Conde-Vidal et al v. Rius-Armendariz et al

Filing 69

ORDER denying 64 Motion for Judgment. Signed by Judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez on 03/08/2016.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

ADA CONDE VIDAL, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL NO. 14-1253 (PG)
v.
ALEJANDRO GARCIA-PADILLA, ET AL.,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
For, certainly, no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and
necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth,
fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate states of the Union, than
that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the
family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of
one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure
foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the
best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all
beneficent progress in social and political improvement. 1

I.
The

instant

action

was

BACKGROUND

commenced

almost

two

years

ago

by

the

plaintiffs - a group of individuals and a lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender

nonprofit

advocacy

organization

who

have

challenged

the

constitutionality of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s codification of
opposite-sex marriage under Article 68 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code
(“Article 68”). 2 See P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 221. The plaintiffs seek
declaratory and injunctive relief for violation of their rights under the
Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Upon the defendants’ motion
to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Docket No.
31, on October 21, 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with
prejudice for failure to present a substantial federal question. See

1
2

Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1885).

The plaintiffs include two same-sex couples who seek the right to marry in
Puerto Rico; three-same sex couples who are validly married under the laws of
Massachusetts, New York, and Canada, respectively, and who wish to have their marriages
recognized in the island; and the LGBT advocacy group Puerto Rico Para Tod@s. See Docket
No. 7.
For a detailed discussion of each of the parties’ arguments at the dismissal
stage of the proceedings, the court refers to that included at Docket No. 57.

Civil No. 14-1253 (PG)

Page 2

Docket No. 57 at page 11. Judgment was entered on that same date. See
Docket No. 58. An appeal ensued. See Docket No. 59.
While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Obergefell
v.

Hodges,

135

S.Ct.

2584

(2015),

ruling

on

the

issue

of

same-sex

marriage under the Constitution. There, the Court concluded that under
the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
same-sex couples may not be deprived of the fundamental right to marry.
See id. at 2604-2605. Thus, the marriage laws of the States of Michigan,
Kentucky,

Ohio,

and

Tennessee

challenged

by

the

petitioners

in

the

consolidated cases reviewed by the Court were held invalid. See id. at
2605.
On July 8, 2015, twelve days after the Supreme Court’s landmark
ruling, the First Circuit vacated this court’s judgment and remanded the
case “for further consideration in light of Obergefell v. Hodges.” See
Docket

No.

62

(citation

omitted).

In

doing

so,

the

First

Circuit

expressed that it “agree[s] with the parties’ joint position that the ban
is unconstitutional.” Id. (alteration in original).
On July 17, 2015, the parties filed a “Joint Motion for Entry of
Judgment,” wherein they request a determination that Article 68, and any
other Puerto Rico law that (i) prohibits same-sex marriage; (ii) denies
same-sex

couples

couples,

and

the

(iii)

rights
refuses

and
to

privileges
recognize

afforded

same-sex

to

opposite-sex

marriages

validly

performed under the laws of another jurisdiction, violate the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. See Docket Nos. 64
and 64-1. The parties also seek injunctive relief against the enforcement
of Article 68 and any other law denying same-sex couples the right to
marry. The relief now sought by the parties is intended “to benefit all
LGBT people and same-sex couples in Puerto Rico....”

3

See id. at pages

2-3. For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES the parties’ joint
motion.

3

The parties further request a ruling regarding the binding effect of the court’s
disposition for purposes of issue and claim preclusion. See id. For the reasons that
follow, the court does not reach the request.

Civil No. 14-1253 (PG)

Page 3

II.

DISCUSSION

A. The Obergefell decision
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell seems to touch directly
upon the issue at the heart of this litigation, to wit, whether Puerto
Rico’s

marriage

ban

found

in

Article

68

violates

the

Fourteenth

Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
In the consolidated cases on review before the Supreme Court, the
petitioners,

fourteen

same-sex

couples

and

two

men

whose

same-sex

partners are deceased, challenged the marriage laws of the States of
Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee that defined marriage as a union
between one man and one woman. See Obergefell, 135 S.Ct. at 2593. The
first issue decided by the Court was “whether the Constitution protects
the right of same-sex couples to marry.” Id. at 2606. After identifying
the historical, cultural and legal principles and traditions that have
shaped the right to marry as a fundamental one under the Constitution,
the Court concluded that under the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment same-sex couples may not be deprived
of that right. See id. at 2604-2605. The Court also held that “Baker v.
Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by
Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they
exclude

same-sex

couples

from

civil

marriage

on

the

same

terms

and

conditions as opposite-sex couples.” Id. at 2605 (emphasis added).
The Obergefell cases also “present[ed] the question of whether the
Constitution

requires

performed

out

indicated

that

of

States

State.”

the

to

Id.

recognize

at

“recognition

2607.
bans”

same-sex

In
on

its
valid

marriages

analysis,
same-sex

validly

the

Court

marriages

performed in other States inflicted substantial harm on same-sex couples
and could continue to cause hardships in certain events, such as a
spouse’s hospitalization, across state lines. See id. The Court also
noted the distressing complications such bans created in the law of
domestic

relations.

See

id.

These

reasons

led

to

the

following

conclusion:
The Court, in this decision, holds that same-sex couples may
exercise this fundamental right in all States. It follows that
the Court must also hold--and it now does hold--that there is
no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful

Civil No. 14-1253 (PG)

Page 4

same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of
its same-sex character.
Id. at 2607-2608 (emphasis added).
As forewarned in this court’s opinion and order from October 21,
2014, see Docket No. 57, lower courts are bound by the Supreme Court’s
decisions “‘until such time as the Court informs [them] that [they] are
not.’” Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975)(citation omitted).
After

careful

consideration,

this

court

reads

the

Supreme

Court’s

decision in Obergefell as one incorporating the fundamental right to
same-sex marriage in all States through the Fourteenth Amendment and,
consequently, striking down the marriage and recognition bans codified in
the laws of four States in violation of the Due Process and Equal
Protection

Clauses

of

that

Amendment. 4

However,

Obergefell

did

not

incorporate the fundamental right at issue to Puerto Rico through the
Fourteenth Amendment, nor did it invalidate Article 68. And it is not
within the province of this court to declare, as the parties ask, that
the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees same-sex couples in Puerto Rico the
right to marry. 5
In interpreting Obergefell, this court is bound by an elementary
principle of federal jurisdiction under which “[a] judgment or decree
among the parties to a lawsuit resolves issues among them, but it does
not conclude the right of strangers to those proceedings.” Martins v.
Wilkis, 490 U.S. 755, 762 (1989), superseded by statute, Civil Rights Act
of 1991, Pub. L. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071; see also Doran v. Salem Inn,
Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 931 (1975)(noting that “neither declaratory nor
injunctive relief can directly interfere with enforcement of contested
statutes

or

ordinances

except

with

respect

to

the

particular

4
As noted by the Supreme Court, “[t]hese cases [came] from Michigan, Kentucky,
Ohio, and Tennessee.” Obergefell, 135 S.Ct. at 2593 (alteration in original).
5

Just hours after the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell, the Governor of
Puerto Rico, Hon. Alejandro Garcia Padilla, signed Executive Order OE-2015-21, requiring
several government agencies to become compliant with the ruling and take all measures
necessary for the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Subsequently,
various members of the Puerto Rico Legislature filed suit before the Puerto Rico Court of
First Instance, San Juan Part, challenging the constitutionality of the Governor’s
actions. See Maria M. Charbonier et al. v. Hon. Alejandro Garcia Padilla, et al. (case
number not verified). As the plaintiffs see it, the fundamental right to marry between
same-sex couples has not been applied against the Government of Puerto Rico through the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs also raise claims of a
separation of powers violation by the First Executive.

Civil No. 14-1253 (PG)

Page 5

plaintiffs....”). This supports the conclusion that Obergefell does not
directly invalidate Article 68 or resolves the issues presented before
this court. 6
At this juncture, the court’s job is to determine the extent, if
any, to which Obergefell impacts the Puerto Rico marriage laws. This
task, in turn, requires examining two doctrines elaborated by the Supreme
Court that touch directly upon the incorporation of certain fundamental
rights, such as the right to marry, to the States and Puerto Rico through
the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. The Doctrine of Selective Incorporation
At the time of its adoption in 1871, the Bill of Rights –and,
particularly, the individual liberties secured within it– did not apply
against the States. See Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243,
250

(1833)(noting

that

the

amendments

found

in

the

Bill

of

Rights

“contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State
governments”);
(1833)(same).

Lessee

of

Livingston

Nevertheless,

in

the

v.

Moore,

aftermath

32

of

U.S.

the

469,

Civil

551-552

War,

the

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted to protect certain
individual rights from interference by the States. 7 And thereafter, the
Supreme

Court

began

using

that

Amendment’s

Due

Process

Clause

to

“incorporate” a number of the individual liberties found in the first ten
Amendments against the States, “initiating what has been called a process
of ‘selective incorporation,’ i.e. the Court began to hold that the Due
Process Clause fully incorporates particular rights contained in the

6

It is worth noting the decisions of other sister courts discussing the impact of
Obergefell with respect to the marriage laws of other States prohibiting the issuance of
same-sex marriage licenses. See Waters v. Ricketts, 798 F.3d 682, 685 (8th Cir.
2015)(noting that “[t]he [Obergefell] Court invalidated laws in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio,
and Tennessee – not Nebraska”); Jernigan v. Crane, 796 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2015)(“not
Arkansas”); Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard, 799 F.3d 918, 922 (8th Cir. 2015)(“not South
Dakota”); see also Marie v. Mosier, Case No. 14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ, 2015 WL 4724389, at *14
(D. Kan. Aug. 10, 2015)(noting that “[w]hile Obergefell is clearly controlling Supreme
Court precedent, it did not directly strike down the provisions of the Kansas
Constitution and statutes that ban issuance of same-sex marriage licenses and prohibit
the recognition of same-sex marriages entered into in Kansas and elsewhere.”)(internal
quotations omitted).
7

The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o State
shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const.
amend. XIV, § 1.

Civil No. 14-1253 (PG)

Page 6

first [ten] Amendments.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, III., 561 U.S. 742,
763 (2010)(alteration in original)(listing cases).
In the cases decided during this era, the Court fashioned the
boundaries of the Due Process Clause by expressly incorporating those
rights considered fundamental to a scheme of ordered liberty and system
of justice. See id., 561 U.S. at 760-764; see also Palko v. Connecticut,
302 U.S. 319 (1937)(indicating that due process protects those rights
that are “the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty”); Duncan v.
Louisiana,

391

U.S.

145,

148

(1968)(referring

to

those

“fundamental

principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil
and political institutions”)(internal quotations omitted). Today, most of
the rights found in the first ten Amendments have been incorporated.8
Notwithstanding, the incorporation of fundamental rights to Puerto
Rico

through

the

Fourteenth

Amendment,

unlike

the

States,

is

not

automatic. See Mora v. Torres, 113 F.Supp. 309, 319 (D.P.R. 1953), aff’d
sub. nom., Mora v. Mejias, 206 F.2d 377 (1st Cir. 1953)(holding that the
Fourteenth Amendment is not applicable to Puerto Rico insofar as Puerto
Rico

is

not

a

federated

state

within

the

terms

of

said

Amendment)(citation omitted). Thus, for the reasons that follow, the
court concludes that absent an express decision from the Supreme Court of
the United States, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, Congress or the

8
With respect to the First Amendment, see Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330
U.S. 1 (1947)(Establishment Clause); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)(Free
Exercise Clause); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937)(freedom of assembly); Gitlow v.
New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)(free speech); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697
(1931)(freedom of the press).

As to the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, see McDonald v. City of Chicago,
561 U.S. at 742.
With respect to the Fourth Amendment, see Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108
(1964)(warrant requirement); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)(exclusionary rule); Wolf
v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)(freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures).
With respect to the Fifth Amendment, see Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784
(1969)(Double Jeopardy Clause); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)(privilege against
self-incrimination); Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 22 (1897)(Just
Compensation Clause).
With respect to the Sixth Amendment, see Duncan , 391 U.S. 145 (trial by jury in
criminal cases); Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967)(compulsory process); Klopfer v.
North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967)(speedy trial); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400
(1965)(Confrontation Clause); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)(assistance of
counsel); In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948)(right to a public trial).
With respect to the Eighth Amendment, see Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660
(1962)(Cruel And Unusual Punishments Clause); Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357
(1971)(Excessive Bail Clause).

Civil No. 14-1253 (PG)

Page 7

Puerto Rico Legislature, the fundamental right claimed by the plaintiffs
in this case has not been incorporated to Puerto Rico.
C. Now, does the Constitution follow the flag? The Doctrine of
Territorial Incorporation
And the determination of what particular provision of the
Constitution is applicable, generally speaking, in all cases,
involves an inquiry into the situation of the territory and
its relations to the United States. 9
At the dawn of the 20th century, the Supreme Court rendered a series
of decisions later known as the Insular Cases, 10 that established “a
vital distinction

between incorporated and unincorporated territories

with the second category describing possessions of the United States not
necessarily
Criminal

thought

No.

of

15-279

as

(PAD),

future
2016

States.”

WL

204447,

U.S.
at

v.

*6

Lebron_Caceres,

(D.P.R.

Jan.

14,

2016). 11 Puerto Rico ultimately fell into the second category. Indeed,
the Supreme Court explained that with the ratification of the Treaty of
Paris, “the island became territory of the United States, although not an
organized territory in the technical sense of the word.” De Lima v.
Bidwell, 182 U.S. at 196.
“The

Insular

Cases

allowed

the

Court

to

address

whether

the

Constitution, by its own force, applies in any territory that is not a
State.” Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 726, 756 (2008)(citation omitted).
The considerations inherent in the Supreme Court’s position, one that
9

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 293 (1901)(White, J., concurring)(questioning
whether the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment naturally and inexorably
extends to acquired territories).
10
See Huus v. N.Y. & Porto Rico S.S. Co., 182 U.S. 392 (1901)(holding that a
vessel engaged in trade between the island and New York engaged in coastal, and not
foreign trade); Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (holding that Puerto Rico did not become
a part of the United States within the meaning of Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution); Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901)(holding that the tariffs
imposed on goods exported from the mainland to Puerto Rico were invalid after the
ratification of the Treaty of Paris); Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222
(1901)(holding that the right of the president to exact duties on imports from Puerto
Rico into the mainland ceased after the ratification of the Treaty of Paris); Goetze v.
United States, 182 U.S. 221 (1901)(holding that Puerto Rico and Hawaii were not foreign
countries within the meaning of the U.S. tariff laws); De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1
(1901)(holding that at the times the duties challenged by the plaintiff were levied,
Puerto Rico was not a foreign country for purposes of the tariff laws, but a territory of
the United States).
11
For a detailed analysis of the relationship between the United States and Puerto
Rico through the doctrine of territorial incorporation, as well as the judicial
developments regarding the application of various provisions of the Federal Constitution
in Puerto Rico, the court refers to that included in the case of U.S. v. Lebron Caceres,
2016 WL 204447.

Civil No. 14-1253 (PG)

Page 8

views the Constitution as having an independent force in noncontiguous
territories such as Puerto Rico, resulted in the doctrine of territorial
incorporation.

See

id.

at

page

757.

Under

this

doctrine,

“the

Constitution applies in full in incorporated Territories surely destined
for

statehood

but

only

in

part

in

unincorporated

Territories.”

Id.

(citing Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904); 12 Downes, 182 U.S. at
293 (White, J., concurring)).
Even

after

(1900)(codified

the
at

11

enactment
U.S.C.

§§

of
1,

the

Foraker

11),

Act,

providing

31

for

Stat.
an

77

elected

legislature, and a governor and supreme court appointed by the President
of the United States, and the Jones Act, 39 Stat. 951 (1917)(codified at
48 U.S.C. § 737), which granted statutory United States citizenship to
the

people

of

Puerto

Rico

and

provided

for

an

enhanced,

bicameral

legislature, Puerto Rico remained an unincorporated territory of the
United States to which the Bill of Rights of the Constitution did not
apply ex propio vigore. 13 See Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 304
(1922)(reaffirming the doctrine of territorial incorporation); see also
Reid

v.

Covert,

354

U.S.

1,

74

(1957)(Harlan,

J.,

concurring)(“The

proposition is, of course, not that the Constitution does not apply
overseas, but that there are provisions in the Constitution which do not
necessarily apply in every foreign place.”).
Notwithstanding the intense political, judicial and academic debate
the island’s territorial status has generated over the years, the fact is
that, to date, Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory subject to
the plenary powers of Congress over the island under the Territorial
Clause. 14 More importantly, jurisprudence, tradition and logic teach us
12
In Dorr, the Court held that territories ceded by treaty to the United States
and not yet incorporated by Congress are subject to Congressional territorial authority
and “to such constitutional restrictions upon the powers of that body that are applicable
to the situation.”
13
The same conclusion is reached with respect to Public Law 600, 64 Stat. 319
(codified at 48 U.S.C. § 731b et seq.), enacted by Congress in 1950, and which provided
federal statutory authorization for the citizens of Puerto Rico to write their own
constitution, subject to congressional approval. See Popular Democratic Party v. Com. of
Puerto Rico, 24 F.Supp.2d 184, 194 (D.P.R. 1998).
14
In declining to interpret a federal bankruptcy statute to avoid Tenth Amendment
concerns, the First Circuit recently indicated that “[t]he limits of the Tenth Amendment
do not apply to Puerto Rico, ‘which is constitutionally a territory,’ United States v.
Lopez Andino, 831 F.3d 1164, 1172 (1st Cir. 1987)(Torruella, J., concurring), because
Puerto Rico’s powers are not those reserved to the States, but those specifically granted
to it by Congress under its constitution.” Franklin California Tax-Free Trust v. Puerto
Rico, 805 F.3d 322, 344-345 (1st Cir. 2015)(emphasis added)(citation omitted).

Civil No. 14-1253 (PG)

Page 9

that Puerto Rico is not treated as the functional equivalent of a State
for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. As explained by the Supreme
Court,

“noting

the

inherent

practical

difficulties

of

enforcing

all

constitutional provisions ‘always and everywhere,’ the Court devised in
the Insular Cases a doctrine that allowed it to use its power sparingly
and where it would be most needed.” Boumedine, 553 U.S. at 758 (internal
citation omitted).
It

is

in

light

relation to the

of

the

particular

condition

of

Puerto

Rico

in

Federal Constitution, with due consideration of the

underlying cultural, social and political currents that have shaped over
five centuries of Puerto Rican history, that the court examines the
effect

of

Obergefell

in

the

instant

case.

The

court’s

analysis,

therefore, does not end with the incorporation of the fundamental right
to same-sex marriage in the States. Generally, the question of whether a
constitutional

guarantee

applies

to

Puerto

Rico

is

subject

to

determination by Supreme Court of the United States, See Torres v. Com.
of

Puerto

Rico,

442

U.S.

456,

478

(1979),

in

the

exercise

of

its

authority “to say what the law is.” See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137,
177 (1803). Thus, this court believes that the right to same-sex marriage
in Puerto Rico requires: (a) further judicial expression by the U.S.
Supreme Court; or (b) the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, see e.g. Pueblo
v. Duarte, 109 D.P.R. 59 (1980)(following Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113
(1973) and declaring a woman’s right to have an abortion as part of the
fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment);
(c)

incorporation

through

legislation

enacted

by

Congress,

in

the

exercise of the powers conferred by the Territorial Clause, see Const.
amend. Art. IV, § 3; or (d) by virtue of any act or statute adopted by
the Puerto Rico Legislature that amends or repeals Article 68. 15
III.

CONCLUSION

A practical and theoretical analysis of the Supreme Court’s opinion
in Obergefell reveals the inherent conflicts between the principles of
liberty

and

equality

and

the

precepts

of

the

democratic

process

established in the Constitution, considerations that ultimately led a
majority of the Nation’s highest court to declare same-sex marriage a

15

See P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5.

Civil No. 14-1253 (PG)

Page 10

fundamental right as a matter of constitutional law. See Obergefell, 135
S.Ct. at 2605. A thorough recitation of the historical, political and
cultural

backgrounds

against

which

the

legal

question

of

same-sex

marriage arose, eventually dividing the States on the issue, was followed
by the unequivocal assertion that the fundamental liberties central to
the

litigation

stemmed

from,

and

were

protected

by

the

Fourteenth

Amendment. See id. at 2597. Under that Amendment, concluded the Supreme
Court, same-sex couples are guaranteed the right to marry and to have
their marriages recognized in all States. One might be tempted to assume
that the constant reference made to the “States” in Obergefell includes
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Yet, it is not the role of this court to
venture into such an interpretation.
For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that the fundamental
right to marry, as recognized by the Supreme Court in Obergefell, has not
been incorporated to the juridical reality of Puerto Rico. Thus, the
court declines to hold that the marriage ban codified in Article 68 of
the Civil Code violates the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses
of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying same-sex couples in Puerto Rico
the right to marry or to have marriages validly performed in another
jurisdiction

given

full

recognition. 16

Therefore,

the

parties’

joint

motion for entry of judgment (Docket No. 64) is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, March 8, 2016.

S/ JUAN M. PÉREZ-GIMÉNEZ
JUAN M. PEREZ-GIMENEZ
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

16

It is worth noting that in earlier stages of this litigation, the Commonwealth
officials defended the constitutionality of Article 68 as a valid exercise of the Puerto
Rico Legislature’s power to regulate family affairs, including marriage. See e.g. Docket
No. 31.