Civil and Human Rights

Kitchen v. Herbert and Bishop v. Smith

Kitchen v. Herbert and Bishop v. Smith are federal-court challenges to discriminatory marriage laws in Utah and Oklahoma, respectively.

Case Summary

In December 2013, the district court in Kitchen applied the Supreme Court’s June 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, which struck down part of the federal “Defense of Marriage Act,” and ruled that Utah’s prohibition of same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.  The state appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On January 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the district court’s order pending the appellate court’s decision.

Similarly, on January 14, 2014, a district court in Oklahoma declared that state’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.  Oklahoma appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit.

On March 4, 2014, Constitutional Accountability Center and the Cato Institute jointly filed a friend of the court brief with the Tenth Circuit in Kitchen and Bishop, urging the court of appeals to uphold the lower courts’ decisions.  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 also 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 Kitchen and Bishop, and prohibits discriminatory marriage laws.

The same three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit heard argument in Kitchen on April 10, 2014, and in Bishop on April 17, 2014.

On June 25, 2014, the Tenth Circuit issued its decision in Kitchen, affirming the lower court’s ruling, as we had urged in our brief.  The panel’s 2-1 decision, which marked the first time a federal appellate court has ruled on same-sex marriage since the Supreme Court’s decision in Windsor, declared that the Fourteenth Amendment “extends the guarantees of due process and equal protection to every person in every State of the Union,” and held that Utah’s discriminatory marriage laws violate the due process and equal protection rights of gay men and lesbians.

On July 18, 2014, the court issued a similar ruling in Bishop, upholding the lower court’s decision, and noting that its “merits disposition [in Bishop] is governed by our ruling in Kitchen v. Herbert.”

On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, thus allowing the 10th 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

  • March 4, 2014

    CAC co-files amicus brief with CATO Institute in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit

    10th Circuit Amicus Brief

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
May 17, 2021

RELEASE: Supreme Court: Victory for Fourth Amendment in Caniglia

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court this morning issued a ruling in Caniglia v. Strom, holding that the Fourth Amendment does...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Civil and Human Rights
May 5, 2021

What the Constitution Promises Asian Americans

Mass shootings and frequent attacks have brought violence against Asian Americans to the forefront of...
By: Surjeet Ahluwalia, Elizabeth B. Wydra
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Cole v. Wake County Board of Education

In Cole v. Wake County Board of Education, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether an individual challenging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act must show that the discrimination...
Civil and Human Rights
March 23, 2021

OP-ED: In wake of Floyd, Taylor killings, should police have power to enter your home without a warrant?

USA Today
A nod from the Supreme Court in case that would give police right to search...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
March 29, 2021

#PurpleChairChat Episode 13: When Women Speak: Feminist Rhetoric and the Law

RBG shifted the rhetorical boundaries of jurisprudence on a wide range of important issues from equal protection to reproductive rights. CAC’s President Elizabeth...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Professor Katie Gibson
Civil and Human Rights
March 24, 2021

CAC Alert: Caniglia v. Strom

SCOTUS is considering whether the “community caretaking” exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement should extend...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen