Diaz v. Brewer

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that unlike their same- 26 sex counterparts, opposite-sex couples who “wish[ed] to retain their current family health 27 benefits could alter their status—marry—to do so”
• noting that \a bare...desire to harm a politically unpopular group [is] not [a] legitimate state interest\ (citation and quotation omitted)
• rejecting Arizona’s attempt to exclude same-sex partners from state-employee health-care benefits based on financial concerns because Arizona had “not provided any [supporting] evidence”
• noting evidence that the state spent a minimal amount on domestic partners’ benefits
• law 19 limiting benefits to married couples discriminated against same-sex couples, who legally could 20 not marry in Arizona, for no legitimate purpose
• cost concerns could not justify denying insurance 7 coverage to same-sex couples under rational basis review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).