Following the amendment, six same-sex couples, including Katherine Varnum and Patricia Hyde, asked the Polk County Recorder in Des Moines to issue marriage licenses to them. However, based on the law, the recorder refused to issue the licenses.

Subsequently, the twelve individuals who were affected brought a civil rights action against Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien in state district court. Specifically, the individuals claimed that the statute banning same-sex marriage violated their liberty and equality rights under the Iowa Constitution and that the law discriminated against them on the basis of their sexual orientation.

In response, Polk County, on behalf of Brien, argued that the law was constitutional and offered five reasons for its enactment. First, it claimed that the law promoted procreation; second, it claimed that the law supported child-rearing; third, it claimed that the law promoted stability in raising a child; fourth, it claimed that the law helped conserve state resources; and fifth, it claimed that the law promoted the traditional notion of marriage.

Following discovery, Varnum and others filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in their favor as a matter of law. The district court granted the motion, concluding that the statute was unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Iowa Constitution. Polk County then appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/varnum-...

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/varnum-...

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom  
Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom  
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries