U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Indiana birth certificate case

Keywords Law / U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to take up an Indiana case seeking to reverse a lower court’s ruling that allows both members of same-sex couples in the state to be listed as parents on the birth certificates of their children.

The high court turned aside without comment a petition that Indiana’s attorney general, Curtis Hill, filed with the court last month. Hill had argued for the justices to reverse a January decision by the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that affirmed a ruling by Indiana’s federal southern district court that said Indiana laws limiting who can be called a parent of a child were unconstitutional.

Karen Celestino-Horseman, the attorney for the plaintiffs who challenged Indiana’s birth records law, said “we’re delighted” about the high court’s decision not to hear the case.

“It’s a major victory that is going to keep the same-sex families together and the children born to these marriages will have two parents to love and protect them,” she told The Indianapolis Star.

The original case involved Ashlee and Ruby Henderson, a gay married couple from Lafayette who filed a federal lawsuit in 2015 challenging Indiana’s birth records law. They sued the state health commissioner and Tippecanoe County officials because county officials would not list both of them as parents on the birth certificate of their son, who Ruby conceived through artificial insemination.

Seven additional couples joined the suit as plaintiffs after Indiana successfully appealed the case to the Chicago-based 7th Circuit, which found that requiring both women in a same-sex marriage to be listed as parents would prevent any discrimination.

In January’s decision, the appeals court found that under Indiana law, “a husband is presumed to be a child’s biological father, so that both spouses are listed as parents on the birth certificate and the child is deemed to be born in wedlock.”

“There’s no similar presumption with respect to an all-female married couple—or for that matter an all-male married couple,” the judges wrote.

In his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Hill had argued that upholding the lower court’s decision would violate common sense and throw into jeopardy parental rights based on biology.

Indiana’s solicitor general, Tom Fisher, said Monday in a statement to WXIN-TV that “we are disappointed the Court declined to take up the case.”

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Story Continues Below

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our updated comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

2 thoughts on “U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Indiana birth certificate case

  1. AG Curtis Hill has wasted enough taxpayer dollars on efforts unconstitutional, vindictive and not in the public interest. This attempt to subvert and deny rights to parents who want to be listed as such and are legally married was an outrageous and unnecessary overreach of the AG and government into a personal matter. One would ask why naming both spouses in a same sex marriage as parents would materially affect or impact the basic rights of other citizens as assured through the constitution. Presuming the husband in a marriage is the father of the child may not be accurate. And, the birth certificate for a child born to a single parent need not include both parent’s names. Signing on with the state of Texas in an attempt to overturn legally cast votes of citizens in others states further underscores an overwhelming lack of focus by the AG for matters material to the well being and benefit of Indiana residents. Whereas past actions reflect questionable judgement, be it resolved that AG actions be approved and vetted by a vote of citizens of the state or a non-partisan review board.

    1. It’s clear that Curtis Hill is a joke and I am betting that his replacement – a Trumpertantrumer – will be a laughing stock too.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}