## Facts

- Mississippi Code § 93-17-3(5) categorically barred adoption by “couples of the same gender.”
- Four same-sex couples in Mississippi sought to adopt either a partner’s biological child through private adoption or children through the state foster-care system.
- Two advocacy organizations joined the suit, challenging the statute under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and an injunction preventing enforcement of the adoption ban.
- Defendants emphasized threshold defenses (standing and Eleventh Amendment immunity) rather than defending the statute’s merits.
- Plaintiffs sued DHS and its Executive Director (official capacity), the Governor, the Attorney General, and state chancery courts and chancellors.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs had Article III standing and sued a proper official defendant with a sufficient enforcement connection to § 93-17-3(5) for prospective relief.
2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment barred claims against some or all defendants.
3. Whether plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits that Mississippi’s categorical same-sex adoption ban violated the Equal Protection Clause in light of Obergefell.
4. Whether the preliminary-injunction factors supported enjoining enforcement of § 93-17-3(5).

## Decision

- The court granted a preliminary injunction against the DHS Executive Director in his official capacity, prohibiting enforcement of § 93-17-3(5).
- The court dismissed claims against the Governor, Attorney General, chancery courts, and chancellors for lack of standing and/or immunity and insufficient enforcement connection.
- The court held the suit could proceed under Ex parte Young only against the DHS Executive Director for prospective injunctive relief.
- On the merits, the court found plaintiffs were likely to succeed that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause, particularly after Obergefell.
- The court found irreparable harm from ongoing deprivation of constitutional rights and exclusion from adoption eligibility.
- The balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction because removing a categorical bar expanded potential adoptive homes without preventing individualized fitness assessments.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires a concrete injury traceable to the defendant and redressable by the requested relief; proper defendants for injunctive relief must have a real enforcement connection to the challenged law.
- Ex parte Young permits official-capacity suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials with a “special relation” to enforcement; it does not apply where officials lack an enforcement role.
- Eleventh Amendment immunity generally bars suits against states and state entities, but does not bar qualifying Ex parte Young actions for prospective relief.
- A state law that facially excludes same-sex couples from a benefit available to opposite-sex couples raises Equal Protection concerns; after Obergefell, states may not deny same-sex couples the benefits linked to marriage on unequal terms.
- Preliminary injunctions require showing likelihood of success, irreparable harm, favorable balance of equities, and consistency with the public interest.

## Conclusion

The court held that only the DHS Executive Director was a proper defendant for prospective relief and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of Mississippi’s categorical ban on adoption by same-sex couples because plaintiffs were likely to prove the exclusion violated the Equal Protection Clause in light of Obergefell and because the injunction served constitutional and child-welfare interests.


Campaign for S. Equality v. Miss. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 175 F. Supp. 3d 691 (S.D. Miss. 2016)