Adams v. Howerton
|Adams v. Howerton|
|Court||United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
|Full case name||Richard Frank Adams, et al., v. Joseph D. Howerton|
|Decided||February 25, 1982|
|Prior action(s)||Appeal from the C.D. Cal.|
|Subsequent action(s)||U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari|
|Judge(s) sitting||J. Clifford Wallace, Thomas Tang, Howard B. Turrentine|
|immigration, same-sex marriage|
Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111 (1982) is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that held that the term "spouse" refers to an opposite-sex partner for the purposes of immigration law and that this definition meets rational basis review. It was the first U.S. lawsuit to seek recognition of a same-sex marriage by the federal government.
In 1975, Richard Frank Adams, an American citizen, and Anthony Corbett Sullivan, an alien from Australia, were one of several same-sex couples that received marriage licenses from the clerk of Boulder County, Colorado. Adams then petitioned the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for classification of Sullivan as an immediate relative of Adams, on the basis that they were married under Colorado law. The petition was initially denied, with a letter stating that "[Adams and Sullivan] have failed to establish that a bona fide marital relationship can exist between two faggots." A revised letter was later sent, explaining that "[a] marriage between two males is invalid for immigration purposes and cannot be considered a bona fide marital relationship since neither party to the marriage can perform the female functions in marriage." After the INS petition was ultimately denied, they filed suit against the INS in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that their marriage was valid under both Colorado law and immigration law, and that failure to recognize its validity violated the Fifth Amendment's substantive due process and equal protection components.
The district court rejected the plaintiffs' claims, noting that "Congress in its immigration statutes is not obligated to follow the law of the place where the marriage was contracted". The court also held that under Colorado law marriage is a union of "a man and a woman", agreeing with the state attorney general's opinion, and also noted that "[t]he Colorado statutes don't specifically allow, nor do they specifically prohibit, marriages between persons of the same sex." It also held that "[t]he legal protection and special status afforded to marriage (being defined as an union of persons of different sex) has historically ... been rationalized as being for the purpose of encouraging the propagation of the race."
Regarding the constitutional claims, it held that if federal law governs, then "the constitutional challenge is rejected as insubstantial", because "Congress has virtually plenary power in immigration matters and is not bound by otherwise applicable equal protection requirements". If state law governs, the court held that "the Colorado state law which rejects a purported marriage between persons of the same sex does not violate the due process or the equal protection clause of the federal constitution", on the basis that the Supreme Court's decision in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2d 65, 93 S Ct 37 (1972), "is of paramount importance because a state court judgment prohibiting two people of the same sex from marrying each other was appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court on various constitutional grounds, including due process and equal protection. The High Court dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial federal question. Such a dismissal is an important adjudication on the merits." The court rejected the counterargument "that some persons are allowed to marry and their union is given full recognition and constitutional protection even though the above stated justification—procreation—is not possible" because "if the classification of the group who may validly marry is overinclusive, it does not affect the validity of the classification".
On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's opinion on alternative grounds on February 25, 1982. They decided that it was unnecessary for them to determine if the Adams-Sullivan union qualified as a marriage under Colorado law. They noted that it was clear that "Congress did not intend the mere validity of a marriage under state law to be controlling" and that "even though two persons contract a marriage valid under state law and are recognized as spouses by that state, they are not necessarily spouses for purposes of section 201(b)." They held that "[t]he term marriage ordinarily contemplates a relationship between a man and a woman" (internal quotations and citations omitted) and that "[t]he term spouse commonly refers to one of the parties in a marital relationship so defined. Congress has not indicated an intent to enlarge the ordinary meaning of those words. In the absence of such a congressional directive, it would be inappropriate for us to expand the meaning of the term spouse for immigration purposes" (internal quotations and citations omitted) and that "Congress intended that only partners in heterosexual marriages be considered spouses under section 201(b)."
In reviewing the constitutionality of the law, they rejected the plaintiffs' claim that strict scrutiny was required, on the grounds that "Congress has almost plenary power to admit or exclude aliens". They held that "Congress's decision to confer spouse status under section 201(b) only upon the parties to heterosexual marriages has a rational basis and therefore comports with the due process clause and its equal protection requirements. There is no occasion to consider in this case whether some lesser standard of review [than rational basis] should apply." They found it unnecessary to determine if Congress's justification "is because homosexual marriages never produce offspring, because they are not recognized in most, if in any, of the states, or because they violate traditional and often prevailing societal mores. In any event, having found that Congress rationally intended to deny preferential status to the spouses of such marriages, we need not further 'probe and test the justifications for the legislative decision.'"
Adams was born in Manila in the Philippines. His family moved to the United States when he was 12, and he grew up in Long Prairie, Minnesota. He studied liberal arts at the University of Minnesota. Adams became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1968 and was living in Los Angeles, California, in 1971 when he met Anthony Corbett "Tony" Sullivan, an Australian citizen who was visiting the U.S. on a tourist visa. They were one of six gay couples granted marriage licenses by County Clerk Clela Rorex in Boulder, Colorado on April 21, 1975. They exchanged vows in a religious ceremony as well.
To publicize their lawsuit, they appeared on the Phil Donahue Show where, according to their attorney, "people in the audience said some pretty nasty things. But they withstood it all because they felt it was important to speak out."
After losing in the Ninth Circuit in 1982, Sullivan appealed his deportation order arguing that it would cause him "extreme hardship", an argument that the Ninth Circuit rejected in a 2-1 decision on September 30, 1985. Because Australia had denied Adams' request for residency, in 1985 they traveled in Europe for a year. Adams later said: "It was the most difficult period because I had to leave my family as well as give up my job of 18 1/2 years. It was almost like death". They returned to the U.S., lived in Los Angeles, and avoided high-profile activism that might attract the attention of immigration authorities. Adams worked for a law firm as an administrator until his retirement in 2010. After retirement, Adams and Sullivan made some appearances at events supporting same-sex marriage.
Adams died at his Los Angeles home on December 17, 2012, after a short illness. Sullivan survived him. On April 21, 2014, 39 years to the day after the two were married, Anthony Sullivan filed the Motion with the Los Angeles Field Office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to reopen and reconsider his late-husband’s petition for a marriage-based green card which the same office denied four decades ago.
Limited Partnership, a documentary telling the couple's story, is scheduled for release by Tesseract Films in 2013.
- Fox, Margolit (December 24, 2012). "Richard Adams, Same-Sex Spouse Who Sued U.S., Dies at 65". New York Times. Retrieved December 27, 2012.
- Joyce Murdoch, Joyce; Price, Deb (2001). Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians V. the Supreme Court. NY: Basic Books. pp. 405–6.
- Nardi, Peter M. (February 20, 1966). "The endless debate on gay union". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved December 20, 2012.
- Adams v. Howerton, 486 F. Supp. 1119 (C.D.Cal.1980) Via Leagle. Accessed July 30, 2011
- Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036. (9th Cir. 1981) Via Queer Resources Directory. Accessed July 30, 2011
- Adams v. Howerton, 458 U.S. 1111 (1982)
- Ocamb, Karen (December 19, 2012). "Richard Adams, Pioneer for Binational Couples and Marriage Equality, Dies at 65". FrontiersLA.com. Retrieved December 24, 2012.
- Garcia, Michelle (December 19, 2012). "Gay Binational Marriage Rights Pioneer Richard Adams Dies". The Advocate. Retrieved December 24, 2012.
- Elaine, Woo (December 22, 2012). "Richard Adams dies at 65; gay marriage pioneer". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 24, 2012.
- "Sullivan v. INS, September 30, 1985". United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Retrieved December 24, 2012.
- "Documentary Chronicles Gay Couple’s Legal Marriage in 1975 and Their Continuing Fight Against the US Government". Tesseract Films. Retrieved December 20, 2012.
- Adams v. Howerton, complete text, accessed December 20, 2012
- Anthony Corbett Sullivan v. Immigration and Naturalization Service Legal Records, summary of holdings, ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archives, Los Angeles, California, accessed December 20, 2012.
- Blythe Wygonik, "Refocus on the Family: Exploring the Complications in Granting the Family Immigration Benefit to Gay and Lesbian United States Citizens", 45 Santa Clara L. Rev. 493 (2005), accessed December 24, 2012