In April 2008, Arizona changed its administrative code to specify that domestic partners, of opposite or the same sex, of state employees could be covered under the employees’ healthcare plan. But in August of that year, voters rejected the change and limited coverage to opposite-sex spouses and dependent children. That law was to be effective January 1, 2011. Several gay and lesbian state employees sued.

What happened. Arizona voters chose to define marriage as the federal DOMA, or Defense of Marriage Act, does—a union between one man and one woman. In all, 10 gay and lesbian employees, all in committed and financially interdependent same-sex partnerships, sued state governor Jan Brewer. They charged that Arizona had violated their 14th Amendment right to equal protection, and many also showed that losing coverage for their partners would cause serious emotional and financial damage.

One lesbian partner gives full-time care to her elderly and demented mother; both are supported by the state employee partner. And a man’s partner has diabetes and high cholesterol and is unable to qualify for equivalent private coverage. A judge in district court reviewed their claims and issued an order preventing the state from denying coverage to domestic partners. Arizona officials appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

What the court said. In appeals court, Arizona officials argued that the new law would protect heterosexual marriage, that it wouldn’t be discriminatory because it also affects opposite-sex domestic partners, that it would reduce costs for the state, that the district court had created a constitutional right to healthcare coverage, and that the governor is immune from suit. Appellate judges overturned each of these arguments.

First, they found no marriage-protection evidence. Second, they noted that opposite-sex domestic partners could marry in order to obtain coverage, while same-sex partners could not. Third, the state offered no information about cost savings, providing only the number of domestic partners covered. Fourth, officials misunderstood the lower court’s ruling, which did not constitutionally require the state to provide employee healthcare coverage. Finally, the governor is not immune from a suit for injunctive relief. Diaz et al. v. Brewer, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, No. 10-16797 (2011).

Point to remember: Judges wrote, “When a state chooses to provide [healthcare] benefits, it may not do so in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner that adversely affects particular groups that may be unpopular.”