## Facts

- Forty-four same-sex couples sought marriage licenses from various New York municipal clerks and were denied under New York’s Domestic Relations Law (DRL).
- The couples filed four actions challenging the DRL as unconstitutional under the New York Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection guarantees.
- In one trial-level case, a court ruled for the couples, but that ruling was reversed on appeal.
- In the other three cases, trial courts ruled for the governmental defendants and were affirmed on appeal.
- The New York Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals and decided them together.

## Issues

1. Whether limiting civil marriage under the DRL to opposite-sex couples violates due process under the New York Constitution by denying same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry.
2. Whether the DRL violates equal protection under the New York Constitution by impermissibly discriminating against same-sex couples, including on theories of sexual-orientation or sex-based classification.
3. What level of scrutiny applies to the DRL’s opposite-sex marriage limitation.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held that the DRL does not permit marriage between two persons of the same sex.
- The court applied rational-basis review, rejecting strict or heightened scrutiny.
- The court held the opposite-sex limitation does not violate due process because the asserted right was framed as a right to same-sex marriage, which the court did not treat as fundamental.
- The court held the limitation does not violate equal protection because the Legislature could rationally distinguish between opposite-sex and same-sex couples in structuring civil marriage.
- The court affirmed the Appellate Division judgments in all four cases, leaving any change in marriage eligibility to the Legislature.

## Legal Principles

- Where no fundamental right or suspect/quasi-suspect classification is recognized, a challenged classification under the New York Constitution is reviewed for a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.
- The state may, consistent with rational-basis review, structure civil marriage around legislative judgments concerning responsible procreation and the stability of parenting biological children by opposite-sex couples.
- A statute limiting marriage eligibility by reference to the sexes of the two partners is not necessarily treated as a sexual-orientation classification triggering heightened scrutiny under New York law.
- Courts may uphold legislative definitions of marriage if any rational basis supports the classification, even if the underlying policy assumptions are disputed.

## Conclusion

The New York Court of Appeals upheld New York’s opposite-sex definition of civil marriage, concluding that the Domestic Relations Law neither infringed a fundamental right nor denied equal protection under the state constitution and that any extension of marriage to same-sex couples was a policy decision for the Legislature.


Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006)