Eric McCutchan, a secular celebrant certified by the Center for Inquiry, sued to challenge a Texas statute that restricts who may solemnize marriages to ordained religious officials or judges. The statute, Texas Family Code Section 2.202, makes it a Class A misdemeanor for anyone without authorization to conduct a marriage ceremony. McCutchan and the Center for Inquiry argued that the law violated the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Freedom of Speech Clause, and the Religious Tests Clause. They sought to enjoin the enforcement of the law by the Tarrant County Clerk and District Attorney. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the threat of enforcement was sufficient to bring the case forward.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, focusing on whether the plaintiffs satisfied the three requirements of Article III standing: injury in fact, causation, and redressability. The court emphasized that for a pre-enforcement challenge, a plaintiff must show a serious intent to engage in proscribed conduct, that the conduct is arguably affected by a constitutional interest, and that the threat of enforcement is substantial. The court distinguished between mere 'some day' intentions and concrete plans. In this case, the court found that McCutchan only alleged a generic desire to perform ceremonies and that unspecified couples had requested his services. The court noted that this was insufficient because it did not identify specific, concrete plans to solemnize a marriage in Tarrant County using a county license. The court compared this to previous cases where standing was found because plaintiffs identified specific prospective clients or detailed steps taken to violate the law. Here, the risk of violation was speculative because it depended on the undisclosed desires of unidentified third parties. Without evidence of concrete plans to perform a licensed ceremony in Tarrant County, McCutchan failed to demonstrate a serious intention to engage in proscribed conduct, and thus lacked standing.
The dismissal stands, meaning the plaintiffs cannot proceed with their constitutional claims at this time. The decision limits the ability of secular celebrants to challenge marriage solemnization laws in the Fifth Circuit unless they can demonstrate specific, concrete plans to violate the statute in the relevant jurisdiction. The underlying constitutionality of the Texas statute remains unresolved.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download