START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good

Appeals Court Preserves Arizona Same-Sex Health Benefits

Appeals Court Preserves Arizona Same-Sex Health Benefits


The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld an injunction that — for the time being at least — maintains family health coverage for gay and lesbian Arizona state employees.

The equal coverage plan was put in place in 2008 under an executive order by Governor Janet Napolitano. Arizona lawmakers decided they would eliminate health coverage for the domestic partners of lesbian and gay state employees while retaining spousal benefits for heterosexual workers as part of a drastically stiff budget deal signed by Gov. Jan Brewer in 2009.

Lambda Legal, representing seven lesbian and gay state employees, challenged this denial of benefits in court saying that excluding lesbian and gay state workers while maintaining coverage for heterosexual partners is discriminatory and violates Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection.

As part of that court filing, Lambda Legal also asked for an injunction preventing the partner benefits from being withdrawn until the courts have decided the issue.

The 9th Circuit issued a ruling Tuesday in favor of Plaintiffs request for an injunction, with Judge Schroeder writing for the three-member panel that ”…plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on the merits and that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction did not issue.”

From the Lambda Legal press release:

“Today’s decision by the Ninth Circuit means Arizona’s lesbian and gay state employees will not suddenly find themselves without vital family health coverage, for as long as the decision stands,” said Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Tara Borelli, who argued the case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February. “Our clients are simply seeking equal pay for equal work. We’re confident that principle will continue to prevail as the case advances.”


District Court Judge John W. Sedwick last July granted Lambda Legal’s request for a preliminary injunction to temporarily maintain domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian Arizona State employees while the case proceeded in court. The judge also denied in part a motion to dismiss the case by State’s Attorney Charles Grube, ordering that the case proceed on the merits of the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim. The State of Arizona then appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals—resulting in today’s decision.

Governor Brewer’s reaction, as delivered by a spokesperson to 16 WNEP news, was that she was less than pleased with the Court’s decision:

Brewer spokesman Matt Benson said the appeals court opinion “flies in the face of logic and the law” and grants more benefits to same-sex partners than straight couples.

“In the governor’s opinion, this is a step in the wrong direction,” he said.

Benson said the governor is studying the ruling and has not yet made a decision on an appeal.

The case is Diaz (formerly Collins) v. Brewer.

Tuesday also saw lawyers in the Proposition 8 court case go before the Supreme Court of California to argue whether Prop. 8 proponents have standing under state law that could allow them to defend Proposition 8 before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Read more on that here.

Related Reading:

Jan Brewer Signs Married Straights Get Preferential Treatment Adoption Bill

U.S. Department of the Interior: It Gets Better (VIDEO)

CA Anti-Gay Ballot Effort Floundering?

Read more: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Photo used under the MorgueFile user license, with thanks to imelenchon.

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it


+ add your own
5:40PM PDT on Oct 31, 2012

Thank you for info.

5:39PM PDT on Oct 31, 2012

Thank you for info.

4:23PM PDT on Oct 6, 2011

Umm the people of Arizona voted that marriage can only be between a man and a woman (for whatever illegitimate reasons - most like religious based anti gay animus - they have), therefore ANYthing you could legislatively do to provide protections for gay couples, that you might also find available to married couples, violates that mob-rule bigotry and should be forbidden.

Oh, and that doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution, despite previous Supreme Court rulings that say that clearly violates the U.S. Constitution.

Right wingers are anti-American scum. Plain and simple.

11:09PM PDT on Sep 19, 2011

The fact that this wasn't in place before makes me really sad to live in this country.

10:21PM PDT on Sep 10, 2011

Every time Arizona gets its comeuppance, I applaud.

5:14PM PDT on Sep 9, 2011

noted with thanks.

2:21PM PDT on Sep 8, 2011


1:33PM PDT on Sep 8, 2011

Interesting article. Thanks for posting Steve.

12:36PM PDT on Sep 8, 2011 if they could outlaw guns at the drive-in...Oh, wait, that Texas!

12:25PM PDT on Sep 8, 2011

That almost makes up for raffling a Glock as a fundraiser.

add your comment

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

The USA will never change the laws, too much back lash, plus the RAN. Do what Australia did after the…

If Allah(God) clearly forbids this same sex marriage then why few people want HIS wrath on whole of America!…

Darlene, I dismembered several worms digging up potatoes recently. Your illusion; quote: "Animals…

meet our writers

Steve Williams Steve Williams is a passionate supporter of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) rights, human... more
ads keep care2 free

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

site feedback


Problem on this page? Briefly let us know what isn't working for you and we'll try to make it right!