FILED
15-0688
10/27/2016 7:16:11 PM
tex-13491488
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK

No. 15-0688

In the Supreme Court of Texas
_____________

JACK PIDGEON AND LARRY HICKS,
Petitioners,
v.
MAYOR SYLVESTER TURNER AND THE CITY OF HOUSTON,
Respondents.
_____________
On Petition for Review from the
Fourteenth Court of Appeals at Houston, Texas
Nos. 14-14-00899-cv, 14-14-00932-cv
_____________
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT,
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DAN PATRICK, AND ATTORNEY
GENERAL KEN PAXTON IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
_____________
Darrell D. Dávila
General Counsel
Texas Bar No. 24005374
Counsel for Lieutenant Governor
Dan Patrick
Brantley Starr
Deputy First Assistant
Attorney General
Texas Bar No. 24046904
Counsel for Attorney General
Ken Paxton

James D. Blacklock
General Counsel
Texas Bar No. 24050296
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428
(512) 463-1788
jimmy.blacklock@gov.texas.gov
Counsel for Governor Greg Abbott

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ ii
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .................................................................................................. 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................................ 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... 3
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................. 6
I. A Proper Understanding Of Federal Jurisdiction Requires State
Courts To Carefully Examine The Effect On State Law Of The Supreme
Court’s Judgment In Obergefell v. Hodges .................................................................... 6
II. State Courts Are Not Bound By The Federal District Court
Injunction In De Leon ............................................................................................... 12
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 14
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................................................... 17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................................... 16

i

 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
American Tradition Partnership Inc. v. Bullock,
32 S. Ct. 1307 (2012) (mem.) .......................................................................................... 11
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona,
520 U.S. 43 (1997) ............................................................................................................ 13
Baker v. Nelson,
409 U.S. 810 (1972) ............................................................................................................ 2
Chisholm v. Georgia,
2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793) ................................................................................................. 8
Citizens United v. FEC,
558 U.S. 310 (2010) .......................................................................................................... 11
De Leon v. Abbott,
791 F.3d 619 (5th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................. 3, 11, 12
District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570 (2008) .......................................................................................................... 10
Ex parte Young,
209 U.S. 123 (1908) .......................................................................................................... 12
Friedman v. City of Highland Park,
784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................... 11
Gonzales v. Carhart,
550 U.S. 124 (2007) .......................................................................................................... 10
Lockhart v. Fretwell,
506 U.S. 364 (1993) .......................................................................................................... 13
McDonald v. City of Chicago,
561 U.S. 742 (2010) ............................................................................................................ 9

ii

 Obergefell v. Hodges,
135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015).................................................................................................... 2, 7
Parker v. Pidgeon,
477 S.W.3d 353 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) ..................................... 3, 12
Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey,
505 U.S. 833 (1992) .......................................................................................................... 10
Pidgeon v. Turner,
No. 15-0688, 2016 WL 4938006 (Tex. Sept. 2, 2016) ................................................... 3
Roe v. Wade,
410 U.S. 113 (1973) .......................................................................................................... 10
Washington v. Glucksberg,
521 U.S. 702 (1997) .......................................................................................................... 14
Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana,
363 Mont. 220 (2011) ...................................................................................................... 11
Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt,
136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016)...................................................................................................... 10
Williams v. State,
10 A.3d 1167 (Md. 2011) ............................................................................................ 10-11
Constitutions, Statutes, and Rules
U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2 ......................................................................................................... 8
U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 2 ......................................................................................................... 9
U.S. CONST. amdt. II ............................................................................................................ 10
TEX. CONST. art. I, § 32 ......................................................................................................... 1
TEX. CONST. art. IV, § 1 ........................................................................................................ 1
TEX. CONST. art. IV, § 10 ...................................................................................................... 1
iii

 TEX. CONST. art. IV, § 16(b) ................................................................................................. 1
TEX. CONST. art. IV, § 22 ...................................................................................................... 1
TEX. FAM. CODE § 6.204(b)................................................................................................... 2
TEX. FAM. CODE § 6.204(c)(2) .............................................................................................. 2
TEX. R. APP. P. 11(C) .............................................................................................................. 1
Other References
Final Judgment, De Leon v. Perry, No. 13-cv-982 (W.D. Tex. July 7, 2015) ..................... 3
Order, De Leon v. Perry, No. 13-cv-982 (W.D. Tex. June 26, 2015) .................................. 2
Scott Douglas Gerber, Introduction: The Supreme Court Before John Marshall,
in SERIATIM: THE SUPREME COURT BEFORE JOHN MARSHALL
(Scott Douglas Gerber ed., 1998) ..................................................................................... 8
Edward A. Hartnett, A Matter of Judgment, Not A Matter of Opinion,
74 N.Y.U. L. REV. 123 (1999) ...................................................................................... 8, 9
DANIEL J. MEADOR & JORDANA S. BERNSTEIN, APPELLATE COURTS IN
THE UNITED STATES (1994) ............................................................................................ 10
Daniel J. Meltzer, State Court Forfeitures of Federal Rights,
99 HARV. L. REV. 1128 (1986) ........................................................................................ 13
H Thomas W. Merrill, Judicial Opinions as Binding Law and as Explanations
for Judgments, 15 CARDOZO L. REV. (1993)..................................................................... 10
Richard M. Re, Narrowing Supreme Court Precedent from Below,
104 GEO. L. J. 921 (2016) ................................................................................................ 10
David L. Shapiro, State Courts and Federal Declaratory Judgments,
74 NW. U. L. REV. 759 (1979) ........................................................................................ 13

iv

 I NTEREST

OF

A MICI C URIAE

The Governor is the Chief Executive Officer of the State, and the Constitution charges him with the obligation to “cause the laws to be faithfully executed.” TEX. CONST. art. 4, §§ 1, 10. The Constitution establishes the Lieutenant Governor as the President of the Senate. Id. art. 4, § 16(b). And the Attorney General is constitutionally charged with representing the State in this
Court. Id. art. 4, § 22. These state officials each have an acute interest in understanding with precision how federal court decisions impact the state laws
they enforce, enact, and defend. They have a concomitant interest in encouraging state courts to carefully and correctly construe the effect of federal court
decisions on Texas law. This case raises important questions of federal jurisdiction and of the relationship between federal courts and state law. For these
reasons, we respectfully submit this amicus curiae brief. 1
S TATEMENT

OF

F ACTS

The Texas Constitution provides that “[m]arriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman,” and it prohibits the State
or any political subdivision from “creat[ing] or recogniz[ing] any legal status
identical or similar to marriage.” TEX. CONST. art. I, § 32. Texas law further
prohibits the State or any political subdivision from giving effect to a “right or
claim to any legal protection, benefit, or responsibility asserted as a result of”
any same-sex union. TEX. FAM. CODE § 6.204(b), (c)(2).
1

No fee was paid for the preparation of this brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 11(c).

1

 In 2013, and in contravention of the Texas Constitution, former Houston Mayor Annise Parker recognized same-sex marriages performed for city
employees in other States. Then, in violation of the Family Code, the former
mayor extended spousal employment benefits to same-sex couples who got
married in other States. Her only basis for doing so was her personal belief
that the Texas Constitution and Family Code violated the United States Constitution. See CR 14, 58-60. Parker’s personal belief violated long-settled U.S.
Supreme Court precedent, under which any federal constitutional claim for
same-sex marriage was not only baseless but did not even raise a substantial
federal question. See Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972).
Given that state law prohibited Parker’s actions in 2013, and given that
her personal interpretation of the federal constitution was incorrect under U.S.
Supreme Court precedent at the time, the trial court appropriately entered a
temporary injunction against her. After Parker appealed the temporary injunction, however, the Supreme Court switched course. On June 26, 2015, that
Court held the federal constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment requires every
state in the nation to recognize same-sex marriages. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 135
S. Ct. 2584 (2015). On the same day Obergefell was announced, a federal district
court in San Antonio lifted the stay of a preliminary injunction against execution of Texas’s constitutional and statutory prohibitions on same-sex marriage.
See Order, De Leon v. Perry, No. 13-cv-982, ECF No. 96 (W.D. Tex. June 26,
2

 2015), aff’d sub nom. De Leon v. Abbott, 791 F.3d 619 (5th Cir. 2015). The Fifth
Circuit upheld the district court’s preliminary injunction and issued an opinion,
in which it noted that the outcome of De Leon does not necessarily dictate the
outcome of future cases involving conflicts between the right to same-sex marriage and other interests. See De Leon, 791 F.3d at 625 (“We express no view on
how controversies involving the intersection of these rights should be resolved
but instead leave that to the robust operation of our system of laws and the
good faith of those who are impacted by them.”). The district court then issued a final judgment ordering that the defendants in that case “are permanently enjoined from enforcing Texas’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage.” Final
Judgment, De Leon v. Perry, No. 13-cv-982, ECF No. 98, at 1 (W. D. Tex. July 7,
2015). Shortly thereafter, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in this case dissolved the temporary injunction against Parker and remanded for proceedings
“consistent with Obergefell and De Leon.” Parker v. Pidgeon, 477 S.W.3d 353, 355
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015), review denied sub nom. Pidgeon v. Turner,
No. 15-0688, 2016 WL 4938006 (Tex. Sept. 2, 2016).
S UMMARY

OF

A RGUMENT

Major constitutional rulings by the United States Supreme Court routinely give rise to waves of litigation exploring the contours and limits of the
Court’s pronouncement. This case is one of many cases that will require state
courts to examine the scope of the right to same-sex marriage announced by
3

 the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges. By issuing its judgment in Obergefell,
the Supreme Court effectively has required all States to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages from other states, and the purpose of this
brief is not to contest or circumvent that requirement. But the existence of a
federal court judgment obligating States to grant and recognize same-sex marriages does not automatically dictate the outcome of a case like this one, which
raises a related but different constitutional question involving municipal employee benefits. State courts tasked with applying Obergefell should bear in mind
foundational concepts of federal jurisdiction that are often ignored in the regrettably sloppy public discussion of U.S. Supreme Court rulings. When a federal court, including the Supreme Court, exercises its constitutional authority to
decide a case or controversy, it does so through a judgment. A federal court may
or may not choose to write an opinion to explain the basis for its judgment, but
every word of that judicial opinion does not thereby become constitutional law
that binds other branches of the state and federal governments. While the
judgment in Obergefell is authoritative, Justice Kennedy’s lengthy opinion explaining
that judgment is not an addendum to the federal constitution and should not
be treated by state courts as if every word of it is the preemptive law of the
United States.
Unlike the judgment in Obergefell, the judgment in De Leon is of limited
relevance to this Court or any other state court asked to decide a case like this
4

 one. To begin with, state courts are coordinate with—not subservient to—
federal district courts and federal courts of appeals when it comes to interpreting the federal constitution. In addition, De Leon resulted in a federal district
court’s final judgment pursuant to Ex Parte Young ordering Texas executive
branch officials not to enforce state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. We
do not question the authority of that order to tie the hands of executive branch
officials. But a federal district court judgment against state officials does not
amend the Texas Constitution or the Texas Family Code. And it most certainly
does not require state courts to act as if those provisions of Texas law no longer exist. Federal courts lack the power to issue injunctions against state courts,
and a federal district court order against the Governor and other executive
branch officers does not bind Texas courts in any way.
Whether or not this Court chooses to reinstate the temporary injunction,
it should issue remand instructions directing lower Texas courts to carefully examine claims, such as the claims in this case, that implicate the scope of the
right announced in Obergefell. Regrettably, many lawyers and judges do not devote careful thought to the complicated questions of federal jurisdiction raised
by decisions like Obergefell, instead assuming without adequate reflection that
the U.S. Supreme Court has decided once and for all any constitutional questions about state laws on same-sex marriage. The Fourteenth Court’s remand
for further proceedings “consistent with Obergefell and De Leon” risks conflating
5

 the constitutional questions in this case with what five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court said in explaining a different judgment about different constitutional questions in a different case. It is not the duty of the state courts to divine broad principles from Supreme Court opinions and to extrapolate them to
new contexts. Rather, state courts must be meticulous in examining each new
claimed right and determining whether and to what extent it must be expanded
in new ways. Principles of comity, federalism, and the rule of law should make
state courts particularly wary of using the federal constitution to expand upon
newly created substantive due process rights that have the effect of undoing the
work of state lawmakers.
ARGUMENT
I.

A PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION REQUIRES
STATE COURTS TO CAREFULLY EXAMINE THE EFFECT ON STATE
LAW OF THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT IN OBERGEFELL V.
H ODGES.
Determining with precision the current state of Texas law in light of a

Supreme Court decision like Obergefell is a complicated endeavor. Commentators in the media and lawyers with a vested interest in doing so may act as if the
answer is straightforward. The Supreme Court has spoken, they claim, and
with the stroke of Justice Kennedy’s pen, all state laws to the contrary have
been swept away as if they never existed. The truth is much more complex, as
most serious students of federal jurisdiction would admit. Indeed, if Obergefell

6

 had been a case about the constitutionality of a provision of the tax code instead of a case about a contentious social policy question, few would deny that
in future cases careful consideration must be given to the precise status of state
law in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.
By issuing its judgment in Obergefell, the Supreme Court has forced the
states to effectuate the Court’s vision of the “fundamental right to marry” by
issuing and recognizing same-sex marriage licenses. See Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at
2604 (“[T]he right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the
person.”). But this case does not involve the issuance or recognition of marriage licenses. Obergefell’s judgment does not include a command that public
employers like the City of Houston take steps beyond recognizing same-sex
marriage—steps like subsidizing same-sex marriages (through the allocation of
employee benefits) on the same terms as traditional marriages. Nor does Obergefell’s judgment retroactively authorize state or local officials to violate state
laws prior to June 26, 2015. Because none of the questions before the trial
court are completely resolved by Obergefell’s judgment, the trial court on remand
must do more than simply tip its hat in Obergefell’s direction and enter judgment
for the defendants.
To be sure, language in the majority opinion from Obergefell may suggest
potential answers to some of the questions before the trial court. But language
in a Supreme Court opinion is not part of the Constitution. Remand orders
7

 like the one issued by the Court of Appeals in this case rest on a common but
nonetheless erroneous understanding of the nature of federal courts and their
opinions. The United States Constitution vests federal courts with “[t]he judicial power” to decide certain “cases” and “controversies.” U.S. CONST. art. III,
§ 2. And federal courts decide those “cases” and “controversies” through
judgments, not opinions. As one legal scholar explained:
The operative legal act performed by a court is the entry of a
judgment; an opinion is simply an explanation of reasons for that
judgment. As valuable as opinions may be to legitimize judgments, to give guidance to judges in the future, or to discipline a
judge’s thinking, they are not necessary to the judicial function of
deciding cases and controversies. It is the judgment, not the opinion, that settles authoritatively what is to be done—and the only
thing that the judgment settles authoritatively is what is to be
done about the particular case or controversy for which the judgment was made.2
Indeed, Founding-era evidence forecloses any suggestion that judicial
opinions—as opposed to judgments—carry inherent legal effect. For example,
during the first ten years of the U.S. Supreme Court’s existence, there was no
such thing as a majority opinion; instead, justices sometimes (but not always)
wrote short personal statements to explain their votes for or against the Court’s
judgments. See, e.g., Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793); Scott Douglas Gerber, Introduction: The Supreme Court Before John Marshall, in SERIATIM: THE

Edward A. Hartnett, A Matter of Judgment, Not A Matter of Opinion, 74 N.Y.U. L. REV.
123, 126-27 (1999) (footnotes and internal alterations and quotation marks omitted).
2

8

 SUPREME COURT BEFORE JOHN MARSHALL 1, 20 (Scott Douglas Gerber ed.,
1998). In fact, for much of the U.S. Supreme Court’s early history, justices
sometimes explained their votes in written opinions, sometimes explained their
votes orally, and rarely did anything to ensure that the records of their opinions
were accurate: “Indeed, it was not until 1834 that the Court provided for the
filing of its own written opinions with its own clerk, and even then oral opinions were not invariably reduced to writing.” Hartnett, 74 N.Y.U. L. REV. at
130 (internal quotation marks omitted). That majority opinions did not even
exist at the Founding strongly suggests that such opinions implicate no part of
“[t]he judicial power” created by Article III of the federal Constitution. Cf., e.g.,
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 767-70 (2010) (relying on Foundingera practice as probative of the Constitution’s original meaning).
Nor does language in a Supreme Court opinion, on its own, amount to
preemptive law of the United States. See U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 2 (specifying
that States are bound only by “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States . . . and all Treaties . . . [which] shall be the supreme Law of the Land”).
This by no means is a revolutionary or even unconventional view of Supreme
Court opinions. It is the view of many legal scholars that “[t]he opinion of an
appellate court is the explanation of what the court is deciding; it is not a legally
operative instrument. The court’s formal action is embodied in its ‘judgment,’

9

 a separate document directing the disposition of the case.”3 See also Thomas W.
Merrill, Judicial Opinions as Binding Law and as Explanations for Judgments, 15
CARDOZO L. REV. 43, 62 (1993) (“[J]udicial opinions are simply explanations
for judgments—essays written by judges explaining why they rendered the
judgment they did.”).
Inattention to the difference between opinions and judgments prevents
important disputes from receiving the thoughtful attention they deserve in the
lower courts and thereby undermines the judicial system’s ability to reach correct results. Vigorous litigation over the contours of a newly created right to
same-sex marriage neither disrespects the United States Supreme Court nor
disparages those who have entered into same-sex marriages. It is the way our
legal system sorts out the reach of a major decision recognizing a new constitutional right. See, e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Planned Parenthood of Se.
Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007); Whole
Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016).
During this sorting-out process, neither side’s ideological commitments
are spared. For example, after District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),
reaffirmed that individuals have “the right to keep and bear arms,” U.S. CONST.
amdt. II, lower courts narrowed the precedent from below. See, e.g., Williams v.
DANIEL J. MEADOR & JORDANA S. BERNSTEIN, APPELLATE COURTS IN THE UNITED
STATES 75-76 (1994).
3

10

 State, 10 A.3d 1167, 1177 (Md. 2011) (“If the Supreme Court, in [Heller’s] dicta,
meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so
more plainly.”); Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 412 (7th Cir.
2015) (holding that where Heller’s judgment does not yield a “definitive constitutional rule” matters will be “left to the legislative process”). Likewise, after
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), held that nonprofit corporations
have First Amendment rights to political speech, lower courts again narrowed
the precedent from below. See, e.g., Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana,
363 Mont. 220, 274 (2011) (calling Citizens United “utter nonsense” and refusing
to apply it to a Montana statute that reflected the State’s “unique history and
unique qualities which make Montana uniquely susceptible to the corrupting
influence of unlimited corporate expenditures”); American Tradition Partnership
Inc. v. Bullock, 132 S. Ct. 1307 (Feb. 17, 2012) (mem.) (Ginsburg, J., respecting
grant of stay application) (“Montana’s experience . . . since this Court’s decision
in Citizens United . . . will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether . . .
Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”). Whether these lower courts
ultimately are vindicated or rebuked, their efforts to examine the contours of a
newly recognized (or newly rediscovered) constitutional right ensures “the robust operation of our system of laws.” De Leon, 791 F.3d at 625; see also Richard M. Re, Narrowing Supreme Court Precedent from Below, 104 GEO. L.J. 921
(2016).
11

 Obergefell does not, on its own, resolve this case. As a unanimous panel
of the Fifth Circuit did in De Leon, this Court should take this opportunity to
remind the lower courts that all disputes involving the right to same-sex marriage have not been resolved, and lower courts have an obligation to carefully
consider future claims related to the right announced in Obergefell. See De Leon,
791 F.3d at 625 (reminding federal district courts after Obergefell that “[w]e express no view on how controversies involving the intersection of these rights
should be resolved but instead leave that to the robust operation of our system
of laws . . .”).
II.

STATE COURTS ARE NOT BOUND BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT INJUNCTION IN DE L EON .
The Court of Appeals also remanded for proceedings “consistent with

. . . De Leon.” Parker, 477 S.W.3d at 355. This instruction was misleading, if
not erroneous. The De Leon judgment is binding on the state officials who
were defendants in that case and on their successors. See Ex parte Young, 209
U.S. 123 (1908) (holding that federal courts may enjoin state officials from violating the federal constitution). But state courts are not enjoined by—and cannot be enjoined by—federal court orders. As the Supreme Court held in Ex
parte Young: “An injunction against a state court would be a violation of the
whole scheme of our government.” Id. at 162. While state courts should generally follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s judgments regarding the federal consti-

12

 tution, state courts are not bound by the judgment or the reasoning of the Fifth
Circuit or the federal district court in De Leon. “In our federal system, a state
trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the
federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.” Lockhart v.
Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring), cited by Arizonans for
Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 58 n.11 (1997). As one prominent law
professor has explained: “Decisions of lower federal courts on issues of federal
law are not binding precedents for a state court, which may properly view such
precedents as no more persuasive than the views of the state courts of a different jurisdiction.” Daniel J. Meltzer, State Court Forfeitures of Federal Rights, 99
HARV. L. REV. 1128, 1231 n.495 (1986); see also David L. Shapiro, State Courts
and Federal Declaratory Judgments, 74 NW. U. L. REV. 759, 771 (1979) (“[Lower]
federal courts are no more than coordinate with the state courts on issues of
federal law.”).
Finally, state courts should be especially reluctant to rely on federal court
opinions to extend substantive due process rights. Both state and federal
courts applying Obergefell to new situations must heed the Supreme Court’s
warning that judges who create new substantive due process rights must provide “a careful description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest” that is historically rooted in our nation’s past. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 72021 (1997) (emphasis added). This “careful description” requirement exists be13

 cause the doctrine of substantive due process becomes particularly pernicious
when courts elevate their policy preferences above those of legislatures. That is
even truer where a state court erroneously thinks itself bound to follow—or
even worse to expand—a lower federal court’s opinion.
CONCLUSION
Whether or not this Court reinstates the temporary injunction, it should
not send this case back to the lower courts without providing a clarifying instruction that (1) While Obergefell obligates the State to grant and recognize
same-sex marriages, it does not bind state courts to resolve all other claims in
favor of the right to same-sex marriage; and (2) De Leon binds executive branch
officials but does not affect the authority of Texas courts to apply any provision of the Texas Constitution and Family Code to the extent doing so is not
inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Obergefell.
.

14

 Respectfully submitted.
Darrell D. Dávila
General Counsel
darrell.davila@ltgov.texas.gov
Texas Bar No. 24005374
OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
P.O. Box 12068
Austin, Texas 78711-2068
(512) 463-0001

/s/ James D. Blacklock
General Counsel
jimmy.blacklock@gov.texas.gov
Texas Bar No. 24050296
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428
(512) 936-0181

Counsel for Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick Counsel for Governor Greg Abbott
Brantley Starr
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General
brantley.starr@oag.texas.gov
Texas Bar No. 24046904
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059)
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
(512) 936-1700
Counsel for Attorney General Ken Paxton

15

 C ERTIFICATE

OF

C OMPLIANCE

As required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), I hereby certify
that this brief contains 3,428 words, according to the word count of the wordprocessing software used to prepare this brief.

/s/ James D. Blacklock
James D. Blacklock
Counsel for Amicus Curiae

16

 C ERTIFICATE

OF

S ERVICE

I certify that this document has been filed with the clerk of the court and
served electronically on October 27, 2016, on all parties:
Jared R. Woodfill
State Bar No. 00788715
WOODFILL LAW FIRM, P.C.
River Oaks Green
3131 Eastside, Suite 450
Houston, Texas 77098
(713) 751-3080
jwoodfill@woodfilllaw.com
Jonathan M. Saenz
State Bar No. 24041845
jsaenz@txvalues.org
TEXAS VALUES
900 Congress Avenue, Suite 220
Austin, Texas 78701
Counsel for Petitioners
Judith L. Ramsey
Chief, General Litigation Section
Texas Bar No. 16519550
judith.ramsey@houstontx.gov
John B. Wallace
Senior Assistant City Attorney
Texas Bar No. 20769750
john.wallace@houstontx.gov
Kathleen Hopkins Alsina
Texas Bar No. 09977050
kate.alsina@houstontx.gov
Darah Eckert
Texas Bar No. 24007141

17

 darah.eckert@houstontx.gov
David L. Red
Texas Bar No. 16656900
david.red@houstontx.gov
CITY OF HOUSTON LEGAL DEPARTMENT
900 Bagby, 4th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
(832) 393-6491
Counsel for Respondents

/s/ James D. Blacklock
James D. Blacklock
Counsel for Amicus Curiae

18