Connection lost
Server error
Baker v. Nelson Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Two men challenged Minnesota’s refusal to grant them a marriage license. The court held that state law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and this definition does not violate the fundamental rights or equal protection guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.
Legal Significance: This case established early precedent that state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples did not violate the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court’s summary dismissal of the appeal was later cited for decades to preclude federal challenges to such laws until Obergefell v. Hodges.
Baker v. Nelson Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Petitioners Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, two adult males, applied for a marriage license from respondent Gerald R. Nelson, the clerk of Hennepin County District Court. The clerk denied the application for the sole reason that the petitioners were of the same sex; it was undisputed that both were otherwise statutorily qualified to marry. Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel the clerk to issue the license. The trial court quashed the writ, ruling that the clerk was not required to issue the license. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court of Minnesota, asserting two primary arguments: first, that the state’s marriage statute did not expressly prohibit same-sex marriage and should be interpreted to permit it, and second, that if the statute were interpreted to prohibit such marriages, it would be unconstitutional under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state law that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, thereby prohibiting marriage between two persons of the same sex, violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
No. The court affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that Minnesota’s marriage Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a state law that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, thereby prohibiting marriage between two persons of the same sex, violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion
This case established a significant early precedent upholding state prohibitions on same-sex Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in r
Legal Rule
A state's statutory limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla paria
Legal Analysis
The court first addressed the statutory question, concluding that Minnesota's marriage laws Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Minnesota’s marriage statute does not authorize same-sex marriage because the term