Gartner v. Iowa Department of Public Health

830 N.W.2d 335 (2013)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Gartner v. Iowa Department of Public Health

Iowa Supreme Court
830 N.W.2d 335 (2013)

  • Written by Galina Abdel Aziz , JD

Facts

Melissa and Heather Gartner (plaintiffs) had been in a long-term committed relationship since 2003. Heather conceived a child by artificial insemination via an anonymous sperm donor. The Gartners went through formal adoption procedures to ensure that both Heather and Melissa were listed on the child’s birth certificate. Iowa subsequently legalized same-sex marriage, and Melissa and Heather married. At the time, Heather was six months pregnant with the couple’s second daughter, Mackenzie. After Mackenzie’s birth, the Iowa Department of Public Health (the department) (defendant) issued Mackenzie’s birth certificate, which only listed Heather as a parent and left a blank space for the father’s name. The Gartners requested that the department recognize both Heather and Melissa on the birth certificate. The department denied the request, alleging that Iowa recognized the gendered roles of a mother and father and that the nonbiological mother in a lesbian marriage must adopt a child to be listed on the birth certificate. Under Iowa Code § 144.13(2), if a mother was married at the conception, birth, or any time between conception and birth, then the name of the husband was entered on the birth certificate unless a court determined paternity otherwise. The Gartners sued the department, alleging that the department had violated the equal-protection clauses of the Iowa constitution because the refusal constituted a classification based on sex and sexual orientation. The district court found for the Gartners and ordered the department to issue a new birth certificate that included Melissa. The department appealed, arguing that the refusal only classified individuals based on sex and that an intermediate level of scrutiny applied. The department also argued that § 144.13(2) furthered important government interests including accuracy, efficiency and effectiveness, and the determination of paternity.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wiggins, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership