Case: Zahrn v. Perry
1:13-cv-00955 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Filed Date: Oct. 31, 2013
Closed Date: Sept. 22, 2015
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On October 31, 2013, two same-sex couples who wished to have a state-recognized marriage, filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court to declare that Texas laws prohibiting same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, to declare that Texas must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the ban on same-sex marriage, and to award the plaintiffs costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees.
The plaintiffs claimed that the Texas laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violated their rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution. They further claimed that the ban interfered with their ability to be recognized as a family and obstructed the social and administrative benefits of marriage.
The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification on February 28, 2014. They wished to form a Plaintiff Class consisting of all Texans who -- though they met all other necessary qualifications -- were denied the right to marry a member of the same sex. On March 12, 2014, the defendants filed a Motion to Stay Case pending an interlocutory appeal in De Leon v. Perry.
On September 10, 2014, Judge Sam Sparks dismissed the Motion for Class Certification and granted the Motion to Stay the Case pending the interlocutory appeal in De Leon v. Perry. The stay was lifted and action on the case began again on February 19, 2015.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled on a different case challenging a same-sex marriage ban, Obergefell v Hodges, on June 26, 2015. The Court held in this case that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the 14th Amendment, therefore a state cannot ban same-sex marriage.
Back in the Western District of Texas, this ruling in Obergefell led the plaintiff to file a Motion for Summary Judgment on July 20, 2015 and the defendant to file a Motion to Dismiss as Moot two days later. Judge Sam Sparks held a hearing on August 21, 2015 to hear all of these matters pending in the case, but a Stipulation of Dismissal by and among the parties was filed on September 4, 2015.
On September 22, 2015 Judge Sam Sparks granted the Stipulation and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Summary Authors
Megan Dolan (7/29/2014)
Mackenzie Walz (3/16/2018)
Related Cases
McNosky v. Perry, Western District of Texas (2013)
De Leon v. Perry, Western District of Texas (2013)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4401075/parties/zahrn-v-perry/
Jorgeson, S. Leigh (Texas)
Casas, Elaine A. (Texas)
Deane, William T. (Texas)
Kraber, Jennifer (Texas)
Murphy, Michael P. (Texas)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4401075/zahrn-v-perry/
Last updated March 29, 2026, 4:34 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 31, 2013
Closing Date: Sept. 22, 2015
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiffs are two same-sex couples residing in Texas who wish to have a state recognized marriage.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
State
Dana DeBeauvoir
Greg Abbott
Rick Perry
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Western District of Texas 1:13-cv-00955
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
LGBTQ+:
Case Summary of Zahrn v. Perry, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/13494/ (last updated 3/16/2018).