Michigan Appeals Court: Ecclesiastical Proceedings Toll Statute of Limitations; Hierarchical Structure Poses Factual Question

In Chabad-Lubavitch of Michigan v. Schuchman, (MI App., May 22, 2014), a Michigan appellate court reversed a trial court's dismissal of a suit brought by Chabad-Lubavitch of Michigan in its property dispute with a local Chabad organization. Plaintiff claimed that property of Bais Chabad Torah Center of West Bloomfield should have been titled in the name of the Michigan parent entity rather than in the name of the local organization. The property claim was apparently first raised in a rabbinic panel proceeding as a counter-claim after the head of the West Bloomfield Chabad center filed complaints against the rabbi who heads the Michigan parent organization. The dispute has already been the subject of  five decisions by Jewish rabbinic panels, all of which ruled that title should be in the name of the parent group. However the West Bloomfield Chabad center refused to comply and the rabbinic court gave the parent body permission to file this civil suit.

The court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine would require it to defer to the decision of the Chabad rabbinic determinations if Chabad-Lubavitch is a hierarchical organization. The court concluded, however, that "there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Chabad-Lubavitch is hierarchical in regard to property matters, and thus, whether the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies in this case."

In the course or reaching this conclusion, the court made interesting rulings on defendants' statute of limitations defense. It held that "the applicable statutes of limitation were equitably tolled during the time that the parties were engaged in the mandatory ecclesiastical dispute resolution process."  It ruled that prior precedent refusing to toll statutes of limitation while parties are engaged in voluntary arbitration does not apply because the parties were involved in Chabad-Lubavitch's mandatory ecclesiastical procedure. But that left the question of when tolling ended:

[D]efendants dispute the date that the ecclesiastical dispute resolution process was concluded. Plaintiff maintains that the process was not complete until it received permission to bring a lawsuit in civil court.... Defendants maintain that plaintiff should have sought permission earlier so as to comply with the applicable statutes of limitations..... However, the parties’ dispute regarding when the internal procedure was final constitutes a factual question that is not appropriate for resolution by this Court on appeal. Moreover, resolution of the parties’ disagreement about when the internal dispute resolution process was final would require this Court to interpret religious doctrine or polity. Engaging in such an interpretation would be improper because the First Amendment “requires that civil courts defer to the resolution of issues of religious doctrine or polity by the highest court of a hierarchical church organization.” ... Accordingly, we are required to defer to plaintiff’s claim that the procedure was not final until it received permission to file a civil lawsuit.... Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint was timely filed.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Paul Horwitz, 'A Troublesome Right': The 'Law' in Dworkin's Treatment of Law and Religion, (Boston University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Michael A. Helfand, Between Law and Religion: Procedural Challenges to Religious Arbitration Awards, (Chicago-Kent Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Edward C. Lyons, Causation and Complicity: The HHS Contraceptive Mandate and Asymmetrical Burdens on Free Exercise, (55 South Texas Law Review 229 (2014), Forthcoming).
• Aram Sinnreich, Sharing in Spirit: Kopimism and the Digital Eucharist, (May 14, 2014).
• Kenneth K. Ching, Beauty and Ugliness in Offer and Acceptance, (May 23, 2014).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• David B. Kopel, Ancient Hebrew Militia Law, (Denver University Law Review, Vol. 90, 2013).
• Patrick Parkinson, Book Review: 'Managing Family Justice in Diverse Societies' (Eds Maclean and Eekelaar), (Australian Journal of Family Law, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 270-75, 2013).
• Andrew F. March, Constitutional Authority, (Ashgate Research Companion to Islamic Law, Ruud Peters and Peri Bearman, eds., pp. 179-192 (2014)).
• Brandy G. Robinson, Religiosity in Constitutions and the Status of Minority Rights, (March 6, 2014).
• Dawood I. Ahmed & Tom Ginsburg, Constitutional Islamization and Human Rights: The Surprising Origin and Spread of Islamic Supremacy in Constitutions, Virginia Journal of International Law, Forthcoming.
• Mostafa Beheshti Seresht & Hasba Haj Najafi, Residential Mortgage Crisis – An Islamic Finance Perspective, (May 8, 2014).
• Muhammad Munir, The Share of Orphaned Grandchild under Islamic Law and Pakistani Legal System: A Re-Evaluation of Representational Succession in Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, (May 10, 2014).
• Richard Ashby Wilson, Inciting Genocide with Words, (Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2015, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Karen Gantt, Balancing Women's Health and Religious Freedom Under the ACA., [Abstract], 17 Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 1-44 (2013-2014).
• Sarah Lipton-Lubet, Contraceptive Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act: Dueling Narratives and Their Policy Implications, 22 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 343-385 (2014).
• Mark A. Strasser, A Constitutional Balancing In Need of Adjustment: On Defamation, Breaches of Confidentiality, and the Church, [Abstract], 12 First Amendment Law Review 325-384 (2013).
• Alan J. Meese & Nathan B. Oman, Hobby Lobby, Corporate Law, and the Theory of the Firm: Why For-Profit Corporations Are RFRA Persons,127 Harvard Law Review Forum 273 (May 20, 2014).

Two Recent Religious Discrimination Suits In New York

Two interesting religious discrimination suits filed in New York have been reported on in recent days by the media.  TMZ (May 21) reports that Nicole Johnson, a devout Muslim, is suing TV talk show host Bill Cunningham for mental anguish.  She claims that when she showed up in the audience for a taping of Cunningham's show wearing her hijab (head scarf), show employees forced her to leave her front row seat and sit in the back. She says she was also prohibited from asking a question during the show.

The New York Post (May 25) reports that Mollie Fermaglich, a New York University faculty member, has sued claiming that after 20 years at NYU and a successful television career, she has been repeatedly passed over for promotion in favor of younger, male, non-Jewish faculty.  She says that when she protested working on Passover, a colleague asked her: "Just how Jewish are you?" NYU says there is no basis for her claims.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In  Sutton v. City of Philadelphia, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70242 (ED PA, May 21, 2014). a Pennsylvania federal district court, while dismissing a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was sometimes not served his vegetarian meals, allowed him to move to trial on his claim that the food service company maintained a discriminatory religious alternative meal system that provided kosher meals that sometimes included meat, but only vegetarian halal meals.

In Covington v. Mountries, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69204 (SD NY, May 20, 2014), a New York federal district court concluded that a Muslim inmate had adequately pled that a lock down which prevented him from attending weekly Jumu'ah services substantially burdened his religious exercise, but failed to allege defendant's involvement. The court gave plaintiff 45 days to amend his complaint.

In Gilmore v. Augustus, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69296 (ED CA, May 19, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge refused to allow a Muslim inmate to amend his complaint to allege that he was unable to fully enjoy his religious worship because of pain and suffering from excessive force used against him by a correctional officer.

In Shehee v. Anlin, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69290 (ED CA, May 19, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend a civil detainee's complaint that while he was granted a religious vegan diet, often servers ran out of food that met his dietary requirements.

In Price v. White, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70133 (WD KY, May 21, 2014), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed on qualified immunity and mootness grounds a challenge by a Jewish inmate to grooming standards that required him to cut his hair.

In Leishman v. Patterson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69909 (D UT, May 20, 2014), a Utah federal district court dismissed damage claims by an inmate who was an adherent of Asatru who was not permitted to possess rune tiles made of wood or conduct Blot ceremonies.

In Harris v. Sawyer, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70349 (D AZ, May 22, 2014), and Arizona federal district court dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's claim that on two occasions he was not allowed to attend religious services.

In Pressley v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2014 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 308 (PA Commnw. Ct., May 23, 2014), a 3-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth court dismissed 1st Amendment but not RLUIPA claims by a Muslim inmate who had requested a kosher diet because prison authorities were not cleaning cookware and serving utensils properly before using them for preparing halal meals.

In Williams v. Madrid, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55826 (ED CA, April 21, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed without prejudice a complaint by an uncommitted civil detainee being held as a sexually violent predator that the Establishment Clause was violated when he was required to participate in the Better Lives Treatment Program.

Pope Visits Holy Land; Presses On Peace Efforts

Pope Francis is on a 3-day visit to the Holy Land, originally described by the Vatican as follows:

The Holy Father will travel to the Holy Land from Saturday, 24 May to Monday, 26 May, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the historic embrace between Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras in Jerusalem on 5 January 1964.

The trip takes the Pope to Jordan, the Palestinian territories and Israel. the Full text of all the Papal addresses during the trip and all Vatican media reports on it are on a special Holy Land Pilgrimage website.

AP reports today that the Pope became heavily involved in encouraging Middle East peace efforts by inviting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres to a summit in the Vatican next month to discuss the peace process. Both presidents have accepted. According to AP:

Peres has been a fervent support of Mideast peace efforts, and the independent-minded Israeli president, whose job is largely ceremonial, risks upsetting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the move.

South Dakota Suit Challenges Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

On Thursday, six couples filed a lawsuit in federal district court in South Dakota challenging the constitutionality of South Dakota's constitutional and statutory ban on same-sex marriage.  The complaint (full text) in Rosenbrahn v.  Daugaard, (D SD, filed 5/22/2014), contends that the ban violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, and that the refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere also violates plaintiffs' right to travel. As reported by AP, South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley says that he is obligated by law to defend the state's ban.  With the filing of this lawsuit, only North Dakota with a ban on same-sex marriage that has not been challenged in the courts.

More Indictments In Kidnappings To Obtain Jewish Divorces From Recalcitrant Husbands

Yesterday the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey announced a new series of grand jury indictments in the investigation that began in 2011 of kidnappings and assaults to force recalcitrant Orthodox Jewish husbands to give their wives a religious divorce document (get). (See prior posting.) Yesterday's indictments charged four Orthodox Jewish rabbis and one of their sons with kidnapping and conspiracy. They face maximum sentences of life in prison. According to AP, the attorney for Rabbi Jay Goldstein, one of those charged, said  that the case was "overcharged" and that prosecutors failed to take into account the individual circumstances of the women who were aided in obtaining divorces. Attorneys for other defendants called the charges false.

UPDATE: Jewish Voice reports that on May 24, FBI agents made two more arrests on kidnapping charges growing out of a 2009 abduction of a man in order to force him to give his wife a get.  The two were charged in a criminal complaint, taken before a  magistrate and released on $500,000 bail plus home detention and electronic monitoring.  The two who were charged are David Epstein (who was also name in the indictment described in the main posting) and Chaim Rubin.

Russian Court Imposes Sanctions On Library of Congress For Failure To Return 7 Religious Books On Loan

Last year, a D.C. federal district court held the Russian government and three of its agencies in civil contempt for not complying with a 2010 default judgement ordering them to return two expropriated collections of valuable Jewish religious books and manuscripts to Chasidei Chabad of United States.  The court  imposed civil sanctions of $50,000 per day until defendants comply with the court's order. (See prior posting.) In response, the Russian government filed suit in a Russian court to force the U.S. Library of Congress to return seven books from one of the two collections that were loaned to it. (See prior posting.) Now, according to The Forward, a Moscow arbitration court ruled yesterday that the Library of Congress must pay $50,000 in fines for every day the seven books are not returned. Russia claims that the books were loaned to the Library of Congress in 1991 for 60 days, but have never been sent back to Russia.

10th Circuit OK's Discipline of Police Officer Who Refused Order On Attendance At Mosque's Police Appreciation Event

In Fields v. City of Tulsa, (10th Cir., May 22, 2014), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a civil rights complaint filed by Tulsa, Oklahoma police captain Paul Fields who refused to comply with an order requiring him to arrange for two officers and a supervisor from his shift to attend a law enforcement appreciation day held at the Islamic Society of Tulsa. Fields objected that the order required him to enter a Mosque.  The department suspended Fields for 10 days without pay and transferred him to a less attractive shift because of his refusal. Fields sued, claiming violations of the free exercise clause, establishment clause, his right to freedom of association and the equal protection clause.  The court rejected all of these claims. The court held there was no free exercise violation because Fields wan not personally required to attend under the order. The event was a thank you from the Islamic community to the police department and did not require anyone to participate in religious activities. Tours of the mosque and discussions of Islam at the event were purely voluntary.

The court also upheld the refusal to allow Fields to amend his complaint to allege retaliation for filing the lawsuit in violation of his free speech rights. It concluded that the police department had a compelling interest that outweighed any restriction on speech. The Tulsa World reports that Fields lawyer says he will seek en banc review of the decision.

Washington Supreme Court Says Anti-Discrimination Law Requires Reasonable Accommodation of Religious Beliefs

In Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., (WA Sup. Ct., May 22, 2014), the Washington state Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that Washington's Law Against Discrimination implies a requirement that employers reasonably accommodate employees' religious practices. It went on to hold that the employees of an airport food service company stated a prima facie claim for failure to reasonably accommodate their religious dietary needs. For security reasons the employees could not bring their own food to work or leave for lunch, so the company furnished meals. However employees allege that the beef-pork meatballs served did not meet their religious requirements, and that when they informed the company it initially deceived them into eating food that violated their religious beliefs and then refused to accept any of the employees' proposed accommodations. The majority found that the employees had also adequately stated claims for disparate impact, battery, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Justice Madsen's dissent argued that implying a cause of action for reasonable accommodation improperly encroaches on the legislature's function. Even if it is implied, it should not be applied on these facts because there was no actual or threatened adverse employment action taken against the employees.

Suit Claims High School Teachers Indoctrinated Girls Into Religious Cult

A lawsuit filed last Monday in Connecticut federal district court claims that three Spanish teachers and a guidance counselor at Connecticut's Avon High School engaged in "unlawful and predatory religious indoctrination of students."  The 64-page complaint (full text) in Doe v. Mastoloni, (D CT, filed 5/19/2014), alleges 24 separate causes of action against the teachers, counselor, the Avon school district and Wellesley College. Brought by the parents of 3 daughters who were allegedly indoctrinated, and one of the daughters who broke free of the indoctrination, the complaint alleges:

6. All three girls experienced sudden and severe personality changes. They became flat and distant, reclusive, secretive, and non-communicative. They lost their humor and their empathy. They began speaking in a bizarre new language. They became unable to think critically or independently. They became dependent on the school teachers and guidance counselor who had indoctrinated them, especially Defendant Tanya Mastoloni.

7. On information and belief, the two older Doe sisters were indoctrinated into a religious cult that promotes martyrdom, and celebrates death. This has caused the elder Doe sisters to experience fantasies of suicidal ideation and martyrdom.

8. The youngest Doe daughter, J.D., was targeted to be indoctrinated into the same belief system, but she eventually broke free. J.D. has now joined her parents as a Plaintiff in this case.

9. The other two Doe daughters have, at the urging of Defendants Mastoloni, Kessler, Esposito, and Sullivan, cut off all of their communications with the rest of the Doe family, including extended family. They have also cut off all of their communications with their friends.

10. Defendants Mastoloni, Kessler, Esposito, and Sullivan pose a serious threat to the Avon community and the public at large. They each exert significant influence over the impressionable high school students who have been entrusted to their care. There is an obvious power differential between students and their teachers and guidance counselors.

11. Defendants Mastoloni, Kessler, Esposito, and Sullivan have consistently targeted minors and pursued them until they were of age in order to complete the conversion to martyrdom. Because of that, Defendants Mastoloni, Kessler, Esposito, and Sullivan pose a serious danger to students, students' families, and the public at large.

Courthouse News Service reports on the case.

UPDATE: Responding to the lawsuit, the Avon school superintendent said that the district had not previously been contacted about the allegations and the complaint has been turned over to counsel for review.

UPDATE 2: AP reported on March 5, 2018 that a settlement has been reached in the case.

RLUIPA Suit Challenges City's Refusal To Allow Homeless Ministry To Continue

A suit was filed last week in a California federal district court by the Stanford Law School Religious Liberty Clinic on behalf of a church in San Buenaventura, California that was denied a permit to continue to operate its ministry to the homeless in its current location.  The complaint (full text) in Harbor Missionary Church Corp. v. City of San Buenaventura, (CD CA, filed 5/14/2014), contends that the church's rights under the 1st Amendment and RLUIPA were violated when the city refused to recognize that the current permit to operate as a church was sufficient to allow the church to continue to offer meals, clothing, laundry and shower facilities, Bible study and prayer to the homeless, and then refused to issue the church a conditional use permit to allow the ministry to continue. Here is Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Courthouse News Service reports on the case. [Thanks to Paul Harold for the lead.]

Church Gets TRO Permitting Use of After-School Space

In Prairie Valley Baptist Church v. Whitney Independent School District, (TX Dist. Ct., May 19, 2014), a Texas trial court granted a temporary restraining order requiring Whitney High School to provide a classroom for one hour a week after school for use by the Christian Worldview Ministry (CWM). According to the complaint (full text) in the case, the school permits several secular outside groups to use school facilities, but the school board denied CWM's request for a variety of reasons, one of which was that the activity was too sectarian.  In granting the TRO, the court said that the school board's action substantially burdened plaintiff's free exercise of religion and deprived it of its fundamental right to freedom of speech, without furthering a compelling governmental interest or using the least restrictive means for doing so. A hearing on plaintiff's request for a temporary injunction is scheduled for May 30. Liberty Institute has links to all of the documents in the case. Christian News Network reports on the decision.

Son's Ashes Are Not Property Subject To Partition Between Parents

In Wilson v. Wilson, (FL App., May 21, 2014), a Florida state appellate court held that the cremated remains of 23-year old Scott Wilson, killed in a 2010 auto accident, are not "property" that is subject to partition between the young man's divorced parents. In the case, the parents could not agree on where the ashes should be buried, so the father asked to court to allow each parent to dispose of half the ashes as they wished. The mother objected on religious grounds.The appellate court, citing authority going back to Blackstone, agreed with the trial court that the ashes are not property. The case now goes back to the trial judge who has indicated that he will appoint a curator or other suitable person to decide how to dispose of the remains if the parents are unable to reach an agreement.  The Broward-Palm Beach (FL) Sun Sentinel reports on the decision.

Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against ACA Contraceptive Mandate Enforcement Against Two Religious Colleges

In Dordt College v. Sebelius, (ND IA, May 21, 2014), an Iowa federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to two religiously-oriented colleges-- Dordt College (Christian Reformed Church) and Cornerstone University (Baptist)-- to prevent enforcement of the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate rules against them. This is another of the many cases in which religious non-profits-- objecting to covering contraceptives that they believe to be abortifacients-- claim that their free exercise rights under RFRA are violated even under the government's compromise in which coverage is provided directly from their insurers or third-party administrators. (See prior related posting.) The court indicated that it was planning to wait for the U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision to issue an opinion, but the mandate takes effect against Dordt College on June 1 and the 8th Circuit (which includes Iowa) has issued injunctions pending appeal in two challenges to the contraceptive coverage mandate by for-profit businesses. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision. Des Moines Register reports on the decision.

Christian Student Challenges University's Speech Code

A lawsuit was filed last week in an Oklahoma federal district court challenging the Expressive Activity Policy and Equal Opportunity Policy of Cameron University, a public university in Lawton, Oklahoma.  The complaint (full text) in Harper v. McArthur, (WD OK, filed 5/14/2014), alleges that Daniel Harper, an evangelical Christian student at the University, was prevented from handing out a flyer criticizing the beliefs of a student organization, the World Mission Society. The university claims that Harper's flyer violates the university's prohibition on "offensive" and "discriminatory" speech.  It allows literature to be handed out on campus only if it is from a student organization and has been approved for distribution by the University. The suit claims that the University speech code violates the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act. Alliance Defending Freedom announced the filing of the lawsuit.

Montana's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Challenged

According to Lambda Legal, as of last week only 3 states which do not allow same-sex marriage had no litigation challenging the ban pending.  Now that has dropped to two.  The ACLU of Montana announced yesterday the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of four same-sex couples seeking to marry in Montana or to have their out-of-state same-sex marriage recognized in Montana. The complaint (full text) in Rolando v. Fox, (D MT, filed 5/21/2014), asks the court to declare that Montana's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. With the filing of this lawsuit, only North and South Dakota have marriage equality bans with no litigation pending.

5th Circuit Rejects Religion-Related Income Tax Gimmick

In Gunkle v. Commissioner, (5th Cir., May 20, 2014), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Tax Court decision that rejected husband and wife taxpayers' attempted use of a "religion-related tax gimmick" to avoid income taxes. Initially the Gunkle's had created a 501(c)(3) non-profit, City of Refuge Christian Fellowship, Inc. They however heard a speaker at a church conference who claimed they could instead create a non-501(c)(3) "corporation sole," assign their income to it, deduct this as a charitable contribution without qualifying as a non-profit, and thus make their income non-taxable. They did this, and then signed a vow of poverty, assigned their residence to the corporation sole, and had the corporation sole agree to provide “all their needs as Apostles and as pastors of this church ministry." The 5th Circuit agreed with the Tax Court that payments of living expenses of the Gunkle's from the corporation sole's Pastoral Account were taxable income to the Gunckle's, and their assignment of income to the corporation sole did not qualify for a charitable deduction.

Court Rejects Atheists' Attack On Church Favoritism In Tax Code

In American Atheists, Inc. v. Shulman, (ED KY, May 19, 2014), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed claims by several atheist organizations that under the Internal Revenue Code and Regulations, churches and religious organizations are treated more favorably that other non-profits. The court identified five advantages enjoyed by churches, including fewer filings and tax advantages for clergy compensation. The court held that plaintiffs lack standing because they never applied for an exemption as a church or religious organization, pointing out that:

A review of case law establishes that the words “church,” “religious organization,” and “minister,” do not necessarily require a theistic or deity-centered meaning.... 

Thus, the Atheists’ assertion that they are subjected to unconstitutional discrimination and coercion due to their alleged inability to gain classification as religious organizations or churches under I.R.C. §501(c)(3) is mere speculation. At this point, the Atheists have no idea whether they could gain classification as a church or religious organization under I.R.C. §501(c)(3) because they have never sought such classification. Accordingly, the Atheists have not suffered a particularized injury which is fairly traceable to the actions of the Commissioner.

The court also held that plaintiffs had failed to state an equal protection claim.  In addition, the court rejected a novel argument by plaintiffs that IRS action violates the No Religious Test Clause of Art. VI, cl. 3 of the Constitution.  Plaintiffs had contended that modern-day 501(c)(3) organizations amount to "public trusts" as that term is used in Art. CI, cl. 3. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Court Strikes Down Pennsylvania Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

In Whitewood v. Wolf, (MD PA, May 20, 2014), a Pennsylvania federal district court held that the Pennsylvania's prohibition of same-sex marriage and its refusal to recognize same-sex marriages validly entered elsewhere violate the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses. The court concluded that "the fundamental right to marry is a personal right to be exercised by the individual" and rejected "Defendants’ contention that concepts of history and tradition dictate that same-sex marriage is excluded from the fundamental right to marry."  In its lengthy equal protection analysis, the court concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation are quasi-suspect and applied intermediate scrutiny to find that Pennsylvania had not shown that the ban on same-sex marriage is substantially related to an important governmental interest.

The Washington Post reports that immediately after the court's ruling, same-sex couples hurried to obtain marriage licenses, fearing that Gov. Tom Corbett would appeal the ruling. County offices remained open late in Philadelphia to issue licenses, and the Pittsburgh office is taking marriage license applications online.  Pennsylvania has a 3-day waiting period after issuance of a license before a person can marry, unless a court waives the waiting period. The Governor's office said it was studying the court's ruling. The Governor defended the state's ban in court after the state's attorney general refused to do so.

UPDATE: On May 21, Gov. Tom Corbett announced that the state will not appeal the court's decision.