Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffstatutemotionsummary judgmentdue processmotion for summary judgment
plaintiffstatutemotionsummary judgmentdue processmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Ammarell v. France, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2018 WL 2843441
View Case »
West 49th Street, LLC v. O’Neill, 77 Misc.3d 385, 178 N.Y.S.3d 874, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 22296
View Case »
Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 74 Haw. 645, 852 P.2d 44, 61 USLW 2697
View Case »
Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66, 143 S.Ct. 2106, 216 L.Ed.2d 775, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6345, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 1074
View Case »
Koch v. Koch, 47 So.3d 320, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D2091
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rogers v. Virginia State Registrar, 507 F.Supp.3d 664

Facts

In anticipation of their weddings, Plaintiffs Sophie Rogers and Brandyn Churchill, along with other applicants, sought marriage licenses but declined to disclose their races as required by Virginia law. As a result, none of the applicants were issued marriage licenses. They filed a complaint against the Virginia State Registrar and county clerks, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional as it infringed on their fundamental right to marry and constituted compelled speech.

In anticipation of their October 19, 2019, wedding, Plaintiffs Sophie Rogers and Brandyn Churchill sought a marriage license from the Clerk of Rockbridge County Circuit Court. In the process of completing the application for a marriage license, Plaintiffs Rogers and Churchill declined to provide their races as the application required.

Issue

Does the Virginia state statute requiring marriage license applicants to disclose their race violate the applicants' due process rights?

All Plaintiffs argue that Va. Code Ann. § 32.1-267(A) is facially unconstitutional as it burdens their fundamental right to marry, constitutes compelled speech, and violates their right to privacy.

Rule

The court applied strict scrutiny to evaluate whether the statute served a compelling state interest and was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

The court applied strict scrutiny to evaluate whether the statute served a compelling state interest and was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

Analysis

The court determined that the statute imposed a burden on the fundamental right to marry and did not serve a compelling state interest that justified such a burden. The court noted that the requirement for racial disclosure was a remnant of a discriminatory past and failed to meet the standards of strict scrutiny.

The court determined that the statute imposed a burden on the fundamental right to marry and did not serve a compelling state interest that justified such a burden.

Conclusion

The court granted the applicants' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the statute was unconstitutional as it violated their due process rights.

The court granted the applicants' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the statute was unconstitutional as it violated their due process rights.

Who won?

The applicants prevailed in the case because the court found that the statute requiring racial disclosure was unconstitutional and imposed an unjustified burden on their right to marry.

The applicants prevailed in the case because the court found that the statute requiring racial disclosure was unconstitutional and imposed an unjustified burden on their right to marry.

You must be