District attorneys in Milwaukee and Eau Claire counties agreed not to prosecute the plaintiffs under the marriage evasion law.

[5] On June 6, 2014, Crabb concluded that the state's constitutional and legislative ban on same-sex marriage interferes with the fundamental right to marry, violating the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States, and discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, violating the equal protection clause.

[6] Crabb concluded that "sexual-orientation discrimination is subject to heightened scrutiny" under the equal protection clause based on four factors used by the United States Supreme Court: (1) a history of discrimination, (2) an ability to "contribute to society to the same extent as others", (3) sexual orientation is immutable in the sense that "the law may not require someone to change his or her sexual orientation" and that it is "fundamental to a person's identity", and (4) being politically powerless in the sense of an "inherent vulnerab[ility] in the context of the ordinary political process, either because of...size or history of disenfranchisement."

[22][23] The ACLU, representing the plaintiffs, submitted proposed language for injunctive relief, as directed by Judge Crabb in her original ruling.

The state Office of the Attorney General, while requesting that the court "expedite its ruling and enter final judgment without further hearing or oral argument," has filed an objection to it.

"[24][25] On June 13, 2014, Crabb adopted the injunction proposed by the plaintiffs, rewording it to address the concerns of vagueness expressed by the state defendants.

[26][27] She enjoined the defendants from enforcing the ban but stayed "all relief in this case", meaning the injunction and declaration of unconstitutionality (despite her previous finding that defendants could not cite authority to stay a declaration); this effectively ended same-sex marriage even under county clerks' own volition in Wisconsin, pending appeal.

[30][31] Judges Richard Posner, David Hamilton, and Ann Claire Williams heard arguments on August 26 in this case and Baskin v.

[32] On September 4, the Seventh Circuit, in a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Richard Posner, upheld the district court decision.

[33] He wrote:[34] The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction–that same-sex couples and their children don't need marriage because same-sex couples can't produce children, intended or unintended–is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously.