Jump to content

Appling v. Walker: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
(32 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2014}}
⚫
{{italic title}}
{{Infobox court case
'''''Appling v Doyle''''' is a lawsuit seeking to have Wisconsin's [[domestic partnership]] registry declared unconstitutional. The action began as a petition for original action before the [[Wisconsin Supreme Court]] asking the Court for a declaration that the registry is unconstitutional and for a permanent injunction against the registry, which began registering couples on August 3, 2009. On November 4, 2009, the Court declined to take the case.<ref name="Rejection">[http://www.wrn.com/2009/11/supreme-court-rejects-registry-challenge/ "Domestic partnership registry lawsuit rejected", Green Bay Press Gazette] Accessed 8 November 2009.</ref> Petitioners then refiled in state district court and the court ruled in June 2011 that the registry is constitutional.
|name = Appling v. Walker
|court = [[Wisconsin Supreme Court]]
|image = Seal of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.svg
|imagesize =
|imagelink =
|imagealt = Seal of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin
|caption =
|full name = Julaine K. Appling, Jo Egelhoff, Jaren E. Hiller, Richard Kessenich and Edmund L. Webster, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners v. Scott Walker, Kitty Rhoades and Oskar Anderson, Defendants-Respondents, Fair Wisconsin, Inc., Glenn Carlson, Michael Childers, Crystal Hyslop, Janice Czyscon, Kathy Flores, Ann Kendzierski, David Kopitzke, Paul Klawiter, Chad Wege and Andrew Topcik (Wege), Intervening Defendants-Respondents
|date decided = {{start date|2014|07|31|df=}}
|citations = 2014 WI 96; 358 Wis. 2d 132; 853 [[N.W.2d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/inwico20140731l60 888]
|ECLI =
|transcripts =
|judges = [[N. Patrick Crooks]], [[Shirley S. Abrahamson]], [[Patience D. Roggensack]]
|number of judges = 7
|decision by = Crooks
|concurring = Abrahamson, Roggensack
|prior actions =
|appealed from = ''Appling v. Doyle'', 2013 WI App 3, 345 Wis. 2d 762, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/inwico20121221f28 826 N.W.2d 666]
|appealed to =
|subsequent actions =
|related actions =
|opinions =
|keywords = <!-- {{hlist | }} -->
⚫
|italic title =
}}
'''''Appling v. Walker''''' was a state court lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Wisconsin's [[domestic partnership]] registry. The action began as a petition for original action before the [[Wisconsin Supreme Court]] asking the Court for a declaration that the registry is unconstitutional and for a permanent injunction against the registry, which began registering couples on August 3, 2009. On November 4, 2009, the Court declined to take the case. Petitioners then refiled in state circuit court and the court ruled in June 2011 that the registry is constitutional. That decision was affirmed by a state appeals court in December 2012,<ref name=WiscApp>''Appling v. Doyle'', 2013 WI App 3, 345 Wis. 2d 762, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/inwico20121221f28 826 N.W.2d 666].</ref> and by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in July 2014.<ref name=WiscSupreme>''Appling v. Walker'', 2014 WI 96, 358 Wis. 2d 132, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/inwico20140731l60 853 N.W.2d 888].</ref>


==History==
==History==
On June 29, 2009, Wisconsin Governor [[Jim Doyle]] signed the same-sex domestic partnership registry into law as a provision of the 2010-11 state budget.<ref name="State Budget">[http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/090629_2009_11_Veto_Message.pdf Gov. Doyle's Veto Message] Accessed 23 July 2009.</ref> The registry creates a legal [[recognition of same-sex unions in Wisconsin]], enumerating 43 rights and benefits for registered couples.
On June 29, 2009, Wisconsin Governor [[Jim Doyle]] signed the same-sex domestic partnership registry into law as a provision of the 2010-11 state budget.<ref name="State Budget">[http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/090629_2009_11_Veto_Message.pdf Gov. Doyle's Veto Message] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101206161728/http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/090629_2009_11_Veto_Message.pdf |date=December 6, 2010 }} Accessed July 23, 2009.</ref> The registry created a legal [[recognition of same-sex unions in Wisconsin]], enumerating 43 rights and benefits for registered couples.


On July 23, 2009, Julaine Appling, President of Wisconsin Family Action, through attorneys at the [[Alliance Defense Fund]] (ADF) and ADF allied attorneys in Wisconsin, filed an original action with the Wisconsin Supreme Court asking the Court to declare the same-sex domestic partnership registry unconstitutional and permanently enjoin the defendants from the enactment of the registry. Wisconsin Attorney General [[J. B. Van Hollen]] refused to defend the suit, claiming that the registry violates the state constitution. Doyle hired outside counsel to defend it.<ref name = withdraw>[http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/121956273.html Walker seeks to stop defense of state's domestic partner registry]</ref>
On July 23, 2009, Julaine Appling, President of Wisconsin Family Action, through attorneys at the [[Alliance Defense Fund]] (ADF) and ADF-allied attorneys in Wisconsin, filed an original action with the Wisconsin Supreme Court asking it to declare the same-sex domestic partnership registry unconstitutional and permanently enjoin the defendants from the enactment of the registry. Wisconsin Attorney General [[J. B. Van Hollen]] refused to defend the suit, then titled ''Appling v. Doyle'', agreeing that the registry violated the state constitution. Doyle hired outside counsel to defend it.<ref name = withdraw>{{cite web|last=Marley |first=Patrick |url=http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/121956273.html |title=Walker seeks to stop defense of state's domestic partner registry |publisher=Jsonline.com |date=May 16, 2011 |access-date=December 4, 2013}}</ref>


The petition asserts that the registry violates Wisconsin’s Marriage Protection Amendment, ratified by Wisconsin voters on November 7, 2006 by 59.4% to 41.6%.<ref name="WI Marriage Amendment">[http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/29199949.html WI Passes Marriage Amendment] Accessed 23 July 2009.</ref> The amendment states:
The petition asserted that the registry violates Wisconsin's [[Wisconsin Referendum 1|Marriage Protection Amendment]], ratified by Wisconsin voters on November 7, 2006.<ref name="WI Marriage Amendment">[http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/29199949.html WI Passes Marriage Amendment] Accessed July 23, 2009.</ref> The amendment states:
⚫
{{quote|Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state. Wisconsin Constitution; Article XIII, Section 13.}}


⚫
On September 22, 2009, Fair Wisconsin and its members, represented by [[Lambda Legal]], filed a motion to intervene in the case.<ref name="Fair Wisconsin Files">[http://www.winonadailynews.com/news/state-and-regional/wi/article_101a6752-a730-11de-b6b9-001cc4c002e0.html Group seeks to defend domestic partner law] Accessed September 22, 2009.</ref> Five same-sex Wisconsin couples, who have registered as domestic partners and are being represented by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]], also filed a motion to intervene.<ref name="Couples File">[https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/41090prs20090922.html Domestic Partners Seek To Intervene In Lawsuit Challenging Wisconsin's Domestic Partner Law] Accessed September 22, 2009.</ref> In a motion filed the same day, the ACLU asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to deny the petitioners' request for the court to hear the case directly and to send the case to a trial court to develop a factual record.<ref name="Couples File" /> On November 4, the Supreme Court denied the petition.<ref name="Rejection">[http://www.wrn.com/2009/11/supreme-court-rejects-registry-challenge/ "Domestic partnership registry lawsuit rejected", Green Bay Press Gazette] Accessed November 8, 2009.</ref> Petitioners refiled the lawsuit in Dane County District Court in 2010.<ref name = withdraw />
<blockquote>
⚫
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state. Wisconsin Constitution; Article XIII, Section 13.
</blockquote>


⚫
In 2011, [[Scott Walker (politician)|Scott Walker]] became the Governor of Wisconsin, and in March, he fired the lawyer representing the state. On May 13, Walker petitioned the trial court to allow the state to withdraw from the case, citing his belief that the registry is unconstitutional.<ref name = withdraw />
⚫
On September 22, 2009, Fair Wisconsin and its members, represented by [[Lambda Legal]], filed a motion to intervene in the case.<ref name="Fair Wisconsin Files">[http://www.winonadailynews.com/news/state-and-regional/wi/article_101a6752-a730-11de-b6b9-001cc4c002e0.html Group seeks to defend domestic partner law] Accessed 22 September 2009.</ref> Five same-sex Wisconsin couples, who have registered as domestic partners and are being represented by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]], also filed a motion to intervene.<ref name="Couples File">[http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/41090prs20090922.html Domestic Partners Seek To Intervene In Lawsuit Challenging Wisconsin's Domestic Partner Law] Accessed 22 September 2009.</ref> In a motion filed the same day, the ACLU asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to deny the petitioners' request for the court to hear the case directly and to send the case to a trial court to develop a factual record.<ref name="Couples File" /> On November 4, the Supreme Court denied the petition. Petitioners refiled the lawsuit in Dane COunty District Court in 2010.<ref name = withdraw />

⚫
In 2011, [[Scott Walker (politician)|Scott Walker]] was inaugurated as the new Governor of Wisconsin. In March, Walker fired the lawyer representing the state. On May 13, Walker petitioned the trial court to allow the state to withdraw from the case, citing Walker's expressed belief that the registry is unconstitutional.<ref name = withdraw />


==Argument==
==Argument==
The petitioners claim:
The petitioners claimed:
⚫
{{quote|The form of domestic partnership created by the domestic partnership registry is prohibited by Art. XIII, sec. 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution by creating and requiring recognition of a legal status substantially similar to that of marriage...Such domestic partnerships are entered into by same-sex partners and are officially created and acknowledged in essentially the identical way that marriages are entered into by a man and woman and are officially created and acknowledged.}}
<blockquote>
⚫
The form of domestic partnership created by the domestic partnership registry is prohibited by Art. XIII, sec. 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution by creating and requiring recognition of a legal status substantially similar to that of marriage...Such domestic partnerships are entered into by same-sex partners and are officially created and acknowledged in essentially the identical way that marriages are entered into by a man and woman and are officially created and acknowledged.
</blockquote>


The petitioners believe the registry violates the Wisconsin Marriage Protection Amendment because it creates a new legal status for domestic partners. The requirements for obtaining a domestic partnership certificate are the same as those required for obtaining a marriage license with even the price for the certificate the same as for the marriage license.<ref name="Appling v. Doyle">[http://wisconsinfamilyaction.org/materials/ApplingvDoyle_Petition.pdf ''Appling v. Doyle'' Petition] Accessed 23 July 2009.</ref>
The petitioners believed the registry violated the Wisconsin Marriage Protection Amendment because it creates a new legal status for domestic partners. The requirements for obtaining a domestic partnership certificate are the same as those required for obtaining a marriage license. The price for a certificate is the same as for a marriage license.<ref name="Appling v. Doyle">[http://wisconsinfamilyaction.org/materials/ApplingvDoyle_Petition.pdf ''Appling v. Doyle'' Petition]{{dead link|date=October 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} Accessed July 23, 2009.</ref>


The petitioners asked the Court to accept the case as an original action before the Court (instead of working the case up from the trial court level), to declare the same-sex domestic partnership registry unconstitutional, and to stop the enactment of the same-sex domestic partnership registry.
The petitioners asked the Court for three things:
# to accept the case as an original action before the Court (instead of working the case up from the trial court level)
# to declare the same-sex domestic partnership registry unconstitutional
# to permanently enjoin the enactment of the same-sex domestic partnership registry.


==Parties==
==Involved parties==
===Petitioners===
===Petitioners===
The petitioners on the case are [[Wisconsin]] residents and taxpayers and members of the board of directors of Wisconsin Family Action.
The petitioners in the case are [[Wisconsin]] residents and taxpayers and members of the board of directors of Wisconsin Family Action.
* Julaine Appling, Wisconsin Family Action President
* Julaine Appling, Wisconsin Family Action President
* Jaren E. Hiller, Wisconsin Family Action board member
* Jaren E. Hiller, Wisconsin Family Action board member
Line 44: Line 62:
===Intervening defendants===
===Intervening defendants===
* Fair Wisconsin and its members
* Fair Wisconsin and its members
* Five same-sex Wisconsin couples who have registered as domestic partners since the law came into effect.
* Five same-sex Wisconsin couples who have registered as domestic partners since the law came into effect


===Legal representation===
===Legal representation===
Attorney Richard M. Esenberg, Michael D. Dean for the First Freedoms Foundation and attorneys Austin Nimocks and Brian Raum from the Alliance Defense Fund represent the Wisconsin Family Action board members on this case. Madison attorney Lester Pine defended the state until being fired by Walker in March 2011. Brian Hagedorn filed the petition on behalf of Walker to withdraw from the case. Christopher Clark represents Fair Wisconsin.
Attorney Richard M. Esenberg, Michael D. Dean for the First Freedoms Foundation and attorneys Austin Nimocks and Brian Raum from the Alliance Defense Fund represented the Wisconsin Family Action board members. Madison attorney Lester Pine defended the state until being dismissed by Walker in March 2011. Brian Hagedorn filed the petition on behalf of Walker to withdraw from the case. Christopher Clark represented Fair Wisconsin.

==Decisions==
⚫
June 20, 2011: Circuit court Judge Dan Moeser ruled that the domestic partnership registry did not violate the state constitution, finding that the state "does not recognize domestic partnership in a way that even remotely resembles how the state recognizes marriage".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wisconsin-gays-idUSTRE75K00A20110621 |title=Judge rules Wisconsin same sex registry is constitutional |publisher=Reuters.com |access-date=December 4, 2013}}</ref>

December 21, 2012: The District 4 Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Moeser's decision in a unanimous ruling.<ref name=WiscApp/><ref>{{cite web|last=Marley |first=Patrick |url=http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/wisconsin-court-upholds-domestic-partner-registry-39849ua-184423941.html |title=Wisconsin appeals court upholds domestic partner registry |publisher=Jsonline.com |date=December 21, 2012 |access-date=December 4, 2013}}</ref>

July 31, 2014: The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the registry is constitutional, citing statements made by proponents of the constitutional amendment at issue "that the Amendment simply would not preclude a mechanism for legislative grants of certain rights to same-sex couples".<ref name=WiscSupreme/><ref>{{cite news|last1=DeFour|first1=Matthew|title=High court unanimously upholds Wisconsin domestic partner registry |url=http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/high-court-upholds-wisconsin-domestic-partner-registry/article_b9972a64-4ff2-59fa-905a-1ffa32140b2a.html|access-date=July 31, 2014|work=Wisconsin State Journal|date=July 31, 2014}}</ref>


==Decision==
==See also ==
⚫
* [[LGBT rights in Wisconsin]]
⚫
On June 20, 2011, Dane County Judge Dan Moeser ruled that the domestic partnership registry does not violate the state constitution, finding that the state "does not recognize domestic partnership in a way that even remotely resembles how the state recognizes marriage".<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/21/us-wisconsin-gays-idUSTRE75K00A20110621 Judge rules Wisconsin same sex registry is constitutional]</ref>
⚫
* [[Domestic partnerships in Wisconsin]]


==References==
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Reflist|2}}


==External links==
==External links==
* {{caselaw source
⚫
* [http://wisconsinfamilyaction.org/materials/ApplingvDoyle_Petition.pdf WFA's Petition]
| case = ''Appling v. Walker'', 2014 WI 96, 358 Wis. 2d 132, 853 N.W.2d 888
⚫
* [http://wisconsinfamilyaction.org/Media/PR_072309.pdf WFA's Press Release]
| googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14432913058862404173
⚫
* Video of the [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paUrvAfujJg Appling talking about the legal challenge]
| justia =https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2014/2011ap001572.html
⚫
* [http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=165263 Fair Wisconsin Press Release]
| leagle =https://www.leagle.com/decision/inwico20140731l60
⚫
* [http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=165266 ACLU of Wisconsin Press Release]
}}
⚫
* [http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/41068res20090922.html Appling v. Doyle - Case Profile]
⚫
* [http://wisconsinfamilyaction.org/materials/ApplingvDoyle_Petition.pdf WFA's Petition]{{dead link|date=October 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
⚫
* [http://wisconsinfamilyaction.org/Media/PR_072309.pdf WFA's Press Release]{{dead link|date=October 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
⚫
* Video of the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paUrvAfujJg Appling talking about the legal challenge]
⚫
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110718073137/http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=165263 Fair Wisconsin Press Release]
⚫
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110718073153/http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=165266 ACLU of Wisconsin Press Release]
⚫
* [https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/41068res20090922.html Appling v. Doyle - Case Profile]


{{DEFAULTSORT:Appling V. Doyle}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Appling V. Doyle}}
[[Category:Legal history of Wisconsin]]
[[Category:Wisconsin state case law]]
[[Category:United States LGBT rights case law]]
[[Category:2014 in LGBTQ history]]
[[Category:Same-sex union case law]]
[[Category:LGBTQ history in Wisconsin]]
[[Category:2009 in LGBT history]]
[[Category:2014 in United States case law]]
[[Category:2010 in LGBT history]]
[[Category:2014 in Wisconsin]]
[[Category:2011 in LGBT history]]
[[Category:United States same-sex union case law]]
⚫
[[Category:LGBT in Wisconsin]]
[[Category:2011 in United States case law]]
⚫
[[Category:2011 in Wisconsin]]

Latest revision as of 19:47, 20 October 2024

Appling v. Walker
Seal of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
Full case name Julaine K. Appling, Jo Egelhoff, Jaren E. Hiller, Richard Kessenich and Edmund L. Webster, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners v. Scott Walker, Kitty Rhoades and Oskar Anderson, Defendants-Respondents, Fair Wisconsin, Inc., Glenn Carlson, Michael Childers, Crystal Hyslop, Janice Czyscon, Kathy Flores, Ann Kendzierski, David Kopitzke, Paul Klawiter, Chad Wege and Andrew Topcik (Wege), Intervening Defendants-Respondents
DecidedJuly 31, 2014 (2014-07-31)
Citation2014 WI 96; 358 Wis. 2d 132; 853 N.W.2d 888
Case history
Appealed fromAppling v. Doyle, 2013 WI App 3, 345 Wis. 2d 762, 826 N.W.2d 666
Court membership
Judges sittingN. Patrick Crooks, Shirley S. Abrahamson, Patience D. Roggensack
Case opinions
Decision byCrooks
ConcurrenceAbrahamson, Roggensack

Appling v. Walker was a state court lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Wisconsin's domestic partnership registry. The action began as a petition for original action before the Wisconsin Supreme Court asking the Court for a declaration that the registry is unconstitutional and for a permanent injunction against the registry, which began registering couples on August 3, 2009. On November 4, 2009, the Court declined to take the case. Petitioners then refiled in state circuit court and the court ruled in June 2011 that the registry is constitutional. That decision was affirmed by a state appeals court in December 2012,[1] and by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in July 2014.[2]

History

[edit]

On June 29, 2009, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle signed the same-sex domestic partnership registry into law as a provision of the 2010-11 state budget.[3] The registry created a legal recognition of same-sex unions in Wisconsin, enumerating 43 rights and benefits for registered couples.

On July 23, 2009, Julaine Appling, President of Wisconsin Family Action, through attorneys at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and ADF-allied attorneys in Wisconsin, filed an original action with the Wisconsin Supreme Court asking it to declare the same-sex domestic partnership registry unconstitutional and permanently enjoin the defendants from the enactment of the registry. Wisconsin Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen refused to defend the suit, then titled Appling v. Doyle, agreeing that the registry violated the state constitution. Doyle hired outside counsel to defend it.[4]

The petition asserted that the registry violates Wisconsin's Marriage Protection Amendment, ratified by Wisconsin voters on November 7, 2006.[5] The amendment states:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state. Wisconsin Constitution; Article XIII, Section 13.

On September 22, 2009, Fair Wisconsin and its members, represented by Lambda Legal, filed a motion to intervene in the case.[6] Five same-sex Wisconsin couples, who have registered as domestic partners and are being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, also filed a motion to intervene.[7] In a motion filed the same day, the ACLU asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to deny the petitioners' request for the court to hear the case directly and to send the case to a trial court to develop a factual record.[7] On November 4, the Supreme Court denied the petition.[8] Petitioners refiled the lawsuit in Dane County District Court in 2010.[4]

In 2011, Scott Walker became the Governor of Wisconsin, and in March, he fired the lawyer representing the state. On May 13, Walker petitioned the trial court to allow the state to withdraw from the case, citing his belief that the registry is unconstitutional.[4]

Argument

[edit]

The petitioners claimed:

The form of domestic partnership created by the domestic partnership registry is prohibited by Art. XIII, sec. 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution by creating and requiring recognition of a legal status substantially similar to that of marriage...Such domestic partnerships are entered into by same-sex partners and are officially created and acknowledged in essentially the identical way that marriages are entered into by a man and woman and are officially created and acknowledged.

The petitioners believed the registry violated the Wisconsin Marriage Protection Amendment because it creates a new legal status for domestic partners. The requirements for obtaining a domestic partnership certificate are the same as those required for obtaining a marriage license. The price for a certificate is the same as for a marriage license.[9]

The petitioners asked the Court to accept the case as an original action before the Court (instead of working the case up from the trial court level), to declare the same-sex domestic partnership registry unconstitutional, and to stop the enactment of the same-sex domestic partnership registry.

Parties

[edit]

Petitioners

[edit]

The petitioners in the case are Wisconsin residents and taxpayers and members of the board of directors of Wisconsin Family Action.

  • Julaine Appling, Wisconsin Family Action President
  • Jaren E. Hiller, Wisconsin Family Action board member
  • Edmund L. Webster, Wisconsin Family Action board member

Respondents

[edit]
  • Scott Walker, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Wisconsin
  • Karen Timberlake, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services
  • John Kiesow, in his official capacity as State Registrar of Vital Statistics

Intervening defendants

[edit]
  • Fair Wisconsin and its members
  • Five same-sex Wisconsin couples who have registered as domestic partners since the law came into effect
[edit]

Attorney Richard M. Esenberg, Michael D. Dean for the First Freedoms Foundation and attorneys Austin Nimocks and Brian Raum from the Alliance Defense Fund represented the Wisconsin Family Action board members. Madison attorney Lester Pine defended the state until being dismissed by Walker in March 2011. Brian Hagedorn filed the petition on behalf of Walker to withdraw from the case. Christopher Clark represented Fair Wisconsin.

Decisions

[edit]

June 20, 2011: Circuit court Judge Dan Moeser ruled that the domestic partnership registry did not violate the state constitution, finding that the state "does not recognize domestic partnership in a way that even remotely resembles how the state recognizes marriage".[10]

December 21, 2012: The District 4 Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Moeser's decision in a unanimous ruling.[1][11]

July 31, 2014: The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the registry is constitutional, citing statements made by proponents of the constitutional amendment at issue "that the Amendment simply would not preclude a mechanism for legislative grants of certain rights to same-sex couples".[2][12]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Appling v. Doyle, 2013 WI App 3, 345 Wis. 2d 762, 826 N.W.2d 666.
  2. ^ a b Appling v. Walker, 2014 WI 96, 358 Wis. 2d 132, 853 N.W.2d 888.
  3. ^ Gov. Doyle's Veto Message Archived December 6, 2010, at the Wayback Machine Accessed July 23, 2009.
  4. ^ a b c Marley, Patrick (May 16, 2011). "Walker seeks to stop defense of state's domestic partner registry". Jsonline.com. Retrieved December 4, 2013.
  5. ^ WI Passes Marriage Amendment Accessed July 23, 2009.
  6. ^ Group seeks to defend domestic partner law Accessed September 22, 2009.
  7. ^ a b Domestic Partners Seek To Intervene In Lawsuit Challenging Wisconsin's Domestic Partner Law Accessed September 22, 2009.
  8. ^ "Domestic partnership registry lawsuit rejected", Green Bay Press Gazette Accessed November 8, 2009.
  9. ^ Appling v. Doyle Petition[permanent dead link‍] Accessed July 23, 2009.
  10. ^ "Judge rules Wisconsin same sex registry is constitutional". Reuters.com. Retrieved December 4, 2013.
  11. ^ Marley, Patrick (December 21, 2012). "Wisconsin appeals court upholds domestic partner registry". Jsonline.com. Retrieved December 4, 2013.
  12. ^ DeFour, Matthew (July 31, 2014). "High court unanimously upholds Wisconsin domestic partner registry". Wisconsin State Journal. Retrieved July 31, 2014.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Appling_v._Walker&oldid=1252309428"