Carrington v. Rash

4 Citing briefs

  1. DeBoer et al v. Snyder et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment , Brief in Support

    Filed March 19, 2012

    Moreover, as to this argument, the Court in Stanley observed as follows: “Clearly the objective of reducing the workload on probate courts by eliminating one class of contests is not without some legitimacy ... (But to) give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” ... [T]he Constitution recognizes higher values than speed and efficiency. 15 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 25 Filed 03/19/12 Pg 15 of 21 Pg ID 622 Stanley, 405 US at 656-657, quoting from Carrington, 380 US at 96. Defendants argue that if the statute is determined to be unconstitutional, “multiple people” could attempt to adopt a child, evoking the image a posse of well-meaning adults lining the courthouse steps to adopt a lone infant.

  2. DeBoer et al v. Snyder et al

    RESPONSE to 14 MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed March 19, 2012

    accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” ... [T]he Constitution recognizes higher values than speed and efficiency. Stanley, 405 US at 656-657, quoting from Carrington, 380 US at 96. 18 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 24 Filed 03/19/12 Pg 18 of 22 Pg ID 603 Consequently, the categorical exclusion of same sex couples as joint adoptive parents under this statute is unconstitutional even under th lowest level of scrutiny, that of rational basis, for all the reasons set forth above. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs would respectfully submit that the applicable standard of review in this situation is intermediate scrutiny, a test that has historically been used to evaluate laws which discriminate against out-of-wedlock children -- children subject to discrimination because of the status of their parents.

  3. Nashville Student Organizing Committee et al v. Hargett

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint

    Filed October 9, 2015

    The Supreme Court has never so held. In Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965), the Supreme Court struck down a Texas constitutional provision prohibiting members of the U.S. Armed Forces stationed in Texas from casting ballots, stating: “‘Fencing out’ from the franchise a sector of the population because of the way they may vote is constitutionally impermissible.” Id.

  4. Fletcher et al v. Lamone et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claimor in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, and Review

    Filed December 13, 2011

    nom. Symm v. United States,439 U.S. 1105 (1979); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965) (striking down state constitutional provision barring members of armed forces from establishing residency for voting purposes). 4 See Nat’l Research Council, Once, Only Once, and in the Right Place: Residence Rules in the Decennial Census 83 (Daniel L. Cork & Paul R. Voss eds., 2006) (available at http://print.nap.edu/web_ready/0309102995.pdf.)