Ralph v. City Of New Orlean

Facts

The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 19,278 M.C.S., it was signed by the Mayor and became law on June 22, 1999. The stated 'Purpose' provides in pertinent part: The city's interest in strengthening and supporting all caring, committed and responsible family forms has led to the definition and recognition of the domestic partnership as a relationship and family unit that is deserving of official recognition. It defines the following: Declaration of domestic partnership is a form provided by the clerk of council whereby two people agree to be jointly responsible for basic living expenses incurred during the domestic partnership, and recites that all the other requirements for domestic partnership are met. Domestic partners are two people who have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring, who live together and have signed a declaration of domestic partnership in which they have agreed to be jointly responsible for basic living expenses incurred during the domestic partnership, and have established their partnership under section 87-5(a). Live together means that two people share the same residence. It is not necessary that the right to possess the residence be in both names. Two people may live together even if one or both have an additional separate living residence. Domestic partners do not cease to live together if one leaves the shared living residence but intends to return. The Ordinance provides for how a domestic partnership may be established and registered; filing and recordkeeping requirements; and effect of termination of domestic partnerships on the registry. It states that the statement of the domestic partnership shall create any legal rights or duties from one of the parties to the other greater than the legal rights and duties specifically created by that article or other ordinances or resolutions of the city council that specifically refer to the domestic partnership. It also provides that once the partnership ends, the partners will incur no further obligations to each other. Ps filed suit seeking a declaration that Ds acted ultra vires and without statutory authority when they provided for the registry of 'Domestic Partnerships,' and subsequently used this registry as the basis for its extension of health insurance coverage and benefits to the unmarried 'domestic partners' of City employees. P and D filed cross Motions for Summary Judgment, and Ps filed a Motion for Default. The trial court granted D's Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing Ps' petition with prejudice. Ps contend that the trial court erroneously failed to acknowledge that no law authorized the creation and maintenance of the City's domestic partnership ordinance scheme. Ps appealed. Ps contend that the ordinances in question violate Article VI, §9 of the Louisiana Constitution, which provides in pertinent part: Section 9. (A) Limitations. No local governmental subdivision shall . . . (2) except as provided by law, enact an ordinance governing private or civil relationships. Ps also claim that D's actions violate a strong Louisiana public policy favoring marriage over unmarried cohabitation. Ds argue that the Domestic Partnership Registry does not govern private or civil relationships, that D is legally allowed to offer healthcare benefits to its employees, and that Louisiana has no stated public policy favoring marriage over unmarried cohabitation.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.