Pidgeon v. Turner

In 2001 the city of Houston (the city) amended its city charter to deny employment benefits to same-sex couples married in other states. In 2003 the Texas legislature passed a defense-of-marriage act, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples and preventing municipalities from recognizing same-sex marriage or providing benefits to same-sex couples. In 2013, after the United States Supreme Court struck down the federal defense-of-marriage act in United States v. Windsor, the mayor of Houston directed the city’s human resources director to begin affording employment benefits to same-sex couples who had obtained a legal marriage certificate in another state. Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks (plaintiffs), Houston residents, filed a suit in 2017 alleging that the city was spending taxpayer money on an illegal activity in violation of Texas law and the city’s charter. Pidgeon contended that both sets of law remained valid despite the Windsor ruling because Windsor only addressed the federal defense-of-marriage act and did not require any city or state to recognize same-sex marriages. Pidgeon sought a temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting the city from providing benefits to same-sex spouses of employees. The trial court granted Pidgeon’s request and issued an injunction preventing the city from providing benefits to same-sex spouses of employees. The city appealed. While the appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court struck down bans on same-sex marriages in Obergefell v. Hodges. The city filed a supplemental brief, arguing that Obergefell required a reversal of the injunction. Pidgeon argued that although Obergefell required states to recognize same-sex marriages, it did not require states or cities to provide any employment benefits based on same-sex marriages. In July 2015, the court of appeals reversed the injunction, citing the Obergefell decision. Pidgeon appealed.