In August 2012, Judge Bernard A. Friedman invited the couple to amend their suit to challenge the state's ban on same-sex marriage, "the underlying issue".

[2] On March 22, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit placed a temporary hold on Judge Friedman's ruling.

Oral arguments were heard on April 28, 2015, and the Supreme Court struck down the state's same-sex marriage ban on June 26, 2015.

[7] At the time of filing, Michigan law restricted second-parent adoption to married couples and did not license or recognize same-sex marriages.

[8] In August 2012, Judge Bernard A. Friedman invited the couple to amend their suit to challenge the state's ban on same-sex marriage, "the underlying issue".

The plaintiffs were originally represented by three private attorneys, Dana Nessel, Carole Stanyar and Kenneth M. Mogill, along with Wayne State University Distinguished Professor of Law Robert A. Sedler, an experienced litigator in civil rights cases.

An attorney for one of the defendants, Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown, said she was eager to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as soon as the law allowed her to do so.

[15] On a motion by the plaintiffs, and over the objections of the defense, Friedman agreed on January 3, 2014, to divide the trial in two, reserving for a second phase, if needed, all discussion of the level of scrutiny appropriate to Michigan's denial of adoption and marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The nine-day trial concluded on March 7 after Kenneth M. Mogill provided the plaintiffs' summation and Kristin Heyse, an assistant attorney general, spoke for the defense.

[37] In ruling that the Michigan Marriage Amendment violated equal protection, Friedman found it unnecessary to address the Due Process Clause or levels of scrutiny higher than rational review.

[43] He wrote that Windsor and Loving "stand for the proposition that, without some overriding legitimate interest, the state cannot use its domestic relations authority to legislate families out of existence.

[48] After hearing arguments on March 25, an appellate court panel voted 2–1 to approve the state attorney general's motion to extend the stay indefinitely until appeals have concluded.

It said it was bound by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1972 action in a similar case, Baker v. Nelson, which dismissed a same-sex couple's marriage claim "for want of a substantial federal question".

Dissenting, Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey wrote: "Because the correct result is so obvious, one is tempted to speculate that the majority has purposefully taken the contrary position to create the circuit split regarding the legality of same-sex marriage that could prompt a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens.

They presented a single question for the court's consideration: "Whether a state violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

"[52] On November 24, Attorney General Schuette filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the same-sex couples' petition for certiorari.

[55] The court asked the parties to address two questions: "1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?