Lambda Legal Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Loss of Benefits by Arizona Same-Sex Partners

In a sweeping equal protection ruling issued on July 23, U.S. District Judge John W. Sedwick held that the state of Arizona had no rational basis for eliminating health insurance benefits for same-sex partners of state employees while continuing to maintain the benefits for married employees.  Ruling on the state's motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in a suit brought by Lambda Legal on behalf of a group of affected state employees, Judge Sedwick ordered that the benefits be maintained pending a trial on the merits.  The lawsuit is Collins v. Brewer, No. 2:09-cv-02402 (D. Ariz.).

Taking the allegations of the plaintiffs as true, which court do in determining such pre-trial motions, Judge Sedwick found that the cost of providing the benefits to same-sex partners is only a tiny fraction of the entire state expenditure for health insurance for its employees - at most in the neighborhood of a quarter-of-a-percent.  The partner benefits program that the state intended to eliminate covered both different-sex and same-sex partners, but Lambda's claim was made on behalf of same-sex partners only.  An equal protection claim for different-sex partners would most likely fail, crediting the state's post hoc rationale for the measure that it would promote marriage.  Unmarried different-sex partners can marry to keep their benefits, but due to the anti-same-sex marriage state constitutional amendment as well as a statute barring same-sex couples from marrying, same-sex couples cannot.

Judge Sedwick systematically went through all the posited rationales for the decision to cut off benefits for same-sex partners, and found that none of them rationally advanced a legitimate state interest.  The state's argument that it wanted to preserve scarce resources for families likely to be raising children was unavailing, seeing as how a majority of the plaintiffs are raising children.  In terms of cost savings, the plaintiffs plausibly argued that the measure was likely to increase costs, since it would increase demand for coverage through the state's Medicaid program when same-sex couples proved unable to purchase private insurance for their partners due to pre-existing medical conditions that would be excluded from such coverage.

The key point of the decision was Judge Sedwick's acceptance as precedent of the conclusions stated by 9th Circuit judges in ruling on the right of federal court employees to participate with their partners in the federal employees' benefit program, as well as Justice O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence v. Texas arguing that "more searching scrutiny" is required when the state adopts a policy that burdens personal relationships.

Although he did grant summary judgment to the state on the plaintiffs' due process claim, the equal protection claim provides a strong basis for the court's ruling.  Judge Sedwick also rejected the state's argument that Governor Brewer should not be in the case as an individual defendant, arguing that the governor should not routinely be subject to suit every time a state law's constitutionality is challenged.  Sedwick noted that recently the governor intervened as an individual defendant in the federal government's challenge of the controversial Arizona measure authorizing law enforcement authorities to demand proof of legal residency of people they stop in the course of routine law enforcement activities.  Clearly, the governor's participation in the litigation is relevant.

The most memorable quote in the opinion, responding to the state's argument that the decision to cut off these benefits was due to the state's fiscal problems:

"Contrary to the State’s suggestion, it is not equitable to lay the burden of the

State’s budgetary shortfall on homosexual employees, any more than on any other

distinct class, such as employees with green eyes or red hair. Equal protection of the

laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities."

While it seems likely that the state will seek an immediate appeal, it seems unlikely that the 9th Circuit would reverse this preliminary injunction.