Hunter v. State of California (2026)

In the State of California, marriage is treated as a civil institution over which the state legislature has full authority. It requires a license issued by a county clerk in order to be recognized, and once it is recognized, it can only be dissolved through a state court judgment, the death of a spouse, or a declaration of nullity. For many people, marriage has been interconnected with religious traditions over the course of centuries, which can create tension as it is also interconnected with law. In the case of Hunter v. State of California (2026), this becomes clear from Kathryn Rose Hunter, who entered into multiple state-recognized marriages before later arguing that the state should have no role in marriages at all. She challenged the state of California’s “authority to impose and maintain marital status" and "maintenance of marital records,” by claiming that this violates her First Amendment rights. Hunter based this claim on her deeply held religious belief that marriage should only involve “two persons and God.” She argued that by requiring the issue of marriage licences from the state and by authorizing the marriage, that the state is therefore participating in the marriage, which Hunter claims is the equivalent of polygamy. This violates her right to freely exercise her religious beliefs. 

Additionally, in Hunter’s view, the state inserting itself as a third party into a relationship creates excessive entanglement between religion and the government, as she has a “state imposed marital status” and can not proceed with a divorce without state involvement. She views marriage as religious, meaning that further involvement with legal procedures establishes this entanglement and violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 

In the federal district court, they reviewed this case and dismissed it. In general, the state of  California is immune from lawsuits under the 11th Amendment. In regard to the Free Exercise Clause, the court emphasized that individuals have the right to believe in their religious virtues, but not the absolute right to action based on these views. They said that in order to make a claim under the Free Exercise Clause, a plaintiff has to show that the government action has "substantially burdened” their religious practice and the government action is not justified by a "substantial state interest,” if a law is not “neutral and generally applicable.” In this case, the court found that California's marriage laws are neutral and generally applicable because they do not refer to religion or provide individual exemptions. Even if the law was not neutral, the court still found there to be several substantial state interests, including protecting children, enforcing marital responsibilities, managing property, etc. Therefore, the court concluded that California's legal framework does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.

The district court also rejected Hunter’s claim that the Establishment Clause was violated. They noted that the Lemon Test was used in older cases to determine Establishment cases, but now it is no longer relied upon. Instead, the modern court focuses on historical practices and how the Founding Fathers would interpret what is permissible. The court cited Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888), where the Supreme Court said that marriage is a civil institution that the state has the power to regulate, not just a religious or private contract. In using Maynard v. Hill, the court shows how this is a national tradition that has been around for multiple centuries. State involvement in marriages was permissible in the time of the Founding Fathers, meaning that California does not violate the Establishment Clause. 

The central question in this case is whether California’s involvement in recognizing and regulating marriage violates the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. More specifically, the issue is whether a neutral legal system can be considered unconstitutional because it conflicts with individual religious beliefs about marriage. In my opinion, the district court reached the correct decision. California's marriage laws serve as a neutral civil system, not a religious one. Even though marriage is deeply religious to many people, the state still has a compelling interest and secular purpose of maintaining the legal framework in order to regulate issues such as property and family responsibilities. Additionally, there could be a slippery slope if the government were required to remove itself from any institution that has religious significance. Society would not be able to be regulated, and there would be a challenge in determining what counts as significant to a person's religious beliefs. While the Constitution does protect religious belief, it does not require the government to restrict neutral laws to align with every individual's religious views. I do not think the court should rely solely on the intentions of the Founders when determining whether this case violates the Establishment Clause. However, even if the court applied the Lemon test as Hunter was implying, California’s marriage laws would still pass and be considered constitutional. 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28021311-hunter-v-california-2026-us-dist-lexis-73135pdf/

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2026/04/californias-marriage-laws-survive.html