Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Current Cases

By: Scottie Thomaston and Jacob Combs

Marriage Equality Cases

Arizona:

Connolly v. Brewer: A class-action lawsuit filed by four same-sex couples in federal court challenging the state’s marriage equality ban and its refusal to recognize marriages performed outside of the state. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Arkansas:

Jernigan v. Crane: A federal challenge to Arkansas’ marriage equality ban, filed by three same-sex couples. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Wright v. Arkansas: A state court challenge to Arkansas’ marriage equality ban, filed by eleven same-sex couples. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

California:

Prop 8 (Perry): A lawsuit filed in 2009 by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) in California district court arguing that Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment banning marriage equality that passed by a popular vote during the 2008 election, violates the due process and equal protection rights provided by the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.  The suit is filed on behalf of two gay couples in California, one from Burbank and one from Alameda, who were denied marriage licenses due to their sexual orientation.  First known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the case was later called Perry v. Brown and Hollingsworth v. Perry at the Supreme Court level. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Hollingsworth v. O’Connell: A case that followed the Supreme Court’s decision in the Prop 8 case, holding that ballot initiative proponents lacked standing to appeal from the district court’s decision. After the Supreme Court’s decision came down, the district court’s order invalidating Prop 8 went into effect, and the Prop 8 proponents asked the California Supreme Court to prevent counties from issuing marriage licenses under a provision of state law (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Dronenburg v. Brown: San Diego’s county clerk Ernest Dronenburg filed a request to the California Supreme Court for a decision that county clerks are not controlled by state officials.

Colorado:

Brinkman v. Long: A challenge to Colorado’s marriage equality ban filed in state court, raising federal Constitutional issues.

Florida:

Pareto v. Ruvin: The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) filed a lawsuit on behalf of six same-sex couples in state court, raising federal Constitutional issues. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Hawaii:

Jackson v. Abercrombie: Federal lawsuit challenging Hawaii’s marriage equality ban (which was overturned by legislation in 2013.) There are motions pending at the Ninth Circuit to have the case ended, now that Hawaii’s legislature has passed marriage equality. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

McDermott v. Abercrombie: A Republican state representative filed a lawsuit in state court in Hawaii to stop a special legislative session to pass Hawaii’s marriage equality law. The case involved the 1998 state constitutional amendment’s language, which allowed the legislature to decide the issue of same-sex marriage. When the bill passed and was signed into law, the suit became a challenge to the law, still based on the amendment’s language. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Amsterdam v. Abercrombie: A challenge to Hawaii’s pro-marriage equality law filed in federal court.

Idaho:

Latta v. Otter: Federal lawsuit filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) on behalf of four same-sex couples, challenging the state’s marriage equality ban and its non-recognition of marriages performed outside Idaho. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Illinois:

Darby/Lazaro (v. Orr): Two court cases filed in 2012 by Lambda Legal (Darby v. Orr) and the ACLU of Illinois (Lazaro v. Orr) which were later combined into one case challenging Illinois’s marriage laws, which allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions but not to marry.  Illinois’s lack of marriage equality, the plaintiffs argue, violates gays and lesbians’ equal protection and due process rights under the state constitution. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Gray v. Orr: A federal lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal to allow same-sex couples to marry when a person in the relationship is terminally-ill: the Illinois legislature passed a marriage equality law, but it doesn’t go into effect until June 2014. The lawsuit would allow some couples to marry before the law takes effect.

Lee v. Orr. Four same-sex couples filed a federal lawsuit asking to be able to marry before the recently-passed marriage equality goes into effect in June 2014. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Kentucky:

Bourke et al v. Beshear: Federal lawsuit challenging the state’s non-recognition of same-sex marriages performed outside the state. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Franklin v. Beshear: Federal challenge to Kentucky’s marriage equality ban.

Louisiana:

Robicheaux v. Caldwell (and Robicheaux v. George): A federal challenge to Louisiana’s marriage equality ban and its non-recognition of same-sex marriages from other states. The  two cases have been consolidated in federal court, though one has technically already been dismissed. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Michigan:

DeBoer v. Snyder: An adoption lawsuit brought in 2012 on behalf of a Michigan lesbian couple that is later expanded into a marriage equality suit arguing that Michigan’s marriage amendment, which limits marriage to opposite-sex couples, violates gay and lesbian Michiganders’ equal protection and due process laws under the U.S. Constitution. The case goes to trial in February 2014. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Mississippi:

Czekala-Chatham v. Melancon: A same-sex married couple who were married outside the state filed a lawsuit in state court asking for a divorce. (The divorce was denied by a judge in December 2013.)

Nevada:

Sevcik v. Sandoval: A lawsuit filed in 2012 by Lambda Legal in Nevada district court challenging the state’s marriage laws, which restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples while only allowing same-sex couples to enter into domestic partnerships.  Nevada’s laws, the suit contends, constitute an equal protection violation under the U.S. Constitution. The case is currently at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

New Jersey:

Garden State Equality v. Dow: A legal action filed by Lambda Legal in New Jersey Superior Court in 2011 arguing that New Jersey’s decision to offer same-sex couples civil unions but not full marriage rights violates both the New Jersey Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Lambda Legal was also behind an earlier marriage equality lawsuit in New Jersey, Lewis v. Harris, which ended in a unanimous decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2006 that ordered the state legislature to offer same-sex couples either marriage equality or civil unions with full legal rights and protections.  In 2006, the New Jersey legislature opted to pass a civil unions bill. After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, striking down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Lambda Legal asked for a ruling in favor of marriage equality. The lower courts ruled in favor of same-sex couples, and though the case was appealed to the state’s high court, state officials dropped the appeal, meaning that marriage equality is law in the state. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

New Mexico:

Griego v. Oliver: A challenge to New Mexico state laws related to marriage in state court initially filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the ACLU, along with attorneys from New Mexico. State law did not expressly ban or allow same-sex marriage, and the lawsuit became a challenge to the interpretation of existing laws in the state. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that marriage equality is required by the state constitution, after deciding that state law should be read as a ban. The Griego case is one of five related cases all decided by the state supreme court’s ultimate decision. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

North Carolina:

Fisher-Borne v. Smith: A federal case filed by the ACLU and the ACLU of North Carolina that initially sought the right to adoption for same-sex couples. The complaint was amended to include challenges to North Carolina’s marriage equality ban. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Ohio:

Obergefell v. Wymslo (formerly Obergefell v. Kasich): A federal case filed by an Ohio law firm asking Ohio officials to recognize the marriage of a same-sex couple, James Obergefell and John Arthur, for purposes of a death certificate for Arthur, who was terminally ill (he has since passed away.) Another couple and a funeral director were added as plaintiffs, and the federal judge later issued a full ruling on the case holding that Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Oklahoma:

Bishop v. Smith (formerly Bishop v. Oklahoma and Bishop v. USA): A federal lawsuit filed in 2004 that began as a sweeping challenge to both sections of DOMA and Oklahoma’s marriage equality ban, as well as its refusal to recognize out of state same-sex marriages. In January 2014, the federal judge ruled in favor of marriage equality (by then, the challenge to Section 3 of DOMA was moot because of the Supreme Court’s decision, and the federal court held that the challenge to Section 2 was moot due to the sweeping ruling requiring recognition of same-sex marriage in Oklahoma.) (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Oregon:

In the matter of Alison Clark: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in an administrative ruling that DOMA and Oregon’s marriage equality ban are unconstitutional. The opinion is unpublished and is just an administrative matter, but its holding suggested that Clark, a court worker, was discriminated against when officials failed to recognize her Canadian same-sex marriage. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Geiger/Rummell v. Kitzhaber: Federal lawsuit filed by same-sex couples in October 2013 challenging the state’s constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. The challenge began as two cases but a federal district court judge consolidated them in January 2014.

Pennsylvania:

Whitewood v. Wolf: The ACLU and a Pennsylvania law firm filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of 23 people living in the state, consisting of same-sex couples who want to marry, have their legal marriages performed outside Pennsylvania recognized by the state, and several other people. Pennsylvania only has a state law banning marriage equality, and no constitutional amendment. The law is what is challenged here. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Palladino v. Corbett: A federal challenge to Pennsylvania’s marriage equality ban. This suit is notable for raising a Full Faith and Credit challenge in addition to suggesting same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Pennsylvania Department of Health v. Hanes: Montgomery County Clerk Bruce Hanes began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in mid-2013. Pennsylvania sued him to stop county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Hanes believes the law barring marriage equality to be unconstitutional and Pennsylvania’s attorney general, Kathleen Kane, agrees. A state judge ordered him to stop issuing marriage licenses and the case is on appeal to the state supreme court, where Hanes is asking the high court to allow counties to issue the marriage licenses. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Ballen v. Corbett: Twenty-one same-sex couples who were denied the opportunity to intervene in Pennsylvania Department of Health v. Hanes sued in state court to have their marriages recognized by the state. These couples were married when Montgomery County Clerk Bruce Hanes began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Cucinotta v. Commonwealth: A challenge to Pennsylvania’s marriage ban in state court on state constitutional grounds. (Since there is no state constitutional amendment banning marriage equality in Pennsylvania, the ban can be challenged under the state constitution.)

South Carolina:

Bradacs v. Haley: A federal lawsuit filed by a married same-sex couple seeking to have their marriage recognized by the state. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Tennessee:

Tanco v. Haslam: A federal lawsuit filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) on behalf of four legally married same-sex couples seeking to have their marriages recognized by the state. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Texas:

DeLeon v. Perry: A federal lawsuit filed by local attorneys in October 2013 seeking the right to marriage equality for two same-sex couples. One couple is already legally married and is seeking recognition of their marriage.

McNosky v. Perry: A federal lawsuit filed by a same-sex couple seeking the right to marriage equality. The couple are representing themselves in court.

Zahrn v. Perry: Class-action federal lawsuit filed to guarantee that any ruling in favor of marriage equality applies to all same-sex couples in the state. State officials filed a request to consolidate this case with the other two, but in January 2014 the request was denied.

Utah:

Kitchen v. Herbert: Federal lawsuit filed by same-sex couples seeking the right to marriage equality, and to have their marriages recognized. The case was filed by local attorneys, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) joined as co-counsel when the challenge was successful in district court, and state officials appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Evans v. Utah: A state court case in Utah filed after the district court struck down Utah’s marriage equality ban. Same-sex couples began marrying immediately, and the US Supreme Court stayed the case weeks later. Because of the stay, state officials put recognition of the marriages “on hold” pending the Tenth Circuit appeal. This lawsuit argues that the marriages were legally performed and are valid.

Virginia:

Bostic v. Rainey: A federal challenge to Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban that was later expanded to include a challenge to its non-recognition of same-sex marriages performed outside the state. Initially filed by Virginia attorneys, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) joined the case, with attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies leading their team. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Harris v. McDonnell: Federal class-action lawsuit challenging Virginia’s marriage equality ban and its non-recognition of marriages performed outside the state, filed by Lambda Legal. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

West Virginia:

McGee v. Cole: Lambda Legal and Fairness West Virginia filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s marriage equality ban, on behalf of three same-sex couples. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

DOMA Cases

Gill/Massachusetts: Two court cases filed in 2009 by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (Gill v. Office of Personnel Management) and the attorney general of Massachusetts (Massachusetts v. Dept. of Health and Human Services) challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  DOMA, the suits argue, infringes upon Massachusetts’s marriage law, an area of the law that has traditionally been the exclusive province of the states, and violates the due process rights guaranteed to same-sex couples in the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.  The cases are later combined into one lawsuit. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management (OPM): A lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal in 2010 challenging DOMA on behalf of Karen Golinski, a lesbian employee of the California-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who received approval from her employer to enroll her wife on her health insurance plan but was blocked from doing so by the federal government.  DOMA, the lawsuit argues, unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of Golinski’s sexual orientation. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Pedersen v. OPM: A lawsuit filed in 2010 by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) in Connecticut district court on behalf of seven citizens of Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire challenging the constitutionality of DOMA’s Section 3.  The suit’s plaintiffs are federal employees who, because of their sexual orientation, have been denied services that are provided to opposite-sex couples. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Windsor v. U.S.: A lawsuit filed in 2010 by the ACLU in a New York district court challenging the constitutionality of DOMA on behalf of Edie Windsor, an octogenarian forced to pay more than $363,000 in estate tax after the death of her wife Thea Spyer, whom she wed in Canada in 2007.  DOMA, the ACLU suit argues, unconstitutionally excludes same-sex couples from the rights and responsibilities of marriage that opposite-sex couples enjoy. This case reached the US Supreme Court as United States v. Windsor, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Edith Windsor, striking down Section 3 of DOMA. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Dragovich v. Department of Treasury: A lawsuit filed in 2010 in a Northern California district court against the U.S. Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS).  The named plaintiffs, represented by the Legal Aid Society—Employment Law Center, are five California state employees and their partners who have been denied access to the CalPERS program, which allows long-term care insurance for public employees and their families.  The case is considered a class action suit by the court.  In their complaint, the plaintiffs argue that both DOMA and the decision by CalPERS to exclude same-sex couples from their benefits program violate those couples’ equal protection rights. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Cooper-Harris v. U.S.: An action filed in 2012 by the Southern Poverty Law Center in a central California district court on behalf of Tracey Cooper-Harris, a 12-year veteran of the U.S. Army who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2010 and then denied partnership benefits for her spouse by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs even though the two women are legally married under California law.  Cooper-Harris’s suit challenges both the constitutionality of the benefits decision made by Veterans Affairs and the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act itself. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Aranas v. Napolitano: A lawsuit filed in 2012 in a central California district court by the Center for Human Rights on Constitutional Law on behalf of a binational couple and their adult son challenging DOMA as it pertains to immigration.  Jane DeLeon, who immigrated from the Philippines to the U.S. in 1989, married her partner of 20 years, Irma Rodriguez, a U.S. citizen, in 2008. DeLeon’s son, whom DeLeon gave birth to during a previous marriage to a man in the Philippines, came to the U.S. when he was nine, and his legal status depends on his mother’s. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Blesch v. Holder: A suit filed in 2012 in a New York district court by Immigration Equality on behalf of five married, binational couples challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.  For all five couples, the U.S.-citizen spouse sponsored the non-citizen spouse to obtain a green card, but the applications were denied due to DOMA. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Bishop v. U.S. (formerly Bishop v. Oklahoma): A case filed in 2009 in a Tulsa, Oklahoma district court by two lesbian couples challenging both DOMA and Oklahoma’s ban on marriage equality.  One of the couples married in both California and Canada, and also have a civil union from Vermont, while the other couple had sought to marry but was blocked from doing so by an Oklahoma constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex couples from marrying. The DOMA claims in this case were resolved by US v. Windsor or declared moot by the district court’s 2014 order in the case. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Cozen O’Connor v. Tobits: A lawsuit filed in 2011 in an eastern Pennsylvania district court by the law firm Cozen O’Connor regarding a dispute concerning the estate of one of the firm’s employees, Sarah Ellyn Farley, between her wife, Jennifer Tobits, and her parents, David and Joan Farley.  Tobits and Farley wed in Toronto in 2006 before Farley’s death in 2010, but Farley’s parents, who did not accept her partnership with Tobits, filed a suit in Illinois court to take over her estate.  David and Joan Farley also told Cozen O’Connor that they should receive Farley’s benefits from the firm’s profit-sharing plan because her marriage to Tobits is not recognized under federal law due to DOMA.  In September 2012, the Illinois court ruled that Tobits is the sole heir to Farley’s estate.  Tobits is represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Cardona v. Shinseki: A suit filed in 2012 by Yale Law School’s Veterans Legal Services Clinic on behalf of Carmen Cardona, a disabled Navy veteran, challenging a decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs to deny Cardona dependency benefits for her wife, whom she married in Connecticut, because of DOMA. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

McLaughlin v. Panetta: A lawsuit filed in 2011 by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN, now known as Outserve-SLDN) on behalf of a group of current and former members of the U.S. military who were denied benefits for their lawfully wedded same-sex spouses because of DOMA.  In addition to challenging DOMA, the case, filed in Massachusetts district court, also challenges three sections of the U.S. Code which prevent the military from providing same-sex couples the same benefits as opposite-sex couples. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

In re Balas and Morales: A case filed in 2011 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California by a married same-sex couple challenging DOMA on the grounds that it prohibits them from being considered married for the purposes of bankruptcy proceedings.  In a decision later that year signed by 20 of the court’s judges (a rare occurrence), the court found that DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Lui v. Holder: A lawsuit filed in 2011 by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law on behalf of a married, binational same-sex couple in California whose green card application was denied because of DOMA. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Partridge v. Napolitano: An immigration-related challenge to Section 3 of DOMA, filed by a binational same-sex couple.

Revelis v. Napolitano: A suit filed in 2011 in a northern Illinois district court by a binational couple, married under Iowa law, who were prevented from obtaining a permanent residence visa for the non-U.S. citizen spouse because of DOMA. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Roe v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield: A class-action lawsuit filed in New York district court in 2012 by a lesbian employee of a Catholic hospital who was denied spousal health benefits for her wife by her employer.  The suit challenges both DOMA itself as well as the decision by the hospital, St. Joseph’s Medical Center, and its benefits administrator, Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, to deny benefits to same-sex couples. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

In re Levenson: A complaint filed in the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Central District of California in 2009 by Brad Levenson, a California public defender, who sought to have his employment benefits extended to his husband but was denied because of DOMA.  As an employee of the judiciary, Levenson is barred by federal law from suing his employer in federal court, and had to file for an employment dispute resolution tribunal instead.

Non-marriage, non-DOMA Cases

Appling v. Walker: Fair Wisconsin and Lambda Legal are defending a challenge to Wisconsin’s domestic partnership law for same-sex couples in the state supreme court.

Elane Photography v. Willock: A case filed in New Mexico involving a photography studio that refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony (before the state supreme court ruled in favor of marriage equality, and when same-sex marriages were considered banned.) The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Elane Photography violated the state’s anti-discrimination law. The studio petitioned the US Supreme Court for review, and are awaiting a decision on whether the case will be heard.

Diaz v. Brewer: Lambda Legal filed a federal challenge to an Arizona law blocking domestic partnership benefits for state employees with same-sex partners. When the federal judge issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the law, the state asked the Supreme Court to review the case. They declined to review it at an early stage. The case is going to trial, and has been certified as a class-action. (Click here for more information from the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.)

Kosilek v. Spencer: Filed by a local attorney in Massachusetts, and joined later by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) as co-counsel, this case involves an incarcerated transgender woman who sought gender reassignment surgery and was denied the request by the Department of Corrections. The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January 2014 that denial of the surgery (necessary to treat a serious condition, gender dysphoria) violates the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution, and its ban on cruel and unusual punishments. The Supreme Court could be asked to take up the case.

SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott Laboratories: A federal case that originated as a dispute over an HIV treatment drug. At trial, a potential juror was struck after he referred to his male partner, and the peremptory strike was challenged as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and under previous Supreme Court precedent, Batson v. Kentucky. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January that gay jurors can’t be struck from a jury pool based only on their sexual orientation. In the process of reaching that ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that laws that classify people based on their sexual orientation warrant a heightened form of judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. The case could reach the US Supreme Court.

Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop: A case brought by the ACLU alleging discrimination against a same-sex couple under Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. The couple was denied a cake because they are a same-sex couple and they were going to have the cake at their same-sex commitment ceremony (same-sex marriage is not legal in Colorado). The case was decided in the same-sex couple’s favor and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) appealed the ruling in January 2014.

Cryer et al v. Sweet Cakes by Melissa Bakery: The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found that a same-sex couple was discriminated against under the state’s anti-discrimination law when a bakery refused to sell a cake to a same-sex couple for their commitment ceremony (same-sex marriage is not legal in Oregon.) The parties are in talks for a settlement, and depending on the outcome, the case could go further.