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
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
July 8, 2026

Ruling Away From America’s Second Founding

Slate
CAC’s David H. Gans wrote about the Roberts Court for Slate magazine. Read more in Slate.
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
July 1, 2026

Furthering Inclusive Constitutionalism

Jotwell
Professor Allison Brownell Tirres reviewed recent scholarship on the Black Conventions of Reconstruction by CAC’s David H....
Civil and Human Rights
June 30, 2026

CAC Release: Roberts Court’s Conservative Supermajority Hollows Out Equal Protection Guarantee

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia...
By: David H. Gans, Praveen Fernandes, Joshua Blecher-Cohen
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC

In Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Constitution permits the Department of Labor to use administrative proceedings to impose civil monetary penalties on employers who violate...