Texas Mandamus Petition

No. __________

In the Supreme Court of Texas

IN RE STATE OF TEXAS, Relator

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to

Probate Court No. 1, Travis County, Texas

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

KEN PAXTON

Attorney General of Texas

CHARLES E. ROY

First Assistant Attorney General

SCOTT A. KELLER

Solicitor General

MICHAEL P. MURPHY

Assistant Solicitor General

State Bar No. 24051097

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059)

Austin, Texas 78711-2548

Tel.: (512) 936-2995

Fax: (512) 474-2697

michaelp.murphy@

texasattorneygeneral.gov

COUNSEL FOR RELATOR

FILED15-01352/17/2015 11:07:08 PMtex-4185598SUPREME COURT OF TEXASBLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK

i

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Relator: State of Texas

Relator’s Lead Counsel:

Michael P. Murphy



[email protected]


P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059)


Tel.: (512) 936-2995

Fax: (512) 474-2697

Respondent:

Hon. Guy Herman

Judge of Probate Court No. 1, Travis County, Texas

Probate Court No. 1

1000 Guadalupe, Room 217

Austin, Texas 78701

Tel.: (512) 854-9258

Fax: (512) 854-4418

ii

Real Parties in Interest:

Sonemaly Phrasavath

James Powell

Alice Huseman

Unknown heirs of Stella Marie Powell

Real Parties in Interest’s Appellate and Trial Counsel

Craig Hopper

Brian T. Thompson

Hopper Mikeska

400 W. 15th Street, Suite 408

Austin, Texas 78701

COUNSEL FOR SONEMALY

PHRASAVATH

Michael B. Knisely

Jason S. Scott

Osborne, Helman, Knebel, DeLeery

301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1910

Austin, Texas 78701

COUNSEL FOR JAMES POWELL AND

ALICE HUSEMAN

Douglas A. Booth

Law Offices of Douglas A. Booth

3801 S. Capital of Texas Highway,

Suite 255

Austin, Texas 78704

COUNSEL FOR UNKNOWN HEIRS

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identity of Parties and Counsel ................................................................. i

Index of Authorities .................................................................................. iv

Statement of the Case .............................................................................. vi

Statement of Jurisdiction ........................................................................ vii

Issue Presented ......................................................................................viii

Statement of Facts .................................................................................... 2

Argument ................................................................................................... 4

I. The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion By Purporting to

Issue an Order With Statewide Application That

Facially Invalidates State Law While Those Issues Are

Pending in This Court. ............................................................ 4

II. Absent Mandamus Relief, The Court’s Unnecessarily

Broad Order Threatens Serious, Imminent Harm. ................ 6

III. There Is No Adequate Remedy By Appeal Because The

Harm Is Imminent And No Interlocutory Appeal Is

Available. ................................................................................. 8

IV. The State Has a Justiciable Interest In The Outcome Of

The Underlying Proceedings. .................................................. 9

Prayer ........................................................................................................ 9

Mandamus Certification ....................................................................... 111

Certificate of Service ............................................................................. 122

Certificate of Compliance ...................................................................... 144

iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson,

53 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. 2001) ................................................................ 8

DeBoer v. Synder,

No. 2:12-cv-10285, 2014 WL 1100794

(E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2014) ............................................................... 7

In re Jorden,

249 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. 2008, orig. proceeding) .................................. 4

In re Marriage of J.B. & H.B.,

326 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. filed) ....................... 9

In re Prudential Ins. Co. v. Am.,

148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) .............................................................. 4

Kitchen v. Herbert,

No. 2:13-CV-217, 2013 WL 6834634

(D. Utah Dec. 23, 2013) ................................................................. 6-7

Perry v. Del Rio,

67 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. 2001) .................................................................. 9

Terrazas v. Ramirez,

829 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. 1991) .............................................................. 9

Walker v. Packer,

827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) .............................................................. 4

Constitutional Provisions, Statutes and Rules

TEX. CONST. art. I, § 32 .......................................................... vi, viii, 1, 3, 5

TEX. CONST. art. IV, § 1 ............................................................................. 9

v

TEX. CONST. art. IV, § 22 ........................................................................... 9

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a) ................................................. 8

TEX. FAM. CODE § 2.401 ......................................................... vi, viii, 1, 3, 5

TEX. FAM. CODE § 6.204(b) ..................................................... vi, viii, 1, 3, 5

TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.002(a) ................................................................... vii

TEX. GOV’T CODE § 402.010 ........................................................................ 9

TEX. GOV’T CODE § 402.021 ........................................................................ 9

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1 .................................................................................. vii

Other Authorities

Kathleen Gray & Gina Damron, Federal Appeals Court

Extends Freeze on Michigan Gay Marriages,

DETROIT FREE PRESS (March 25, 2014) ............................................ 7

Order, In re Marriage of A.L.F.L. and K.L.L., No. 04-14-

00364-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio, July 8, 2014) .......................... 5

Charlie Savage & Jack Healy, U.S. to Recognize 1,300

Marriages Disputed by Utah, N.Y. TIMES

(Jan. 10, 2014) .................................................................................. 7

vi

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the Case: This mandamus proceeding challenges an

unappealable order denying special

exceptions but holding Article I, section 32 of

the Texas Constitution and Texas Family

Code sections 2.401 and 6.204(b)

unconstitutional.

Respondent: The Hon. Guy Herman,

Probate Court No. 1, Travis County

Course of

Proceedings And

Respondent’s

Challenged Action:

This mandamus petition arises out of probate

proceedings. Real Parties in Interest James

Powell, and Alice Huseman filed an

Application for Determination of Heirship

following the death of Stella Marie Powell.

Real Party in Interest Sonemaly Phrasavath

filed a contest to that application and a

counter-application for determination of

heirship based on her claim that she was

Stella Marie Powell’s common law wife.

James Powell and Huseman filed a motion to

dismiss and special exceptions to

Phrasavath’s contest and application. On

February 17, 2015, the probate court denied

the special exceptions in their entirety and

found that Texas Constitution art. I, § 32 and

Texas Family Code sections 2.401 and

6.204(b), which prohibit same-sex marriage,

to be unconstitutional. That same day, the

State of Texas moved to intervene to defend

the constitutionality of its laws.

vii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Court has original jurisdiction to issue the requested writ of

mandamus because it seeks relief from an order of a statutory probate

court judge. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.002(a); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1.

This petition was not first presented to the court of appeals due to

the extremely time-sensitive nature of this matter and the serious harm

that could arise absent prompt relief. The probate court invalidated

Article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution and Texas Family Code

sections 2.401 and 6.204(b) without entering a stay. MR Tab F (holding

that Texas marriage laws are “unconstitutional insofar as they restrict

marriage in the State of Texas to a union of a man and woman”). This

broad ruling may cause same-sex couples to seek marriage licenses across

the State, and district clerks may mistakenly rely on this order to begin

granting such licenses. If that occurred, the harm to the couples, state

officials, and the general public would be difficult if not impossible to

undo.

viii

ISSUE PRESENTED

Article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution defines marriage in

Texas as only “the union of one man and one woman.” Texas Family Code

section 6.204(b) declares any marriage between persons of the same sex

void. And Texas Family Code section 2.401 defines a common law

marriage to be between a man and a woman.

Was it an abuse of discretion for the probate court to purport to

facially invalidate these laws as unconstitutional, in an unnecessarily

broad, unappealable interlocutory order, without staying its ruling when

this Court is currently considering this constitutional question?

No. __________

In the Supreme Court of Texas

IN RE STATE OF TEXAS, Relator

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to

Probate Court No. 1, Travis County, Texas

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS:

Pursuant to Rule 52 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,

the State of Texas seeks relief from the probate court’s order purporting

to facially invalidate Article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution and

Texas Family Code sections 2.401 and 6.204 (hereinafter, Texas marriage

law). The unnecessary and overly broad ruling could create the

impression that the order was intended to have the statewide effect of

striking down Texas marriage law. The ruling was an abuse of discretion

because of its unnecessary overbreadth and its failure to defer to this

Court’s resolution of serious constitutional issues that are currently

under review in this Court. See In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. &

2

H.B., No. 11-0024; State v. Naylor, No. 11-0114; In re State of Texas, No.

11-0222.

As a result of the probate court’s ruling, the state of the law in Texas

has been needlessly cast into doubt. Immediate relief from this Court is

necessary to avoid the legal chaos that would follow if the probate court’s

broadly worded ruling is mistakenly interpreted as authorization for the

creation or recognition of same-sex marriages in Travis County or

throughout the State. Recent events in Utah and Michigan demonstrate

the gravity, reach, and imminence of this harm absent mandamus relief.

There is also no adequate remedy by appeal, given the looming

harm and inability of the parties to file an interlocutory appeal or stay

the effect of the order. The Court should grant the petition for writ of

mandamus and order the trial court to vacate or stay its ruling that Texas

marriage law is unconstitutional pending final appellate resolution of the

issue.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Stella Marie Powell resided in Travis County and died intestate in

June 2014. MR Tab A at 1-2. Two of her surviving siblings filed an

heirship proceeding in statutory probate court in Travis County, seeking

3

a determination of heirship and distribution of property because Powell

was not married and had no children. MR Tab A at 2. Sonemaly

Phrasavath filed a contest to the application for heirship, claiming she

had a “common law or informal marital relationship” with Powell. MR

Tab B at 1. Phrasavath sought a fifty percent share of Powell’s separate

real property, and all of Powell’s community property and separate

personal property. MR Tab B at 2. The siblings filed special exceptions

and a motion to dismiss, contending that the Article I, section 32 of the

Texas Constitution and sections 2.401 and 6.204 of the Texas Family

Code prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriage. MR Tab C at 3.

Following a hearing on February 17, 2015, the probate court denied the

siblings’ motion to dismiss and also held that:

Texas Family Code § 2.401, Texas Family Code § 6.204(b), and

Article I, § 32 of the Texas Constitution are unconstitutional

insofar as they restrict marriage in the State of Texas to a

union of a man and woman and prohibit the creation or

recognition of marriage to same-sex couples, because such

restrictions and prohibitions violate the Due Process Clause

and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

4

MR Tab F at 1. The order contains no language staying the constitutional

ruling, nor does it expressly limit its scope to the particular case at hand.

MR Tab F at 1.

ARGUMENT

Mandamus relief is available where (1) a court abuses its discretion

and (2) there is no “adequate remedy by appeal.” In re Prudential Ins.

Co. v. Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 & n.47 (Tex. 2004) (citing Walker v.

Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992)). A trial court “has no discretion

in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts, even if

the law is somewhat unsettled.” In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 424 (Tex.

2008, orig. proceeding) (footnote omitted). Accordingly, an error of law

constitutes a clear abuse of discretion. Id.; Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at

135.

I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY PURPORTING TO

ISSUE AN ORDER WITH STATEWIDE APPLICATION THAT FACIALLY

INVALIDATES STATE LAW WHILE THOSE ISSUES ARE PENDING IN

THIS COURT.

The trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion because it

broadly declared state law unconstitutional without staying the effect of

its ruling while this issue is pending in this Court. A court’s failure to

stay a constitutional ruling while that issue is pending in this Court is a

5

clear abuse of discretion. See Order, In re Marriage of A.L.F.L. and

K.L.L., No. 04-14-00364-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio, July 8, 2014)

(staying a trial court ruling that Texas marriage law is unconstitutional

because “the issues to be presented in this appeal are similar to those

issues pending before the Texas Supreme Court, i.e., the constitutionality

of Texas marriage law under article I, section 32 of the Texas

Constitution and section 6.204 of the Texas Family Code”).

The constitutional issues addressed in the probate court’s order are

the same issues under review by this Court in In re Marriage of J.B and

H.B, No. 11-0024, Naylor v. Daly, No. 11-0114, and In re State of Texas,

No. 11-0222, all of which are fully briefed and were argued on November

5, 2013. These cases address whether article I, section 32 of the Texas

Constitution and Texas Family Code section 6.204 violate the federal

constitution.1 Due to the nearly identical constitutional issues in play,

the probate court clearly abused its discretion by failing to stay its ruling.

The court’s constitutional ruling must be vacated or stayed to allow this

Court to decide these issues on a statewide basis.

1 Although these cases do not concern Texas Family Code section 2.401, an

adjudication of the constitutionality of Article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution

and Texas Family Code section 6.204 will also resolve the validity of section 2.401.

6

II. ABSENT MANDAMUS RELIEF, THE COURT’S UNNECESSARILY

BROAD ORDER THREATENS SERIOUS, IMMINENT HARM.

The probate court’s order, if left undisturbed, threatens to produce

a host of legal and practical problems that undermine the public interest

in predictable and clear legal rules. While the probate court’s jurisdiction

extends only to the parties before it, the broad sweep of the court’s order

may lead other parties, courts, and county clerks to mistakenly believe

that Texas’s marriage laws have been invalidated for all purposes,

clearing the way for the creation and recognition of same-sex marriages

in Travis County or throughout the State.

Innumerable practical problems may arise if the trial court’s ruling

is ultimately reversed but same-sex couples have mistakenly been

permitted to marry based on the court’s needlessly broad constitutional

ruling. And unless this Court or the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately find

a constitutional violation, any marriages created on the basis of the

probate court’s ruling will cease to exist if the State’s definition of

marriage is upheld.

These problems are real, not theoretical. In Utah, for example,

same-sex couples married within hours of a district court’s decision to

enjoin application of Utah’s same-sex marriage ban. Kitchen v. Herbert,

7

No. 2:13-CV-217, 2013 WL 6834634, at *1 (D. Utah Dec. 23, 2013). The

district court and the Tenth Circuit denied Utah’s stay motions, but the

Supreme Court granted a stay, restoring the enforceability of Utah’s

marriage law during the appeal. But even after that decision was stayed

by the Supreme Court, the federal government has chosen to recognize

the same-sex marriages entered into while the order was in place,

creating legal uncertainty and practical confusion about the status of

those marriages. Charlie Savage & Jack Healy, U.S. to Recognize 1,300

Marriages Disputed by Utah, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 10, 2014), available at

http://nyti.ms/1E490so.

Similar problems arose in Michigan when a federal court struck

down Michigan’s marriage law, but refused to stay the effect of its

judgment. See DeBoer v. Synder, No. 2:12-cv-10285, 2014 WL 1100794

(E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2014). The Sixth Circuit granted a stay less than

one day later, restoring the validity of state marriage law, but in the

interim 321 same-sex couples obtained marriage licenses and at least 299

couples were married. Kathleen Gray & Gina Damron, Federal Appeals

Court Extends Freeze on Michigan Gay Marriages, DETROIT FREE PRESS

(March 25, 2014), available at http://on.freep.com/17PJonj.

8

III. THERE IS NO ADEQUATE REMEDY BY APPEAL BECAUSE THE HARM

IS IMMINENT AND NO INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL IS AVAILABLE.

There is no adequate remedy by appeal from the probate court’s

order because the harm from the order could occur at any time and no

interlocutory appeal is available. The probate court’s order is

interlocutory and is not immediately appealable by the parties. See TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a); Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson,

53 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that section 51.014 should be

“strictly construed as a narrow exception to the general rule that only

final judgments and orders are appealable” (quotation marks omitted)).

Therefore, the parties could not seek immediate appellate relief, even if

they wanted to. The State has intervened in the case, but cannot appeal

the denial of a motion that occurred before it became a party. Any motion

for reconsideration of the court’s order would take time, all the while

leaving the probate court’s ruling—and the uncertainty it creates—in

place. And because the harm is imminent, any later interlocutory

appellate remedy would be inadequate.

9

IV. THE STATE HAS A JUSTICIABLE INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF

THE UNDERLYING PROCEEDINGS.

The State has a justiciable interest in the underlying case because

Texas law has been challenged and the State has a strong and well-

recognized interest in defending the validity of Texas law.2 See, e.g.,

Terrazas v. Ramirez, 829 S.W.2d 712, 721-22 (Tex. 1991) (recognizing the

Attorney General’s legitimate role in representing the State in a lawsuit

challenging the constitutionality of a Texas statute); In re Marriage of

J.B. & H.B., 326 S.W.3d 654, 661 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. filed)

(noting “the State’s important right to be heard on the constitutionality

of its statutes”); TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 402.010, .021. As the chief legal

officer of the State, the Attorney General represents the State in civil

litigation, and “has broad discretionary power in carrying out his

responsibility to represent the State.” Perry v. Del Rio, 67 S.W.3d 85, 92

(Tex. 2001) (citing TEX. CONST. art. IV, §§ 1, 22; TEX. GOV’T CODE

§ 402.021).

PRAYER

The Court should grant the petition for writ of mandamus.

2 The State intervened in the underlying case earlier today. Plea in Intervention,

Estate of Stella Marie Powell, No. C-1-PB-14-001695 (February 17, 2015).

10

Respectfully submitted.

KEN PAXTON

Attorney General of Texas

CHARLES E. ROY

First Assistant Attorney General

SCOTT A. KELLER

Solicitor General

/s/ Michael P. Murphy

MICHAEL P. MURPHY




P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059)


Tel.: (512) 936-2995

Fax: (512) 474-2697

[email protected]

COUNSEL FOR RELATOR

11

MANDAMUS CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j), I certify that

I have reviewed this petition and that every factual statement in the

petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or

record. Pursuant to Rule 52.3(k)(l)(A), I certify that every document

contained in the appendix is a true and correct copy


Michael P. Murphy

Counsel for Relator

12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on February 17, 2015, the foregoing document was

served via File & ServeXpress or electronic mail upon counsel for real

parties in interest. A courtesy copy was also sent to counsel for real

parties in interest by electronic mail.

Craig Hopper

Brian T. Thompson

Hopper Mikeska

400 W. 15th Street, Suite 408

Austin, Texas 78701

512.615.6195

[email protected]

Michael B. Knisely

Jason S. Scott

Osborne, Helman, Knebel, DeLeery

301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1910

Austin, Texas 78701

512.542.2042

[email protected]

[email protected]

Douglas A. Booth

Law Offices of Douglas A. Booth

3801 S. Capital of Texas Highway, Suite 255

Austin, Texas 78704

[email protected]

13

The Respondent was served a copy by email and by U.S. Mail, sent February 18, 2015.

Hon. Guy Herman

Judge of Probate Court No. 1, Travis County, Texas

Probate Court No. 1

1000 Guadalupe, Room 217

Austin, Texas 78701

Tel.: (512) 854-9258 Fax: (512) 854-4418 RESPONDENT


Michael P. Murphy

Counsel for Relator

14

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

In compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(2), this

brief contains 1759 words, excluding the portions of the brief exempted

by Rule 9.4(i)(1).


Michael P. Murphy

Counsel for Relator

APPENDIX AND RECORD

VERIFICATION

THE STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF TRAVIS

Before me, the undersigned notary, on this day personally appeared Michael

P. Murphy, a person whose identity is known to me. After I administered an oath to

him, upon his oath he said the following:

"lVIy name is Michael P. Murphy. I am over twenty-one (21) years of age, of

sound mind, and am capable of making this affidavit. The facts stated in this affidavit

are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct. I am an attorney withthe Office of the Solicitor General, Office qf the Texas Attorney General, representing

Relator The State of Texas. I am licensed to practice in the State of Texas, and

prepared., with co-counsel, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and mandamus record

and appe ndix, attached as the Appendix to the Petition. All of the documents in the

attached Appendix are true and correct ies of the documents identified or true and

correct copies of the documents filed this action, as those documents exist in our

files or were transferred to me by

s

s

s

t,

Signed 7th day of Feb ,2Q16.

I . Murphy, Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, the undersigned authority, on this

17th day of Fe 15

Notary in and for the State of

SYLVIA HERNANDEZNotrry Publlc

STATE OF TEXAS

Commlsslon Erp, APRIL 1ô, 2017

My commission expires: le LO

Not4ry wltþeut Bon d

INDEX TO MANDAMUS APPENDIX AND RECORD

TAB

Application for Determination of Heirship and Issuance of Letters of Independent Administration......................................................................... A Contest to Applicants James Powell and Alice Huseman’s Application for

Determination of Heirship and Issuance of Letters of Independent Administration and Counter-Application to Determine Heirship, for Appointment of Dependent Administrator and Issuance of Letters of Administration. ..................................................................................... B

Applicants James Powell and Alice Huseman’s Special Exceptions to, and Motion to Dismiss, Sonemaly Phrasavath’s Contest to Applicants James Powell and Alice Huseman’s Application for

Determination of Heirship and Issuance of Letters of Independent Administration and Counter-Application to Determine Heirship,

for Appointment of Dependent Administrator and Issuance of Letters of Administration. .................................................................................. C

Sonemaly Phrasavath’s Response to Special Exceptions and Motion to

Dismiss and Motion for Continuance. .................................................. D Sonemaly Phrasavath’s Supplemental Response to Special Exceptions and

Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Continuance. .................................. E Order on Special Exceptions and Motion to Dismiss. .................................. F

UNOFFICIA

L

Filed: 10/15/2014 10:43:13 AMDana DeBeauvoir

Travis County Clerk C-1-PB-14-001695

Debbie Mendez

UNOFFICIA

L

No. C-1-PB-14-001695

ESTATE OF § IN THE PROBATE COURT §

STELLA MARIE POWELL, § NUMBER 1 §

DECEASED § TRAVIS COUNTY, TE~S(:~~-:, .. :r.

ORDER ON SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND MOTION TO DISMiss 'f<Jtz~~~~:~;;', :,, • On this day, the Court considered Applicants James Powell and Alice Huseman's Speeiaf;.~5.~;:{-·/;>

' "'~·t_~l(\_ !;;F

Exceptions to, and Motion to Dismiss, Sonemaly Phrasavath's (1) Contest to Applicants'

Application for Determination of Heirship and Issuance of Letters of Ipdependent

Administration and (2) Counter-application to Determine Heirship, for Appointment of

Dependent Administrator and Issuance of Letters of Administration (collectively, the "Special

Exceptions and Motion to Dismiss"). Having considered the Special Exceptions and Motion to

Dismiss, the response and supplemental response filed by Sonemaly Phrasavath, the arguments

of counsel, and all other papers on file in this matter, the Court hereby DENIES the Special

Exceptions in their entirety.

In denying the Special Exceptions, the Court fmds that Texas Family Code § 2.401;

Texas Family Code§ 6.204(b), and Article I,§ 32 of the Texas Constitution are unconstitutional

insofar as they restrict marriage in the State of Texas to a union of a man and woman and

prohibit the creation or recognition of marriage to same-sex couples, because such restrictions

and prohibitions violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the Unites States Constitution.

Signed on February a, 2015.

-.

Texas Mandamus Petition

Documents

Transcript of Texas Mandamus Petition