Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 61

o. l3A68?

!" $%& '()*&+& ,-(*$ -. $%& /"0$&1 '$2$&3




CA!Y !. HI!II!T, COVI!O! OI !TAH, IT A!.,
AIIcnnfs,

v.

I!IK KITCHI, IT A!.,
!osondonfs.


On AIIcnfIon fo Sfny Judgmonf IondIng AonI Irocfod fo fho
HonornbIo SonIn Sofomnyor, AssocInfo JusfIco of fho Suromo Courf of fho
!nIfod Sfnfos nnd CIrcuIf JusfIco for fho Tonfh CIrcuIf


MIMO!A!M I OIIOSITIO TO AII!ICATIO TO
STAY J!CMIT IIIC AIIIA! TO THI !ITI STATIS
CI!C!IT CO!!T OI AIIIA!S IO! THI TITH CI!C!IT




Jnmos I. MngIoby Ioggy A. TomsIc
CounsoI of !ocord AdmIssIon IondIng
MAC!IIY & C!IIWOO, I.C. JonnIfor Irnsor InrrIsh
l?0 Soufh MnIn Sfroof, SuIfo 850 AdmIssIon IondIng
SnIf !nko CIfy, !fnh 84l0l MAC!IIY & C!IIWOO, I.C.
ToI. 80l 3599000 l?0 Soufh MnIn Sfroof, SuIfo 850
Inx 80l 35990ll SnIf !nko CIfy, !fnh 84l0l
ImnII mngIobymgcInw.com ToI. 80l 3599000
Inx 80l 35990ll

CounsoI for !osondonfs

Jnnunry 3, 20l4



II

TAI!I OI COTITS

IT!O!CTIO ................................................................................................l

IACKC!O! ...................................................................................................3

I. THI CASI IIIO!I THI IST!ICT CO!!T ......................................3

II. THE DISTRICT COURTS RULING .......................................................4

III. THE DISTRICT COURTS DENIAL OF A STAY ...................................5

IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS IIA! OI A STAY ................................6

A!C!MIT ........................................................................................................6

I. AII!ICATS MISSTATI THII! HIICHTII I!!I
WHI SIIKIC A OVI!!IIC STAY OI A CASI STI!!
IIIC I THI CO!!T OI AIIIA!S .............................................?

II. THI CO!!T OI AIIIA!S WAS OT IMOST!AI!Y
W!OC I ITS AII!ICATIO OI ACCIITI STAA!S
IN DENYING APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR A STAY PENDING
AIIIA! .................................................................................................. l0

A. Respondents Have Challenged Utahs SameSox MnrrIngo
Inn on MuIfIIo ConsfIfufIonnI Crounds .................................... ll

I. WIndsor nnd Ofhor Irocodonfs SfrongIy Suorf
Respondents Due Process Claims ............................................... l3

C. WIndsor nnd Ofhor Irocodonfs SfrongIy Suorf
Respondents Equal Protection Claims ....................................... l6

. WIndsor nnd Ofhor Irocodonfs, IncIudIng ocIsIons by
Mnny Sfnfo nnd IodornI Courfs, SfrongIy Suorf fho
IsfrIcf Courts Conclusion That the Challenged Laws
VIoInfo IqunI IrofocfIon Ivon !ndor !nfIonnI InsIs !ovIow ... 2l

I. Inkor v. oIson Provides No Support for Applicants
IosIfIon ......................................................................................... 24




III

III. THE APPLICANTS RIGHTS WILL NOT BE SERIOUSLY AND
I!!IIA!AI!Y IJ!!I IY IIA! OI A STAY .......................... 2?

A. AIIcnnfs Cnnnof Show IrronrnbIo Hnrm Insod on
IofonfInI QuosfIons !ognrdIng fho VnIIdIfy of SnmoSox
Couples Marriages ....................................................................... 28

I. AIIcnnfs Cnnnof IsfnbIIsh IrronrnbIo Hnrm Insod on
Tho Moro InjoInIng of n Sfnfo !nw ............................................. 30

IV. THI AII!ICATS HAVI OT SHOW THAT THIS CASI IS
!IKI!Y TO II !IVIIWI I THIS CO!!T !IO IIA!
ISIOSITIO I THI CO!!T OI AIIIA!S .................................... 34

V. C!ATIC A STAY WO!! CA!SI !ISI!TI,
I!!IIA!AI!I HA!M TO SAMISIX CO!I!IS A THII!
CHI!!I ............................................................................................. 38

COC!!SIO ................................................................................................... 40
























Iv

TAI!I OI A!THO!ITIIS
CASIS
Andorson v. CoIobrozzo,
460 !.S. ?80 l983 .............................................................................................................. 26
Awnd v. ZIrInx,
6?0 I.3d llll l0fh CIr. 20l2 .......................................................................................... 34
Inkor v. oIson,
l9l .W.2d l85 MInn. l9?l ..................................................................................... 26, 2?
Inkor v. oIson,
409 !.S. 8l0 l9?2, ............................................................................................................. 24
Inrnos v. ISysfoms, Inc. Crou Hos. Mod. & SurgIcnI Ins. IInn,
50l !.S. l30l l99l .............................................................................................................. ?
Inssoff v. Snydor,
o. 2l2CVl0038 I.. MIch., fIIod Jnn. 5, 20l2 ...................................................... 3?
IIsho v. !nIfod Sfnfos,
o. 404CV00848 .. OkIn., fIIod ov. 3, 2004 ...................................................... 3?
Iond v. !nIfod Sfnfos,
l3l S. Cf. 2355 20ll .......................................................................................................... 33
IosfIc v. MconnoII,
o. 2l3CV00395 I.. Vn., fIIod JuIy l8, 20l3 ........................................................ 3?
Iourko v. Ioshonr,
o. 3l3CV00?50 W.. Ky., fIIod JuIy 26, 20l3 ....................................................... 3?
Iowors v. HnrdwIck,
4?8 !.S. l86 l986 .............................................................................................................. l5
Irndncs v. HnIoy,
o. 3l3CV0235l .S.C., fIIod Aug. 28, 20l3 ........................................................... 3?
Irowor v. Inz,
656 I.3d l008 9fh CIr. 20l3, corf. donIod, l33 S. Cf. 2884 ...................................... 36
IrInkmnn v. !ong,
o. 20l3CV325?2 CoIo. Isf. Cf., fIIod Ocf. 30, 20l3 ............................................. 3?

v

Iurdon v. ShInsokI,
?2? I.3d ll6l Iod. CIr. 20l3 .......................................................................................... 29
CorfnIn nmod nnd !nnnmod onCIfIzon ChIIdron nnd ThoIr Inronfs v. Toxns,
448 !.S. l32? l980 ............................................................................................................ 35
CIfIzons for IqunI Irof., Inc. v. IrunIng,
368 I. Su. 2d 980 . ob. 2005 .................................................................................. 3?
CIfIzons for IqunI IrofocfIon v. IrunIng,
455 I.3d 859 8fh CIr. 2006 .............................................................................................. 36
CIovoInnd Id. of Iduc. v. !nIIour,
4l4 !.S. 632 l9?4 .............................................................................................................. l4
CoIomnn v. Inccnr, Inc.,
424 !.S. l30l l9?6 ............................................................................................ 3, ?, 2?, 38
CommonwonIfh v. CInry,
o. llC!3329 Ky. CIr. Cf., mofIon for InvocnfIon of mnrIfnI rIvIIogo fIIod Juno
6, 20l3 .................................................................................................................................... 3?
ConkrIghf v. Irommorf,
556 !.S. l40l 2009 .............................................................................................................. 7
CorwoII v. CorwoII,
l?9 I.3d 82l !fnh Cf. A. 2008 ................................................................................... 29
onvor v. !nIfod Sfnfos,
483 !.S. l30l l98? .............................................................................................................. ?
oIoor v. Snydor,
o. l2CVl0285 I.. MIch., fIIod Jnn. 23, 20l2 ....................................................... 3?
o!oon v. Iorry,
o. 5l3CV00982 W.. Tox., fIIod Ocf. 28, 20l3 ...................................................... 3?
oo v. ConznIos,
546 !.S. l30l 2005 ....................................................................................................... 2, l0
onnIdson & CuggonhoIm v. Monfnnn,
o. IV20l0?02 Monf. Isf. Cf., fIIod JuIy 22, 20l0, nmondod comInInf fIIod
JuIy l5, 20l3 ........................................................................................................................ 38
Idwnrds v. Hoo Mod. Crou for Womon,
5l2 !.S. l30l l994 .......................................................................................................... 2, ?

vI

Fargo Womens HonIfh Org. v. Schnfor,
l33 S. Cf. l668 l993 ............................................................................................................ 8
IIshorIorno v. SmIfh,
o. l2CV00589 M...C., fIIod Juno l3, 20l2 ........................................................ 3?
Iroomnn v. Inrkor,
o. 4l3CV03?55 S.. Tox., fIIod oc. 26, 20l3 ....................................................... 3?
Cnrdon Sfnfo IqunIIfy v. ow,
?9 A.3d l036 .J. 20l3 ..................................................................................................... 40
CoIgor v. KIfzhnbor,
o. 6l3CV0l834 . Or, fIIod Ocf. l5, 20l3 .............................................................. 3?
Crny v. Orr,
o. ll3CV08449, 20l3 W! 63559l8 .. III. oc. 5, 20l3 .................................. 40
CrIogo v. OIIvor,
Cnso o. 202CV20l32?5?, ocInrnfory Judgmonf, InjuncfIon, nnd
Ioromfory WrIf of Mnndnmus .M. Isf. Cf. Sof. 3, 20l3 ........................... 39, 40
CrIogo v. OIIvor,
Cnso o. 202CV20l32?5?, IInInfIffs !oor nnd oumnn's MofIon for
Tomornry !osfrnInIng Ordor .M. Isf. Cf. Aug. 2l, 20l3 ................................... 39
CrIogo v. OIIvor,
o. 34,306, 20l3 W! 66?0?04 .M. oc. l9, 20l3 .................................................... l9
HnrrIs v. MconnoII,
o. 5l3CV000?? W.. Vn., fIIod Aug. l, 20l3 ......................................................... 3?
HockIor v. !ooz,
463 !.S. l328 l983 .......................................................................................................... ?, 8
HockIor v. !ooz,
464 !.S. 8?9 l983 ................................................................................................................ 8
HoIIIngsworfh v. Iorry,
l33 S. Cf. 2652 20l3 ................................................................................................... l5, 35
HoIIIngsworfh v. Iorry,
558 !.S. l83 20l0 ................................................................................................................ ?
In ro !ovonson,
560 I.3d ll45 9fh CIr. 2009 ............................................................................................ 20

vII

In ro MnrrIngo Cnsos,
l83 I.3d 384 CnI. 2008 .............................................................................................. l6, l9
In ro MnrrIngo of J.I. nnd H.I.,
o. ll0024 Tox., nrguod ov. 5, 20l3 ......................................................................... 38
Indo. !IvIng Cfr. of S. CnI. v. MnxwoIIJoIIy,
5?2 I.3d 644 9fh CIr. 2009 .............................................................................................. 3l
IS v. !ognIIznfIon AssIsfnnco Irojocf of fho !os AngoIos Counfy IodornfIon of
!nbor,
5l0 !.S. l30l l993 ....................................................................................................... 9, 30
Jnckson v. AborcrombIo,
os. l2l6995, l2l6998 9fh CIr., nonI dockofod Sof. l0, 20l3, o. lllCV
00?34 . Hnw., fIIod oc. ?, 20ll ................................................................................... 3?
JornIgnn v. Crnno,
o. 4l3CV004l0 I.. Ark., fIIod JuIy l8, 20l3 ...................................................... 3?
Knrchor v. nggoff,
455 !.S. l303 l982 ..................................................................................................... 35, 36
KorrIgnn v. Comm'r of Iub. HonIfh,
95? A.2d 40? Conn. 2008 .................................................................................................. l9
Ky. Equality Fedn v. Beshear,
o. l3CI0l0?4 Ky. CIr. Cf., fIIod Sof. l0, 20l3 ...................................................... 3?
!nffn v. Offor,
o. ll3CV00482 . Idnho, fIIod ov. 8, 20l3.......................................................... 3?
!nwronco v. Toxns,
539 !.S. 558 2003 ............................................................................................ 4, l4, l5, 38
!oo v. Orr,
o. l3cv8?l9, 20l3 W! 64905?? .. III. oc. l0, 20l3 ....................................... 39
!ovIng v. VIrgInIn,
388 !.S. l l96? ............................................................................................................ l4, 38
!ucns v. Townsond,
486 !.S. l30l l988 .............................................................................................................. ?
MnndoI v. IrndIoy,
432 !.S. l?3 l9?9 .............................................................................................................. 25

vIII

MnryInnd v. KIng,
l33 S. Cf. l 20l2 ................................................................................................................ 32
Mnssnchusoffs v. !.S. o'f of HonIfh & Humnn Sorvs.,
682 I.3d l lsf CIr. 20l2, corf. donIod, l33 S. Cf. 288? 20l3 .......................... l9, 22
MIss. !nIv. for Womon v. Hognn,
458 !.S. ?l8 l982 .............................................................................................................. 2l
Monfnnn v. Crow TrIbo of IndInns,
523 !.S. 696 l998 .............................................................................................................. 26
ow Mofor VohIcIo Ionrd v. OrrIn W. Iox Co.,
434 !.S. l345 l9?? ..................................................................................................... 3l, 32
kon v. HoIdor,
556 !.S. 4l8 2009 ................................................................................................... 6, l0, ll
OborgofoII v. KnsIch,
o. ll3CV0050l S.. OhIo, fIIod JuIy l9, 20l3 ...................................................... 3?
OborgofoII v. WymysIo,
o. ll3cv50l, 20l3 W! 6?26688 S.. OhIo oc. 23, 20l3 ............... l5, l6, 2?, 39
Inckwood v. Sonnfo SoIocf Comm. on IfhIcs,
5l0 !.S. l3l9 l994 .............................................................................................................. 2
InIIndIno v. Corboff,
o. 2l3CV0564l I.. In., fIIod Sof. 26, 20l3 ....................................................... 3?
Iorry v. Irown,
6?l I.3d l052 9fh CIr. 20l2 ............................................................................................ l5
Iorry v. Irown,
?25 I.3d 968 9fh CIr. 20l3 .............................................................................................. 40
Iorry v. Schwnrzonoggor,
?04 I. Su. 2d 92l .. CnI. 20l0 ........................................................................ l5, 20
IInnnod Inronfhood of Cronfor Tox. SurgIcnI HonIfh Sorvs. v. Abboff,
l34 S. Cf. 506 20l3 ............................................................................................... l3, 2l, 32
!omnn v. SIncock,
3?? !.S. 695 l964 .............................................................................................................. 35
!omor v. Ivnns,
5l? !.S. 620 l996 ..................................................................................................... nssIm

Ix

!osfkor v. CoIdborg,
448 !.S. l306 l980 .............................................................................................................. ?
Snmson v. Murrny,
4l5 !.S. 6l l9?4 ................................................................................................................ 29
Snn Iognns for fho Mf. SoIodnd nfIonnI Wnr MomorInI v. InuIson,
548 !.S. l30l 2006 .............................................................................................................. 9
Scoff v. !oborfs,
6l2 I.3d l2?9 llfh CIr. 20l0 .......................................................................................... 30
SovcIk v. SnndovnI,
o. l2l?668 9fh CIr., nonI fIIod Ocf. l8, 20l3, o. 2l2CV005?8 . ov.,
fIIod Ar. l0, 20l2 ............................................................................................................... 3?
SfnnIoy v. IIIInoIs,
405 !.S. 645 l9?2 .............................................................................................................. 33
Sfnfo v. nyIor,
o. ll0ll4 Tox., nrguod ov. 5, 20l3 ......................................................................... 38
Sfrnuss v. Horfon,
20? I.3d 48 CnI. 2009 ........................................................................................................ 29
Tnnco v. HnsInm,
o. 3l3ll59 M.. Tonn., fIIod Ocf. 2l, 20l3 ............................................................ 3?
TroxoI v. CrnnvIIIo,
530 !.S. 5? 2000 ................................................................................................................ 33
Turnor v. SnfIoy,
482 !.S. ?8 l98? ................................................................................................................ l4
!nIfod Sfnfos v. AInbnmn,
69l I.3d l269 llfh CIr. 20l3, corf. donIod, l33. S. Cf. 2022 ................................... 36
!nIfod Sfnfos v. VIrgInIn,
5l8 !.S. 5l5 l996 .............................................................................................................. 20
!nIfod Sfnfos v. WIndsor,
l33 S. Cf. 26?5 20l3 ................................................................................................. nssIm
Vnrnum v. IrIon,
?63 .W.2d 862 Iown 2009 ....................................................................................... l9, 23

x

WnshIngfon v. CIucksborg,
52l !.S. ?02 l99? .............................................................................................................. l5
Wobor v. Aofnn Cns. & Sur. Co.,
406 !.S. l64 l9?2 .............................................................................................................. 24
Wosforn AIrIInos, Inc. v. Tonmsfors,
480 !.S. l30l l98? ..................................................................................................... l0, 34
WhIfowood v. WoIf,
o. ll3CV0l86l M.. In., fIIod Juno 9, 20l3 ......................................................... 3?
WIndsor v. !nIfod Sfnfos,
699 I.3d l69 2d CIr. 20l2 ......................................................................................... l9, 22
WrIghf v. Arknnsns,
o. 60CVl32662 Ark. CIr. Cf., fIIod JuIy l, 20l3 .................................................... 3?
ZnbIockI v. !odhnII,
434 !.S. 3?4 l9?8 .............................................................................................................. l4
STAT!TIS A !IC!!ATIOS
28 !.S.C. l253 .......................................................................................................................... ?
28 !.S.C. l254 ........................................................................................................................ 35
!fnh Codo 30l2 ..................................................................................................................... 3
!fnh Codo 30l4.l .................................................................................................................. 3
OTHI! A!THO!ITIIS
IrIof of AmorIcnn IsychoIogIcnI AssocInfIon, of nI. ns AmIcI CurIno on fho MorIfs In
Suorf of AffIrmnnco,
!nIfod Sfnfos v. WIndsor, l33 S.Cf. 26?5 20l3 o. l230? .................................. 22
KrIsfIn A. Mooro,
Marriage from a Childs Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children,
nnd Whnf Cnn Wo o nbouf If, ChIId Tronds 2002 ................................................... 22
MnrIssn !nng,
SnmoSox CouIos Shnffor MnrrIngo !ocords In !fnh, SnIf !nko TrIb., oc. 26,
20l3, hff//www.sIfrIb.com/sIfrIb/nows/5?3l095??8/soxcounfymnrrIngos
couIos.hfmI.csngo=l ..................................................................................................... 28

xI

Mnry CnIInhnn,
Judge Grants Legal Recognition to Sebastopol Womens Marriage After LegnI
InffIo, Tho Iross omocrnf, Sofombor l8, 20l3,
hff//www.rossdomocrnf.com/nrfIcIo/20l309l8/nrfIcIos/l309l9524 ...................... 39
Tom InrfIoff,
ConfrovorsInI CnyParenting Study is Severely Flawed, Journals Audit Finds,
Chron. Of HIghor Iduc., JuIy 26, 20l2,
hff//chronIcIo.com/bIogs/orcoInfor/confrovorsInIgnynronfIngsfudyIs
sovoroIyfInwodjournnIsnudIffInds/30255 ................................................................... 22
COSTIT!TIOA! I!OVISIOS
!fnh Consf. Arf. I, 29 ............................................................................................................. 3

l

To fho HonornbIo SonIn Sofomnyor, AssocInfo JusfIco of fho Suromo Courf of
fho !nIfod Sfnfos nnd CIrcuIf JusfIco for fho Tonfh CIrcuIf
!osondonfs orok KIfchon, MoudI SboIfy, Knron Archor, Knfo CnII, !nurIo
Wood, and Kody Partridge (collectively, Respondents), by and through their
counsoI of rocord, MAC!IIY & C!IIWOO, I.C., horoby submIf fhIs momornndum
In oosIfIon fo fho AIIcnfIon fo Sfny Judgmonf IondIng AonI fo fho !nIfod
Sfnfos CIrcuIf Courf of AonIs for fho Tonfh CIrcuIf (the Application or Appl.
fIIod by AIIcnnfs Cnry !. Horborf, In hIs offIcInI cnncIfy ns Covornor of !fnh,
nnd Sonn . !oyos, In hIs offIcInI cnncIfy ns Affornoy ConornI of !fnh coIIocfIvoIy,
Applicants), and respectfully request that the Application be denied.
IT!O!CTIO
AIIcnnfs nsk fho Courf fo ovorrIdo n docIsIon by fho !nIfod Sfnfos Courf of
AonIs for fho Tonfh CIrcuIf fho Tenth Circuit or the Court of Appeals)
donyIng n sfny In n cnso curronfIy ondIng boforo fhnf courf. Tho cnso Is nn nonI
of nn ordor of the United States District Court for the District of Utah (the District
Court) fIndIng that Utahs laws barring snmosox couIos from mnrrIngo vIoInfo fho
uo Irocoss nnd IqunI IrofocfIon CInusos of fho Iourfoonfh Amondmonf fo fho
!nIfod Sfnfos ConsfIfufIon. oc. 20, 20l3, Momornndum ocIsIon nnd Ordor, kf.
90, o. 2l3cv002l?!S In fho IsfrIcf Courf (Dist. Ct. 12/20 Order), AI. nf A
l. Tho roIIof AIIcnnfs sook wns roorIy donIod by bofh fho IsfrIcf Courf nnd
fho Courf of AonIs, whIch ordorod oxodIfod consIdornfIon of fho nonI. Soo oc.
23, 20l3, Ordor on MofIon fo Sfny, kf. l05, o. 2l3cv002l?!S In fho IsfrIcf
Courf (Dist. Ct. 12/23 Order), AI. nf Cl oc. 24, 20l3, Ordor onyIng

2

Imorgoncy MofIon for Sfny nnd Tomornry MofIon for Sfny, o. l34l?8 In fho
Tonfh CIrcuIf (CA10 12/24 Order), AI. nf l oc. 30, 20l3, Ordor, o. l34l?8
In fho Tonfh CIrcuIf (CA10 12/30 SchoduIIng Order), nffnchod horofo ns Ix. C fo
Appendix (App.). Tho ChIof oufy CIork for fho Tonfh CIrcuIf InIfInIIy nskod fho
nrfIos fo rooso n fIvowook brIofIng schoduIo. Soo oc. 26, 20l3, ImnII, nffnchod
horofo ns Ix. A fo A. AIIcnnfs, howovor, roquosfod four wooks fo fIIo fhoIr
oonIng brIof, nnd fho Tonfh CIrcuIf ordorod nn oxodIfod brIofIng schoduIo fhnf
roquIros nII brIofIng fo bo comIofod by Iobrunry 25, 20l4, moro wooks from now.
Soo CAl0 l2/30 SchoduIIng Ordor.
Ior ronsons dIscussod In fho ordors of fho IsfrIcf Courf nnd fho Courf of
Appeals, and in this memorandum, this Court should also deny Applicants request
for n sfny ondIng nonI. [W]hen a distrIcf courf judgmonf Is rovIownbIo by n
courf of nonIs fhnf hns donIod n mofIon for n sfny, fho nIIcnnf sookIng nn
overriding stay from this Court bears an especially heavy burden. Idwnrds v.
Hoo Mod. Cr. for Womon, 5l2 !.S. l30l, l302 l994 ScnIIn, J., In chnmbors
cIfIng Inckwood v. Sonnfo SoIocf Comm. on IfhIcs, 5l0 !.S. l3l9, l320 l994
!ohnquIsf, C.J., In chnmbors. In addition, [r]espect for the assessment of the
Courf of AonIs Is osocInIIy wnrrnnfod whon fhnf courf Is rocoodIng fo
ndjudIcnfion on the merits with due expedition. oo v. ConznIos, 546 !.S. l30l,
l308 2005 CInsburg, J., In chnmbors. Thoso consIdornfIons woIgh honvIIy
against Applicants request for n sfny horo, whoro AIIcnnfs moroIy ronssorf fho
snmo confonfIons fhnf woro roorIy found fo bo InsuffIcIonf fo wnrrnnf n sfny

3

boIow, nnd whoro fho nonI hns boon oxodIfod. AIIcnnfs cnnnof moof fhoIr
burdon of showIng fhnf fho Courf of AonIs wns demonstrably wrong in its
application of accepted standards in deciding [whether] to issue the stay, and that
Applicants may be seriously and irreparably injured [without] the stay. CoIomnn
v. Inccnr, Inc., 424 !.S. l30l, l304 l9?6 !ohnquIsf, J., In chnmbors.
AccordIngIy, !osondonfs rosocffuIIy roquosf fhnf fho AIIcnfIon bo donIod.
IACKC!O!
I. THI CASI IIIO!I THI IST!ICT CO!!T
Tho !fnh Inws nf Issuo In fhIs InwsuIf IncIudo fwo sfnfo sfnfufos nnd nn
nmondmonf fo fho !fnh ConsfIfufIon fhnf bnr snmosox couIos from onforIng cIvII
mnrrIngo, or nny ofhor IognI unIon, nnd rohIbIf rocognIfIon of mnrrIngos or ofhor
IognI unIons onforod Info by snmosox couIos In ofhor sfnfos. Soo !fnh Consf. nrf.
I, 29 offocfIvo 2005 !fnh Codo 30l4.l offocfIvo 2004 !fnh Codo 30l2
offocfIvo l9??.
On Mnrch 25, 20l3, !osondonfs broughf fho undorIyIng ncfIon In fho
IsfrIcf Court to challenge Utahs prohibition on samesox mnrrIngo undor bofh fho
duo rocoss nnd oqunI rofocfIon gunrnnfoos of fho Iourfoonfh Amondmonf fo fho
!nIfod Sfnfos ConsfIfufIon. On Ocfobor ll, 20l3, !osondonfs nnd AIIcnnfs bofh
fIIod mofIons for summnry judgmonf In fho IsfrIcf Courf. On ocombor 20, 20l3,
fho IsfrIcf Court granted Respondents motion for summary judgment, denied
Applicants motion for summary judgment, and entered final judgment in favor of
!osondonfs. Isf. Cf. l2/20 Ordor oc. 20, 20l3, Judgmonf In n CIvII Cnso, kf.
92, o. 2l3cv002l?!S In fho IsfrIcf Courf (Judgmonf), AI. nf Il.

4

II. THE DISTRICT COURTS !!!IC
The District Court ruled on summary judgment that Utahs laws barring
snmosex couples from civil marriage violate Respondents rights to due process and
oqunI rofocfIon of fho Inws undor fho Iourfoonfh Amondmonf. Tho IsfrIcf Courf
rocognIzod fhnf no rocodonf of fhIs Courf Is dIrocfIy confroIIIng, nnd, fhoroforo,
roIIod on nnnIogous ruIIngs of fhIs Courf In !nIfod Sfnfos v. WIndsor, l33 S. Cf.
26?5 20l3, !nwronco v. Toxns, 539 !.S. 558 2003, nnd !omor v. Ivnns, 5l? !.S.
620 l996, ns woII ns cnsos In whIch fho Courf hns hoId fhnf sfnfo mnrrIngo Inws
musf comIy wIfh fho gunrnnfoos of fho Iourfoonfh Amondmonf.
Tho IsfrIcf Courf doformInod fhnf fhIs Courf hns rocognIzod fho froodom fo
marry as a fundamental right that is based upon an individuals rights to liberty,
privacy, and association, Isf. Cf. l2/20 Ordor nf 20, nnd has held that the
Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states
rights where these two interests are in conflict, Id. nf l3. AIfhough hoIdIng fhnf
sfrIcf scrufIny wns wnrrnnfod, fho IsfrIcf Courf found fhnf AIIcnnfs hnd nof
presented even a rational basis for denying Respondents the right to marry, nnd
fhnf fho chnIIongod Inws fhoroforo vIoInfod fhoIr rIghf fo duo rocoss. Id. nf 32.
Tho IsfrIcf Courf nIso found fhnf fho chnIIongod Inws wnrrnnf hoIghfonod
oqunI rofocfIon scrufIny bocnuso fhoy dIscrImInnfo ngnInsf !osondonfs on fho
bnsIs of fhoIr sox. Id. nf 3435. Howovor, fho IsfrIcf Courf concIudod fhnf If nood
nof nnnIyzo why AIIcnnfs woro unnbIo fo moof fhnf hoIghfonod burdon bocnuso
fho Inws fnIIod ovon undor rnfIonnI bnsIs rovIow. Id. nf 35. Tho IsfrIcf Courf
noted that Plaintiffs dispute the States argument that children do better when

5

rnIsod by oosIfosox nronfs fhnn by snmosex parents, but concluded that the
courf nood nof ongngo In fhis debate because the state fails to demonstrate any
rnfIonnI IInk bofwoon Ifs rohIbIfIon of snmosox mnrrIngo nnd Ifs gonI of hnvIng
more children raised in the family structure the State wishes to promote. Id. nf 45.
In nddIfIon, fho IsfrIcf Courf found fhnf fho Inws hnrmod fho chIIdron of snmosox
parents in Utah for the same reasons that the Supreme Court found that DOMA
hnrmod fho chIIdron of snmosex couples. Id. nf 46.
III. THE DISTRICT COURTS IIA! OI A STAY
AIIcnnfs dId nof roquosf n sfny In fho ovonf of nn ndvorso ruIIng In fhoIr
mofIon for summnry judgmonf In fho IsfrIcf Courf. Isf. Cf. l2/23 Ordor nf l.
AIIcnnfs fIIod n mofIon fo sfny Info In fho ovonIng on IrIdny, ocombor 20, 20l3.
Tho IsfrIcf Courf ordorod oxodIfod brIofIng ovor fho wookond nnd sof n honrIng
for 9 n.m. fhnf foIIowIng Mondny, ocombor 23, 20l3. Id. nf l2. Ioforo fho IsfrIcf
Court hearing, Applicants filed two Emergency Motions for Temporary Stay with
fho Courf of AonIs, whIch woro bofh donIod. oc. 22, 20l3, Ordor nf l, 2, o. l3
4l?8 In fho Tonfh CIrcuIf (CA10 12/22 Order). Af fho concIusIon of fho honrIng,
the District Court issued an oral ruling, denying Applicants motion for a stay,
whIch wns momorInIIzod In n wrIffon ordor Infor fhnf dny. Id.
The District Court denied Applicants motion for a stay pending appeal
bocnuso If found fhnf nono of fho four fncfors suorfIng n sfny hnd boon shown by
fho AIIcnnfs. The District Court found that Applicants reassertion of their
summnry judgmonf nrgumonfs wns nof suffIcIonf fo show n IIkoIIhood of succoss on
Respondents claims. Id. Tho IsfrIcf Court found that [i]n contrast to the

6

socuInfIvo hnrm fncod by fho Sfnfo, fhoro Is no dIsufo fhnf snmosox couIos fnco
harm by not being allowed to marry, and that the delay caused by a stay would in
nrfIcuInr cnuso IrronrnbIo hnrm fo couIos, IncIudIng !osondonfs Knron Archor
and Kate Call, facing serious illness or other issues that do not allow them the
luxury of waiting for such a delay. Id. nf 5. Tho IsfrIcf Courf nIso found fhnf n
stay would harm the publics interest in protecting the consfIfufIonnI rIghfs of
Utahs citizens. Id. nf 6. AccordIngIy, fho IsfrIcf Courf donIod n sfny. Id.
IV. THI CO!!T OI AIIIA!S DENIAL OF A STAY
On ocombor 24, 20l3, n fwojudgo nnoI of fho Courf of AonIs nIso donIod
Applicants request for a stay pending the appeal of the District Courts decision.
Soo CAl0 l2/24 Ordor nf 2. Tho Courf of AonIs consIdorod four factors: (1) the
IIkoIIhood of succoss on nonI 2 fho fhronf of IrronrnbIo hnrm If fho sfny Is nof
grnnfod 3 fho nbsonco of hnrm fo oosIng nrfIos If fho sfny Is grnnfod nnd 4
any risk of harm to the public interest. Id. The Court of Appeals noted that, [t]he
fIrsf fwo fncfors nro fho mosf crIfIcnI, nnd fhoy roquIro moro fhnn n moro ossIbIIIfy
of succoss nnd IrronrnbIo hnrm, respectively. Id. cIfIng kon v. HoIdor, 556 !.S.
4l8, 43435 2009). The Court of Appeals concluded that, consider[ing] the district
courts decision and the parties arguments concerning the stay factors . . . a stay is
not warranted, and denied Applicants request for a stay. Id.
A!C!MIT
AIIcnnfs now nsk fhIs Courf fo Issuo n sfny fhnf wns donIod by bofh fho
IsfrIcf Courf nnd fho Courf of AonIs. To obfnIn fhIs roIIof, AIIcnnfs musf
show that the Court of Appeals was demonstrably wrong in its application of

?

nccofod sfnndnrds In dociding [whether] to issue the stay. CoIomnn, 424 !.S. nf
l304. They must also show that their rights may be seriously and irreparably
injured by the stay. . . . Id. Finally, Applicants must show that this case couId
nnd vory IIkoIy wouId bo rovIowod horo uon fInnI dIsosIfIon In fho courf of
appeals. . . . Id. Iecause Applicants seek an overriding stay in a case already
pending before the Court of Appeals, they must meet an especially heavy burden.
Idwnrds, 5l2 !.S. nf l302 InfornnI cIfnfIons omIffod. AIIcnnfs do nof mnko nny
of fhoso roquIrod showIngs, nnd fhoIr roquosf for n sfny shouId bo donIod.
I. AII!ICATS MISSTATI THII! HIICHTII I!!I WHI
SIIKIC A OVI!!IIC STAY OI A CASI STI!! IIIC I
THI CO!!T OI AIIIA!S
Throughouf fhoIr AIIcnfIon, AIIcnnfs fnII fo ncknowIodgo or nIy fho
hoIghfonod burdon fhoy musf moof whon nskIng fhIs Courf fo grnnf n sfny In n cnso
sfIII ondIng boforo fho Courf of AonIs. AIIcnnfs rImnrIIy roIy on cnsos
involving the usual stay application, which seek a stay while a petition for
corfIornrI Is ondIng boforo fho Courf.
l
HockIor v. !ooz, 463 !.S. l328, l330
l983 !ohnquIsf, C.J., In chnmbors. Tho sfnndnrd In fhoso cnsos doos nof nIy
to this Application. Applicants have a heavier burden because they ask instead
that [a Circuit Justice] grant a stay of the District Courts judgmonf ondIng nonI

l
Soo AI. nf ? cIfIng fo onvor v. !nIfod Sfnfos, 483 !.S. l30l l98? !ohnquIsf, C.J., In
chnmbors sookIng sfny ondIng dIsosIfIon of n ofIfIon for corfIornrI ConkrIghf v. Irommorf, 556
!.S. l40l 2009 CInsburg, J., In chnmbors snmo Inrnos v. ISysfoms, Inc. Cr. Hos. Mod. &
SurgIcnI Ins. IInn, 50l !.S. l30l l99l ScnIIn, J., In chnmbors snmo. AIIcnnfs nIso cIfo fo
IrroIovnnf cnsos In whIch fhIs Courf doformInod whofhor fo grnnf n sfny In fho fIrsf Insfnnco,
ursunnf fo Ifs dIrocf rovIow of docIsIons by fhroojudgo courfs undor 28 !.S.C. l253. Soo AI. nf
? cIfIng !ucns v. Townsond, 486 !.S. l30l l988 Konnody, J., In chnmbors nnd !osfkor v.
CoIdborg, 448 !.S. l306 l980 Ironnnn, J., In chnmbors. IInnIIy, AIIcnnfs cIfo fo
HoIIIngsworfh v. Iorry, 558 !.S. l83, l90 20l0 or curInm, buf fhnf cnso InvoIvod n roquosf for n
sfny ondIng fho fIIIng nnd dIsosIfIon of n ofIfIon for n wrIf of mnndnmus.

8

fo fho lCourf of AonIs, whon fho lCourf of AonIs IfsoIf hns rofusod fo Issuo fho
stay. Id. [A] stay application to a Circuit Justice on a matter before a court of
appeals is rarely granted. Id. InfornnI cIfnfIons omIffod soo nIso HockIor v.
!ooz, 464 !.S. 8?9, 884 l983 (Stevens, J., dissenting in part) (noting that In
such n cnso fho grnnfIng of n sfny by n CIrcuIf JusfIco shouId bo oxfromoIy rnro nnd
great deference should be shown to the judgment of the Court of Appeals). OnIy In
cases that are sufficiently unusual will a Circuit Justice or this Court grant such
roIIof. HockIor, 463 !.S. nf l330 soo nIso Fargo Womens Health Org. v. Schafer,
l33 S. Cf. l668, l669 l993 (OConnor, J., concurring).
AIIcnnfs do nof ncknowIodgo, much Ioss nffomf fo moof, fhIs hoIghfonod
burdon. AIIcnnfs Insfond sIdo sfo fhoIr hoIghfonod burdon by cIfIng fo, wIfh
vIrfunIIy no dIscussIon or nnnIysIs, fhroo cnsos In whIch n CIrcuIf JusfIco grnnfod n
sfny of n cnso ondIng In fho Courf of AonIs. ono of fhoso cnsos suorfs
Applicants position; rather, in each case, the unusual circumstances that
wnrrnnfod n sfny undorscoro fho nbsonco of nny bnsIs for grnnfIng n sfny horo.
AIIcnnfs cIfo fo HockIor, soo AI. at 7, but in that case, there was serious
doubt, 463 U.S. at 1334, that the relief ordered by the district court was within the
remedial powers of a federal court over a federal administrative agency, Id. nf
l336. Soo nIso Id. at 1337 (It bears repeating that if it seemed to me that nothing
moro woro InvoIvod fhnn fho oxorcIso of n IsfrIcf Courf's frndIfIonnI dIscrofIon In
fnshIonIng n romody for nn ndjudIcnfod hnrm or wrong, fhoro wouId bo no occnsIon

9

for mo ns CIrcuIf JusfIco fo grnnf n sfny whoro bofh fho Courf of AonIs nnd fho
District Court had refused to grant one.). No such concern exists here.
AIIcnnfs nIso cIfo fo Snn Iognns for fho Mf. SoIodnd nfIonnI Wnr
MomorInI v. InuIson, 548 !.S. l30l, l304 2006 Konnody, J., In chnmbors, soo
Appl. at 7, but that case reiterated that the Court, and individual Circuit Justices,
shouId bo mosf roIucfnnf fo dIsfurb InforIm ncfIons of fho Courf of AonIs In cnsos
pending before it. A stay was granted in that case onIy bocnuso n roconf ncf of
Congross nnd ondIng sfnfo courf IIfIgnfIonbofh fnkIng Inco nffor fho Courf of
AonIs donIod n sfnymight have mooted the need for the district courts
InjuncfIon. Id. nf l30304. Nothing remotely like such unusual circumstances
oxIsfs In fhIs cnso. Id. nf l303.
IInnIIy, AIIcnnfs cIfo fo IS v. !ognIIznfIon AssIsfnnco Irojocf of fho !os
AngoIos Counfy IodornfIon of !nbor, 5l0 !.S. l30l l993 (OConnor, J., in
chnmbors, whIch nIso InvoIvod unusunI cIrcumsfnncos onfIroIy nbsonf horo. JusfIco
OConnor, sitting as Circuit Justice, explainod fhnf fho cnso wns suffIcIonfIy
exceptional to warrant a stay because If wns IIkoIy fho orgnnIznfIonnI InInfIffs In
!ognIIznfIon AssIsfnnco Irojocf had no standing to seek the order entered by the
District Court in the first instance bnsod on n roconf docIsIon by fho Courf
InvoIvIng n sImIInr chnIIongo. Id. nf l30203, l305.
2
Horo, fhoro Is no dIsufo
!osondonfs hnvo sfnndIng fo chnIIongo fhoIr oxcIusIon from mnrrIngo nnd from

2
As oxInIned more fully below, Applicants argument that !ognIIznfIon AssIsfnnco Irojocf
stands for the proposition that mere administrative burden can constitute irreparable harm is
morIfIoss. Soo AI. nf 2l. Tho hnrm nf Issuo In fhnf cnso wns nof sImIy ndmInIsfrnfIvo burdon,
but an improper intrusion by a federal court into the workings of a coordinate branch of the
Government. 510 U.S. at 1306.

l0

being recognized as legally married under Utahs laws. Nor is there any bnsIs for
quosfIonIng fho nufhorIfy of n fodornI courf fo onjoIn sfnfo Inws fhnf vIoInfo fho
Iourfoonfh Amondmonf.
AIIcnnfs hnvo nof cIfod fo n sIngIo cnso In whIch fho Courf hns grnnfod n
sfny of n dIsfrIcf courf ordor ondIng nonI whon fho noIInfo courf hns nIrondy
donIod n sfny undor cIrcumsfnncos ovon romofoIy sImIInr fo fho cIrcumsfnncos horo
bocnuso fhIs cnso Is nof an exceptional case warranting a stay.
II. THI CO!!T OI AIIIA!S WAS OT IMOST!AI!Y W!OC
I ITS AII!ICATIO OI ACCIITI STAA!S I IYIC
APPLICANTS REQ!IST IO! A STAY IIIC AIIIA!
ThIs Courf mny nof ovorrIdo n Courf of Appeals order denying a stay unless
that court was clearly and demonstrably wrong in its application of accepted
standards. . . . W. AIrIInos, Inc. v. Tonmsfors, 480 !.S. l30l, l305 l98?
(OConnor, J., in chambers) (quoting CoIomnn, 424 !.S. nf l404. oforonco fo fho
Courf of Aeals decision is especially warranted when, as here, that court is
proceeding to adjudication on the merits with due expedition. ConznIos, 546 !.S.
nf l308.
In the District Court, Respondents challenged Utahs marriage laws on
muIfIIo consfIfufIonnI grounds, onch of whIch, If succossfuI, wouId bo suffIcIonf fo
roquIro InvnIIdnfIon of fhoso Inws. To obfnIn n sfny from fho Courf of AonIs,
AIIcnnfs hnd fo make a strong showing that they were likely to prevail on all
Respondents claims. kon, 556 !.S. nf 434. Tho Courf of AonIs corrocfIy found
fhnf AIIcnnfs fnIIod fo moof fhnf osfnbIIshod fosf, nnd AIIcnnfs hnvo shown no
bnsIs for fhIs Courf fo vncnfo fhnf ordor nnd Issuo nn ovorrIdIng sfny.

ll

WIndsor mndo cIonr If wns docIdIng onIy whofhor fho fodornI govornmonf
may deny recognition to persons who are joined in samesox mnrrIngos mndo
lawful by the State. 133 S. Ct. af 2695. ovorfhoIoss, ovon fhough WIndsor doos
nof docIdo fho uIfImnfo Issuos In fhIs cnsowhofhor !fnh Is consfIfufIonnIIy
roquIrod fo Iof snmosox couIos mnrry or rocognIzo fhoIr oxIsfIng mnrrIngosfho
ronsonIng nnd nnnIysIs In WIndsor sfrongIy suorf fho ronsonIng of fho IsfrIcf
Courf nnd fho Courf of AonIs In docIInIng fo Issuo n sfny. In IIghf of fho
ronsonIng In WIndsor, AIIcnnfs cnnnof moof fho fhroshoId roquIromonf of
showIng nof moroIy fhnf !osondents claims mIghf fnII, buf fhnf onch cInIm Is
IIkoIy fo fnII. Soo kon, 556 !.S. nf 434. Thoro Is no bnsIs for fIndIng fhnf fho
Court of Appeals application of that accepted standard was demonstrably wrong.
A. !osondonfs Have Challenged Utahs SameSox MnrrIngo Inn
on MuIfIIo ConsfIfufIonnI Crounds
Respondents claim Utahs marriage laws violate their rights to due process in
muIfIIo wnys. Soo ComI., 454?, kf. 2, o. 2l3cv002l?!S In fho IsfrIcf
Courf. IIrsf, !osondonfs cInIm fho mnrrIngo Inws ImormIssIbIy dorIvo
!osondonfs of fho fundnmonfnI rIghf fo mnrry. Id. Socond, !osondonfs cInIm
fhnf fho Inws vIoInfo fhoIr rofocfod rIghfs fo rIvncy, IIborfy, nnd nssocInfIon by
oxcIudIng fhom from mnrrIngo nnd, IndoondonfIy, by oxcIudIng fhom from nny
fyo of offIcInI rocognIfIon or rofocfIon of fhoIr roInfIonshIs. Id. ThIrd,
!osondonfs cInIm fhnf fho Inws ImormIssIbIy dorIvo snmosox couIos who hnvo
IognIIy mnrrIod In ofhor sfnfos of fhoIr fundnmonfnI rIghf fo romnIn mnrrIod nnd of

l2

fhoIr rofocfod IIborfy, rIvncy, nnd nssocInfIonnI Inforosfs In fhoIr oxIsfIng
mnrrIngos. Id.
Respondents also challenge Utahs exclusionary marriage laws on multiple
oqunI rofocfIon grounds. Soo ComI., 526l. IIrsf, fhoy cInIm fho mnrrIngo
Inws wnrrnnf hoIghfonod oqunI rofocfIon scrufIny bocnuso fho Inws oxcIudo
!osondonfs nnd ofhor orsons In commIffod snmosox roInfIonshIs from fho
oxorcIso of n fundnmonfnI rIghf nnd cnnnof survIvo fhnf IovoI of scrufIny. Id.
Socond, fhoy cInIm fho Inws wnrrnnf hoIghfonod oqunI rofocfIon scrufIny bocnuso
fhoy osfnbIIsh n soxbnsod cInssIfIcnfIon nnd cnnnof survIvo fhnf IovoI of scrufIny.
Id. ThIrd, fhoy cInIm fho Inws cInssIfy bnsod on soxunI orIonfnfIon nnd fhnf such
Inws wnrrnnf nnd cnnnof survIvo skofIcnI scrufIny undor fho osfnbIIshod crIforIn
for doformInIng whon cInssIfIcnfIons bnsod on corfnIn orsonnI chnrncforIsfIcs nro
IIkoIy fo rofIocf rojudIco or bIns rnfhor fhnn IogIfImnfo gonIs. Id. Iourfh,
!osondonfs cInIm fho mnrrIngo Inws musf bo subjocf nf Ionsf fo, nnd cnnnof
survive, careful consideration under the Equal Protection Clause because, like
SocfIon 3 of OMA In WIndsor, fho mnrrIngo Inws sIngIo ouf snmosox couIos In nn
unusunI mnnnor In ordor fo fronf fhom unoqunIIyIncIudIng In fhIs cnso, donrfIng
from AIIcnnfs IongsfnndIng rncfIco of rocognIzIng vnIId mnrrIngos from ofhor
sfnfos, ovon whon fhoso mnrrIngos would be prohibited under Utahs own marriage
Inws. Id. IInnIIy, !osondonfs cInIm fho mnrrIngo Inws vIoInfo fhoIr rIghf fo oqunI
rofocfIon undor nny IovoI of scrufIny bocnuso fho Inws hnrm snmosox couIos nnd

l3

fhoIr chIIdron wIfhouf rovIdIng nny bonofIfs fo ofhors or fo fho sfnfofhnf Is, by
nof boIng rnfIonnIIy connocfod fo nny IogIfImnfo sfnfo Inforosf. Id.
I. WIndsor and Other Precedents Strongly Support Respondents
uo Irocoss CInIms
As Applicants note, [t]his case squarely presents the question that this
Courf oxrossIy Ioff oon Insf Torm In !nIfod Sfnfos v. WIndsor, AppI. nf l,
whofhor sfnfos mny, consIsfonf wIfh fho roquIromonfs of duo rocoss nnd oqunI
rofocfIon, bnr snmosox couIos from cIvII mnrrIngo nnd rofuso fo rocognIzo fho
mnrrIngos of fhoso who IognIIy mnrry In ofhor sfnfos. AIIcnnfs suggosf fhnf
WIndsors omhnsIs on fodornIIsm shows fhnf fho Court is likely to uphold Utahs
mnrrIngo bnn ns n vnIId oxorcIso of sfnfo sovoroIgnfy. !IfImnfoIy, howovor, In
sfrIkIng down n fodornI Inw fhnf dIscrImInnfod ngnInsf mnrrIod snmosox couIos,
WIndsor roIIod nof on fodornIIsm, buf on fho uo Irocoss CInuso of fho IIffh
Amondmonf. l33 S. Cf. nf 2696 (holding that OMA Is unconsfIfufIonnI ns n
dorIvnfIon of fho IIborfy of fho orson rofocfod by fho IIffh Amondmonf of fho
Constitution). AIIcnnfs nIso suggosf fhnf fhoy nro IIkoIy fo succood on nonI
because all of [t]the various opinions in WIndsor nnfIcInfo fho fIIIng of fufuro
chnIIongos fo sfnfo mnrrIngo bnns. AI. nf 9. Iuf undor fho sfnndnrd AIIcnnfs
musf moof In fhIs rocoodIng, fhnf ncknowIodgomonf shows fhnf fho consfIfufIonnI
quosfIons rosonfod by fhIs cnso nro sorIous nnd fhnf fho Courf of AonIs wns nof
demonstrably wrong in concluding that Applicants could not make a strong
showIng fhnf fhoy nro IIkoIy fo rovnII on nonI. Cf. IInnnod Inronfhood of
Cronfor Tox. SurgIcnI HonIfh Sorvs. v. Abboff, l34 S. Cf. 506, 506 20l3 ScnIIn, J.,

l4

concurring) (noting that the difficulty of a question is inversely proportional to the
likelihood that a given answer will be clearly erroneous).
In fncf, fho ronsonIng In WIndsorns woII ns oIdor cnsos nddrossIng fho
consfIfufIonnIIy rofocfod rIghf fo mnrrysupports the District Courts conclusion
fhnf gny nnd IosbInn orsons musf bo IncIudod wIfhIn fho consfIfufIonnIIy rofocfod
rIghf fo mnrry. WIndsor nffIrmod fhnf sfnfo mnrrIngo laws are subject to
[constitutional] guarantees and must respect the constitutional rights of persons.
l33 S. Cf. nf 269l. In rIor cnsos, fhIs Courf hns hoId fhnf fho fundnmonfnI rIghf fo
mnrry Is bnsod on an individuals underlying rights to privacy, liberty, and freedom
of InfImnfo nssocInfIon. Soo, o.g., Turnor v. SnfIoy, 482 !.S. ?8, 95 l98? ZnbIockI
v. !odhnII, 434 !.S. 3?4, 384 l9?8 CIovoInnd Id. of Iduc. v. !nIIour, 4l4 !.S.
632, 63940 l9?4 !ovIng v. VIrgInIn, 388 !.S. l, l2 l96?. WIfhouf docIdIng
whofhor sfnfo Inws bnrrIng snmosox couIos from mnrrIngo vIoInfo fho rIghf fo
mnrry, fho Courf hns hoId fhnf IndIvIdunIs In snmosox roInfIonshIs hnvo fho snmo
IIborfy nnd rIvncy Inforosfs In fhoIr InfImnfo roInfIonshIs ns ofhor ooIo. Soo
!nwronco v. Toxns, 539 !.S. 558, 5???8 2003. WIndsor nffIrmod fhnf fho
Constitution protects the moral and sexual choices of samesox couIos nnd hoId
fhnf fhoIr roInfIonshIs, IncIudIng fho roInfIonshIs of IognIIy mnrrIod snmosox
couIos, hnvo fho snmo consfIfufIonnI rofocfIons ns ofhors nnd nro onfIfIod fo bo
treated by the government with equal dignity. l33 S. Cf. nf 269394. Thoso
rocodonfs sfrongIy suorf the District Courts determination that persons in
snmosox roInfIonshIs hnvo fundnmonfnI Inforosfs In IIborfy, rIvncy, nnd

l5

nssocInfIon fhnf nro InfrIngod by sfnfo Inws cnfogorIcnIIy bnrrIng fhom from fho
rIghf fo mnrry. Isf. Cf. l2/20 Ordor nf l825.
AIIcnnfs nrguo fhnf !osondonfs do nof hnvo n fundnmonfnI rIghf fo
samesex marriage because they cannot show that such a right is deeply rooted
in the Nations history and tradition. AppI. nf l2 quofIng WnshIngfon v.
CIucksborg, 52l !.S. ?02, ?202l l99?. Iuf whon nnnIyzIng cnsos InvoIvIng
fundnmonfnI rIghfs, fhIs Courf hns nof hoId fhnf fho confours of n fundnmonfnI
rIghf cnn bo IImIfod bnsod on who sooks fo oxorcIso If or on hIsforIcnI nfforns of
dIscrImInnfIon. Tho osIfIon urgod by AIIcnnfsfhnf !osondonfs sook nof fho
same right to marry as others, but a new right to samesex marriageroonfs fho
nnnIyfIcnI orror of Iowors v. HnrdwIck, 4?8 !.S. l86 l986. In Iowors, fho Courf
erroneously framed the issue in that case as whether the Federal Constitution
confors n fundnmonfnI rIghf uon homosoxunIs fo ongngo in sodomy. Id. nf l90.
As fhIs Courf oxInInod whon If rovorsod Iowors In !nwronco, fhnf sfnfomonf
disclose[d] the Courts own failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake.
539 !.S. nf 56?. SImIInrIy horo, ns fho IsfrIcf Courf concIudod, fhoro Is no
rIncIIod bnsIs for frnmIng fho rIghf nf sfnko ns n now rIghf socIfIc onIy fo gny
nnd IosbInn orsons. Isf. Cf. l2/20 Ordor nf 2829.
3
AIIcnnfs hnvo nof shown

3
Ofhor courfs hnvo nIso hoId fhnf gny nnd IosbInn orsons hnvo fho snmo fundnmonfnI rIghf
fo mnrry ns hoforosoxunI orsons. Soo, o.g., Iorry v. Schwnrzonoggor, ?04 I. Su. 2d 92l, 994
.. CnI. 20l0 rocognIzIng fundnmonfnI rIghf fo mnrry undor fho fodornI ConsfIfufIon, nff'd sub
nom., Iorry v. Irown, 6?l I.3d l052 9fh CIr. 20l2, vncnfod nnd romnndod sub nom., HoIIIngsworfh
v. Iorry, l33 S. Cf. 2652 20l3 cf. OborgofoII v. WymysIo, ll3cv50l, 20l3 W! 6?26688 S.. OhIo
Dec. 23, 2013) (Although it is unnecessary to reach the issue of whether the fundamental right to
mnrry IfsoIf nIso ondows OhIo snmosox couIos mnrrIod In ofhor jurIsdIcfIons wIfh n sIgnIfIcnnf
IIborfy Inforosf In fhoIr mnrrIngos for subsfnnfIvo duo rocoss urosos, fho Courf nofos fhnf n
substantial logical and jurisprudential basis exists for such a conclusion as well.); cf. In ro MnrrIngo

l6

that the Court of Appeals was demonstrably wrong in its application of the
nccofod sfnndnrds govornIng Issunnco of n sfny.
WIndsors holding that legally married samesox couIos hnvo n rofocfod
IIborfy Inforosf In fhoIr mnrrIngos fhnf Is ImormIssIbIy InfrIngod by fho fodornI
governments refusal to recognize their marriages also supports invalidation of
Utahs refusal to recognize the lawful marriages of samesox couIos who mnrrIod In
ofhor sfnfos. l33 S. Cf. nf 268l (holding that the injury and indignity [inflicted by
SocfIon 3 of OMA Is n dorIvnfIon of nn ossonfInI nrf of fho IIborfy rofocfod by
the Fifth Amendment). Indood, ono fodornI dIsfrIcf courf hns nIrondy nIIod
WIndsor fo hold that Ohios refusal to recognize surviving samesox sousos on
donfh corfIfIcnfos vIoInfos fho roquIromonf of duo rocoss. OborgofoII v. WymysIo,
o. ll3cv50l, 20l3 W! 6?26688 S.. OhIo oc. 23, 20l3. As fhnf courf
recognized, the constitutional harm inflicted by the governments refusal to
rocognIzo nn oxIsfIng mnrIfnI roInfIonshI Is no Ioss whon If Is n sfnfo, rnfhor fhnn
fho fodornI govornmonf, fhnf donIos rocognIfIon. Id. nf *68.
C. WIndsor nnd Ofhor Irocodonfs Strongly Support Respondents
IqunI IrofocfIon CInIms
Applicants do not address Respondents claims that Utahs marriage ban
wnrrnnfs hoIghfonod oqunI rofocfIon scrufIny bocnuso If dIscrImInnfos bnsod on
bofh soxunI orIonfnfIon nnd sox, nnd bocnuso Inws fhnf cInssIfy bnsod on soxunI
orIonfnfIon wnrrnnf hoIghfonod scrufIny. Thoso cInIms rosonf sorIous quosfIons,

Cnsos, l83 I.3d 384, 42? CnI. 2008 ([T]he California Constitution properly must be interpreted to
gunrnnfoo fhIs bnsIc cIvII rIghf fo lmnrry fo nII IndIvIdunIs nnd couIos, wIfhouf rognrd fo fhoIr
sexual orientation.).

l?

ns WIndsor oxrossIy nofod wIfh rosocf fo fho IovoI of scrufIny nIIod fo Inws fhnf
cInssIfy bnsod on soxunI orIonfnfIon. l33 S. Cf. nf 268384 nofIng fhnf Iowor courfs
nro consIdorIng nnd dobnfIng whofhor hoIghfonod scrufIny shouId nIy fo such
laws). Applicants failure to address those claims is reason enough, alone, to deny
fhoIr AIIcnfIon. AIIcnnfs cnnnof ovorcomo fho sfrong rosumfIon fhnf fho
Court of Appeals determination was correct without showing they are likely to
prevail on all of Respondents claims.
As the Court of Appeals ruling suggests, the reasoning in WIndsor nnd ofhor
oqunI rofocfIon docIsIons sfrongIy suorfs fho concIusIon fhnf !osondonfs nro
likely to succeed on their claims that Utahs marriage ban violates their right to
oqunI rofocfIon of fho Inws. WIndsor hoId fhnf Inws onncfod In ordor fo dony oqunI
fronfmonf of mnrrIod snmosox couIos InfIIcf InjurIos of consfIfufIonnI dImonsIons.
l33 S. Cf. nf 2694 ruIIng fhnf SocfIon 3 of fho fodornI ofonso of MnrrIngo Acf
demeans samesex couples, and humiliates tens of fhousnnds of chIIdron now
being raised by those couples). As the District Court correctly held, the Courts
nnnIysIs of fho rofoundIy sfIgmnfIzIng Imncf of Inws fhnf sIngIo ouf snmosox
couIos for dIscrImInnfIon wIfh rosocf fo mnrrIngo nIIos oqually to Utahs laws
oxcIudIng snmosox couIos from fho nbIIIfy fo mnrry. Isf. Cf. l2/20 Ordor nf 50.
Thoso Inws sfIgmnfIzo nnd hnrm snmosox couIos nnd fhoIr fnmIIIos, whIIo
rovIdIng no bonofIf fo ofhors. Id. Thnf nsocf of WIndsors reasoning strongly
supports the District Courts conclusions that the challenged laws violate the Equal

l8

IrofocfIon CInuso bocnuso fhoy dIscrImInnfo ngnInsf snmosox couIos nnd InfIIcf
sorIous consfIfufIonnI hnrms on fhoso couIos nnd fhoIr chIIdron.
WIndsor also held that [d]iscriminations of an unusual character,
IncIudIng ngnInsf gny nnd IosbInn IndIvIdunIs wIfh rosocf fo mnrrIngo, wnrrnnf
careful consideration. 133 S. Ct. at 2693 quofIng !omor, 5l? !.S. nf 633. Tho
Courf found fhnf SocfIon 3 of OMA wns onncfod for nn Imroor dIscrImInnfory
uroso, ovon fhough If wns suorfod by Inrgo mnjorIfIos of Congross, In nrf,
bocnuso If donrfod from fho fodornI govornmonts longstanding practice of
doforrIng fo sfnfo dofInIfIons of mnrrIngo In ordor fo sIngIo ouf n nrfIcuInr subsof of
mnrrIod couIos for unoqunI fronfmonf. l33 S. Cf. nf 2693. Tho Courf found fhnf
OMA wns onacted to ensure that if any State decides to recognize samesox
mnrrIngos, fhoso unIons wIII bo fronfod ns socondcInss mnrrIngos for urosos of
federal law. Id. nf 269394. In fhIs cnso, fho IsfrIcf Courf cnrofuIIy oufIInod how
fho chnIIongod !fnh Inws whIch IIko sImIInr Inws In mnny ofhor sfnfos, woro
onncfod oxrossIy In ordor fo oxcIudo snmosox couIos from mnrrIngo nro
unusunI. Isf. Cf. l2/20 Ordor nf 3940. Tho IsfrIcf Courf uIfImnfoIy docIInod fo
roIy on fhIs nsocf of WIndsors holding, concIudIng fhnf fho chnIIongod Inws fnIIod
ovon undor convonfIonnI rnfIonnI bnsIs rovIow. Id. nf 4l. onofhoIoss, WIndsor
makes clear that state laws, like Utahs, enacted in quick succossIon fo mnko suro
fhnf no snmosox couIo couId bo mnrrIod, nIso wnrrnnf cIoso scrufIny.
4


4
Applicants place great weight on the District Courts refusal to find that Utahs marriage
laws (in contrast with DOMA) are based on animus. Appl. at 14. However, while the District Court
ultimately refrained from expressly finding that Utahs marriage bnn rofIocfs nnImus fownrd gny
and lesbian persons, the District Courts analysis strongly supports that conclusion. The District

l9

This Courts precedentsns woII ns n growIng numbor of docIsIons by sfnfo
nnd fodornI courfsnIso suorf fho concIusIon fhnf Inws fhnf dIscrImInnfo bnsod
on soxunI orIonfnfIon, IncIudIng Inws bnrrIng snmosox couIos from mnrrIngo,
wnrrnnf hoIghfonod consfIfufIonnI scrufIny. WIndsor nofod fhnf Iowor courfs ncross
the country are considering whether heightened equal protection scrutiny should
apply to laws that classify on the basis of sexual orientation. 133 S. Ct. at 268485.
In nddIfIon, fho Courf Iof sfnnd fho Second Circuits holding that heightened
scrufIny nIIos fo such Inws. Id. at 2684 (noting that the Second Circuit applied
hoIghfonod scrufIny fo cInssIfIcnfIons bnsod on sexual orientation). Applying the
crIforIn usod by fho Courf In rIor cnsos fo doformIno whon corfnIn cInssIfIcnfIons
wnrrnnf hoIghfonod scrufIny, mnny courfs hnvo now concIudod fhnf Inws fhnf
dIscrImInnfo bnsod on soxunI orIonfnfIon wnrrnnf cnrofuI rovIow.
5
In IIghf of fhoso
precedents and this Courts application of careful consideration in WIndsor,
Respondents are likely to succeed on their claim that Utahs discrimination against
snmosox couIos wnrrnnfs, nnd cnnnof wIfhsfnnd, n hoIghfonod IovoI of
consfIfufIonnI scrufIny.

Court found that the avowed purpose and effect of Amendment 3 is to deny the benefits and
rosonsIbIIIfIos of mnrrIngo fo snmosox couIos, whIch Is nnofhor wny of snyIng fhnf fho Inw Imosos
inequality. Dist. Ct. 2/20 Order at 39. The District Court also found that, because Amendment 3
went further and held that no domestic union could be given the same or substantially equIvnIonf
legal effect as marriage, its wording suggests that the imposition of inequality was not merely the
laws effect, but its goal. Id. Thoso fIndIngs nro vIrfunIIy IndIsfInguIshnbIo, If nf nII, from fho bnsIs
of WIndsors conclusion that Section 3 of DOMAs principal purpose [was] to impose inequality.
l33 S. Cf. nf 2694.
5
Soo, o.g., CrIogo v. OIIvor, o. 34,306, 20l3 W! 66?0?04, nf *l8 .M. oc. l9, 20l3
Vnrnum v. IrIon, ?63 .W.2d 862, 896 Iown 2009 KorrIgnn v. Comm'r of Iub. HonIfh, 95? A.2d
40?, 432 Conn. 2008 In ro MnrrIngo Cnsos, l83 I.3d 384, 444 CnI. 2008. Soo nIso WIndsor v.
!nIfod Sfnfos, 699 I.3d l69, l85 2d CIr. 20l2 Mnssnchusoffs v. !.S. o'f of HonIfh & Humnn
Sorvs., 682 I.3d l, 8 lsf CIr. 20l2, corf. donIod, l33 S. Cf. 288? 20l3 hoIdIng fhnf rovIow of
DOMA require[s] a closer than usual review based in part on discrepant impact among mnrrIod
couples and in part on the importance of state interests in regulating marriage).

20

This Courts precedents also support Respondents claim that the challengod
Inws wnrrnnf, nnd cnnnof survIvo, hoIghfonod scrufIny bocnuso fhoy dIscrImInnfo
ngnInsf !osondonfs bnsod on fhoIr sox. Iofh fho IsfrIcf Courf In fhIs cnso nnd
fho IsfrIcf Courf In Iorry v. Schwnrzonoggor, ?04 I. Su. 2d 92l .. CnI.
20l0, hoId fhnf Inws bnrrIng snmosox couIos from mnrrIngo ImormIssIbIy
dIscrImInnfo bnsod on sox. Thoso Inws cInssIfy !osondonfs bnsod on fhoIr sox
bocnuso fho mnIo !osondonfs wouId bo nbIo fo mnrry fhoIr nrfnors If fhoIr
nrfnors woro fomnIo, nnd fho fomnIo !osondonfs wouId bo nbIo fo mnrry fhoIr
nrfnors If fhoIr nrfnors woro mnIo. Soo Isf. Cf. l2/20 Ordor nf 35 Iorry, ?04 I.
Su. 2d nf 996 soo nIso In ro !ovonson, 560 I.3d ll45, ll4? 9fh CIr. 2009 I!
IInn ndmInIsfrnfIvo docIsIon. Tho IqunI IrofocfIon CInuso rohIbIfs such
differential treatment for denial of opportunity based on a persons gendor In fho
absence of an exceedingly persuasive justification. !nIfod Sfnfos v. VIrgInIn, 5l8
!.S. 5l5, 53233 l996 InfornnI quofnfIon mnrks omIffod. Moroovor, ns Iorry
explained, sox nnd soxunI orIonfnfIon nro nocossnrIIy InforroInfod, ns nn
IndIvIdunI's choIco of romnnfIc or InfImnfo nrfnor bnsod on sox Is n Inrgo nrf of
whnf dofInos nn IndIvIdunI's soxunI orIontation. 704 F. Su. 2d nf 996. Ior fhnf
reason, a law enacted to bar gay and lesbian couples from marriage targets them
specifically due to sex, in addition to target[ing them] in a manner specific to their
soxunI orientation. Id.
In nddIfIon, IIko ofhor fyos of sox dIscrImInnfIon, dIscrImInnfIon ngnInsf
snmosox couIos Is roofod In gondor sforoofyos, IncIudIng fho sforoofyo fhnf n

2l

mnn shouId onIy bo nffrncfod fo, onfor Info nn InfImnfo roInfIonshI wIfh, nnd
mnrry n womnn, nnd vIco vorsn. Tho chnIIongod !fnh Inws ImormIssIbIy rofIocf
fhoso gondorbnsod oxocfnfIons nnd onnIIzo IndIvIdunIs who donrf from
assumptions about the proper roles of men and women. MIss. !nIv. for Womon v.
Hognn, 458 !.S. ?l8, ?26 l982.
WhIIo fhIs Is nn Issuo on whIch courfs hnvo sIIf, fho ronsonIng suorfIng
fho concIusIon fhnf Inws fnrgofIng snmosox couIos ImormIssIbIy dIscrImInnfo
based on sex is well founded and consistent with this Courts precedents.
Applicants cannot show that the Court of Appeals was demonstrably wrong in
concIudIng fhnf AIIcnnfs fnIIod fo moof fhoIr burdon of showIng n IIkoIIhood of
succoss. Cf. Abboff, l34 S. Cf. nf 506 (noting that the difficulty of a question is
InvorsoIy roorfIonnI fo fho IIkoIIhood fhnf n gIvon nnswor wIII bo cIonrIy
erroneous).
. WIndsor nnd Ofhor Irocodonfs, IncIudIng ocIsIons by Mnny
State and Federal Courts, Strongly Support the District Courts
ConcIusIon Thnf fho ChnIIongod !nws VIoInfo IqunI IrofocfIon
Ivon !ndor !nfIonnI InsIs !ovIow
AIIcnnfs cnnnof show fhnf fhIs Courf Is IIkoIy fo rovorso fho IsfrIcf
Courts ruling by citing to a hodgepodge of articles that purportedly show that
snmosox nronfs nro InforIor fo oosIfosox nronfs. In nddIfIon fo boIng fnIso,
6


6
Applicants arguments about optimal childrearing, AppI. nf l4l8, nro nof roIovnnf fo
whofhor fho IsfrIcf Courf docIsIon wIII bo uhoId on nonI, ns fho IsfrIcf Courf obsorvod. Isf.
Cf. l2/20 nf 45. However, Applicants statement that [a]mong the wealth of social science analysis
suorfIng fho frndIfIonnI dofInIfIon of mnrrIngo, n subsfnnfInI body of rosonrch confIrms fhnf
chIIdron gonornIIy fnro bosf whon ronrod by fhoIr fwo bIoIogIcnI nronfs In n IovIng, IowconfIIcf
marriage, AppI. nf l5, Is nof fruo. Tho scIonfIfIc consonsus of ovory nnfIonnI honIfh cnro
orgnnIznfIon chnrgod wIfh fho woIfnro of chIIdron nnd ndoIosconfs IncIudIng fho AmorIcnn
Acndomy of IodInfrIcs, fho AmorIcnn Acndomy of ChIId nnd AdoIosconf IsychInfry, fho AmorIcnn

22

Applicants argumenf doos nof rosoIvo fho consfIfufIonnI Issuos rosonfod by fhIs
cnso. As fho IsfrIcf Courf cnrofuIIy domonsfrnfod, nnd ns numorous ofhor fodornI
nnd sfnfo courfs ncross fho counfry hnvo nIso found, fhoro sImIy Is no rnfIonnI
connocfIon bofwoon bnrrIng snmosox couIos from mnrrIngo nnd fho romofIon of
responsible procreation or optimal parenting by oppositesox couIos. To fho
oxfonf fho bonofIfs nnd rofocfIons of mnrrIngo oncourngo oosIfosox couIos fo
mnrry boforo hnvIng chIIdron, fhoso Incontives existed long before Utahs
dIscrImInnfory Inws woro onncfod, nnd fhoy wouId confInuo fo oxIsf If fhoso Inws
woro sfruck down. Cf. WIndsor v. !nIfod Sfnfos, 699 I.3d l69, l88 2d CIr. 20l2
(DOMA does not provide nny IncromonfnI ronson for oosIfosox couIos fo ongngo
in responsible procreation. Incentives for oppositesox couIos fo mnrry nnd
procreate (or not) were the same after DOMA was enacted as they were before.);
soo nIso, o.g., Mnssnchusoffs v. !.S. o'f of HonIfh & Humnn Sorvs., 682 I.3d l, l4
n.l0 lsf CIr. 20l2 (holding that the states responsible procreation argument
failed to explain how denying benefits to samesox couIos wIII roInforco

IsychInfrIc AssocInfIon, fho AmorIcnn IsychoIogIcnI AssocInfIon, fho AmorIcnn IsychonnnIyfIc
AssocInfIon, fho AmorIcnn SocIoIogIcnI AssocInfIon, fho nfIonnI AssocInfIon of SocInI Workors, fho
AmorIcnn ModIcnI AssocInfIon, nnd fho ChIId WoIfnro !onguo of AmorIcn bnsod on n sIgnIfIcnnf
nnd woIIrosocfod body of curronf rosonrch, Is fhnf chIIdron nnd ndoIosconfs rnIsod by snmosox
nronfs, wIfh nII fhIngs boIng oqunI, nro ns woIIndjusfod ns chIIdron rnIsod by oosIfosox
nronfs. Soo IrIof of AmorIcnn IsychoIogIcnI AssocInfIon, of nI. ns AmIcI CurIno on fho MorIfs In
Suorf of AffIrmnnco, !nIfod Sfnfos v. WIndsor, l33 S.Cf. 26?5 20l3 o. l230?. Tho buIk of fho
rosonrch on whIch AIIcnnfs roIy Is oufdnfod, nnd fho curronf sfudIos fhoy cIfo by Mnrk .
!ognorus, AI. nf l5l?, hnvo boon whoIIy dIscrodIfod by fho scIonfIfIc communIfy, IncIudIng fho
journnI whIch ubIIshod fhom. Tom InrfIoff, ConfrovorsInI CnyInronfIng Sfudy Is SovoroIy
Flawed, Journals Audit Finds, Chron. Of HIghor Iduc., JuIy 26, 20l2,
hff//chronIcIo.com/bIogs/orcoInfor/confrovorsInIgnynronfIngsfudyIssovoroIyfInwodjournnIs
nudIffInds/30255. Applicants citation to the study by Kristin A. Moore, AppI. nf l5, Is oqunIIy
mIsIncod bocnuso fho nufhors nddod nn Infroducfory nofo fo fhoIr sfudy oxIIcIfIy wnrnIng fhnf no
concIusIons cnn bo drnwn from fhIs rosonrch nbouf fho woIIboIng of chIIdron rnIsod by snmosox or
ndofIvo nronfs. KrIsfIn A. Mooro, Mnrriage from a Childs Perspective: How Does Family
Sfrucfuro Affocf ChIIdron, nnd Whnf Cnn Wo o Abouf If, ChIId Tronds 2002.

23

heterosexual marriage); Vnrnum v. IrIon, ?63 .W.2d 862, 90l Iown 2009 ([T]he
Counfy fnIIs fo nddross fho ronI Issuo In our roquIrod nnnIysIs of fho objocfIvo
whofhor oxcIusIon of gny nnd IosbInn IndIvIdunIs from fho InsfIfufIon of cIvII
mnrrIngo wIII rosuIf In moro procreation?) (emphasis in original).
!osondonfs ngroo wIfh AIIcnnfs fhnf mnrrIngo rovIdos onormous
bonofIfs for chIIdron. Iuf oxcIudIng fho chIIdron of snmosox couIos from fhoso
bonofIfs cnusos sovoro hnrm fo fhoso chIIdron, wIfhouf rovIdIng nny bonofIf fo fho
chIIdron of oosIfosex parents. If anything, the States prohIbIfIon of snmosox
marriage detracts from the States goal of promoting optimal environments for
children. Isf. Cf. l2/20 Ordor nf 46. Tho nssorfod govornmonfnI Inforosf In
oncourngIng rocronfIon nnd chIIdronrIng fo occur wIfhIn n sfnbIo fnmIIy confoxf
nIso nIIos fo fho chIIdron of snmosox couIos. Thoso chIIdron nro nIso worfhy of
the States protection, yet Amendment 3 harms them for the same reasons that the
Suromo Courf found fhnf OMA hnrmod fho chIIdron of snmosex couples. Id.
AIIcnnfs do nof dIsufo fhnf snmosox couIos nnd fhoIr chIIdron nro
hnrmod by boIng oxcIudod from mnrrIngo. Soo AI. nf 2l sfnfIng fhnf snmosox
couples and their children will likely suffer dignitary and financial losses from the
InvnIIdnfIon of fhoIr marriages). Nonetheless, they argue, illogically, that it is
rnfIonnI for fho sfnfo fo onnIIzo fhoso couIos nnd fhoIr chIIdron by oxcIudIng fhom
from protections in order to hold[] up and encourag[e] manwomnn unIons ns fho
roforrod nrrnngomonf In which to raise children. Id. nf l? omhnsIs In orIgInnI.
Applicants argument is remarkably similar to the justifications offered in support

24

of nowroudInfod Inws fhnf onnIIzod socalled illegitimate children by depriving
fhom of crIfIcnI IognI rofocfIons. This Court has repudiated such laws as contrary
fo fho bnsIc concof of our sysfom fhnf IognI burdons shouId bonr somo roInfIonshI
to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Wobor v. Aofnn Cns. & Sur. Co., 406
!.S. l64, l?5 l9?2. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth and penalizing
fho IIIogIfImnfo chIId Is nn InoffocfunIns woII ns nn unjusfwny of doforrIng fho
nront. Id. Those principles apply to Applicants argument that a state can
onnIIzo fho chIIdron of snmosex couples in order to hold up manwomnn unIons ns
fho roforrod arrangement for raising children. AppI. nf l? omhnsIs In orIgInnI.
Iurfhormoro, ns fho IsfrIcf Courf nIso hoId, mnrrIngo In !fnh ns In ofhor
sfnfos Is fIod fo n wIdo nrrny of govornmonfnI rogrnms nnd rofocfIons, mnny of
whIch hnvo nofhIng fo do wIfh chIIdronrIng or rocronfIon. Isf. Cf. l2/20 Ordor nf
262?. Tho fncf fhnf snmosox couIos do nof ongngo In unInnnod rocronfIon doos
nof rovIdo n rnfIonnI bnsIs for oxcIudIng mnrrIod snmosox couIos from nII of fho
other protections provided to married couples under Utah law. [E]ven in the
ordInnry oqunI rofocfIon cnso cnIIIng for fho mosf doforonfInI of sfnndnrds, lcourfs
InsIsf on knowIng fho roInfIon bofwoon fho cInssIfIcnfIon ndofod nnd fho objocf fo
be attained. !omor, 5l? !.S. nf 632. Horo, ns In !omor, [t]he breadth of [Utahs
dIscrImInnfory mnrrIngo Inws Is so fnr romovod from fhoso nrfIcuInr jusfIfIcnfIons
that [it is] impossible to credit them. Id. nf 635.
I. Inkor v. oIson Provides No Support for Applicants Position
AIIcnnfs Invoko fhIs Courts 1972 summary dismissal of the appeal for
wnnf of n subsfnnfInI fodornI quosfIon In Inkor v. oIson, 409 !.S. 8l0 l9?2,

25

confondIng fhnf Inkor warrants vacating the Court of Appeals ruling because
Inkor roquIros, on fho morIfs, fhnf fho IsfrIcf Courf nnd fho Courf of AonIs
reject Appellees challenges to Utahs marriage laws. Inkor Is nof confroIIIng In
fhIs cnso for fho ronsons fho IsfrIcf Courf oxInInod, ns woII ns for fho nddIfIonnI
ronsons sof forfh boIow. AoIInnfs hnvo nof shown fhnf Inkor rovIdos ronson for
this Court to conclude that the Court of Appeals was demonstrably wrong In Ifs
nIIcnfIon of fho sfnndnrds govornIng Issunnco of n sfny.
Summnry dIsmIssnI by fhIs Courf for wnnf of n subsfnnfInI fodornI quosfIon
is dispositive only on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided.
MnndoI v. IrndIoy, 432 !.S. l?3, l?6 l9?9. Inkor wns docIdod In l9?l, docndos
boforo fho wnvo of unrocodonfod sfnfo sfnfufos nnd consfIfufIonnI nmondmonfs
osfnbIIshIng cnfogorIcnI bnns on mnrrIngo by snmosox couIos. !Iko OMA, fhoso
measures are discriminations of an unusual character, WIndsor, l33 S. Cf. nf 2693
InfornnI cIfnfIons omIffod, In fhnf fhoy woro oxrossIy onncfod fo fnrgof snmosox
couIos. Inkor dId nof InvoIvo l nn onncfmonf socIfIcnIIy fnrgofod fo dony rIghfs
fo snmosox couIos 2 n sfnfo consfIfufIonnI nmondmonf fhnf fook fho Issuo of
mnrrIngo for snmosox couIos ouf of fho ronIm of ordInnry oIIfIcs nnd mndo If
vIrfunIIy ImossIbIo for gny nnd IosbInn ooIo fo uso fho ordInnry IogIsInfIvo
rocoss fo sook chnngo or 3 nn onncfmonf socIfIcnIIy rohIbIfIng n sfnfo from
rocognIzIng fho IognI mnrrIngos of snmosox couIos. Inkor dId nof nddross nnd
therefore does not resolve the precise issues presented by this case. MnndoI, 432
!.S. nf l?6.

26

Inkor nddrossod n gonornI mnrrIngo sfnfufo fhnf wns nof onncfod for fho
uroso of oxcIudIng snmosox couIos from mnrrIngo. Tho sfnfufo nf Issuo In
Inkor dId nof rofor fo fho gondor of fho Infondod sousos. Tho MInnosofn Suromo
Court rejected the plaintiffs argument that the absence of an express statutory
rohIbIfIon ngnInsf snmosox mnrrIngos ovIncos n IogIsInfIvo Infonf fo nufhorIzo
such marriages, holding that the law does not authorize marriage between
persons of the same sex. Inkor v. oIson, l9l .W.2d l85, l8586 MInn. l9?l.
Thnf no subsfnnfInI fodornI quosfIon wns rosonfod by such n sfnfufo doos nof
nnswor whofhor n dIfforonf kInd of sfnfufo or consfIfufIonnI nmondmonfInfondod
fo oxcIudo snmosox couIosmIghf bo unconsfIfufIonnI ns n form of InvIdIous
dIscrImInnfIon. A summary disposition affirms only fho judgmonf of fho courf
boIow, nnd no moro mny bo rond Info our ncfIon fhnn wns ossonfInI fo susfnIn fhnf
judgment. Monfnnn v. Crow TrIbo of IndInns, 523 !.S. 696, ?l4 n.l4 l998
quofIng Andorson v. CoIobrozzo, 460 !.S. ?80, ?85 n. 5 l983.
Inkor nIso dId nof nddross fho vnIIdIfy of n sfnfo consfIfufIonnI nmondmonf
onncfod In ordor fo romovo fho Issuo of whofhor snmosox couIos hnvo nn oqunI
rIghf fo mnrry from fho normnI oIIfIcnI rocoss. In !omor, fho Courf InvnIIdnfod n
sfnfo consfIfufIonnI nmondmonf fhnf bnrrod fho onncfmonf of nny sfnfo or IocnI Inws
prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, concluding that [i]t is not
within our constitutional tradition to enact such measures. 517 U.S. at 633. Thnf
no subsfnnfInI fodornI quosfIon wns rosonfod by fho gonornI mnrrIngo sfnfufo In
Inkor doos nof nnswor whofhor n monsuro IIko Amondmonf 3 mIghf bo

2?

unconsfIfufIonnI ns n form of InvIdIous dIscrImInnfIon fhnf sooks fo dIsndvnnfngo
nnd sfIgmnfIzo gny nnd IosbInn orsons In fho oIIfIcnI rocoss.
Iurfhor, nf fho fImo Inkor wns onncfod, no sfnfo hnd yof onncfod monsuros
fo bnr nny rocognIfIon of couIos who IognIIy mnrrIod In ofhor sfnfos. Inkor dId nof
ovon consIdor, much Ioss doformIno, fho vnIIdIfy of such n monsuro. As dIscussod
above, a states refusal to recognize the lawful marriages of samesox couIos who
mnrry In ofhor sfnfos rnIso consfIfufIonnI quosfIons dIsfIncf from fhoso rnIsod by
mnrrIngo bnns wIfhIn n sfnfo. Soo, o.g., OborgofoII, 20l3 W! 6?26688, nf *5
(holding that a states refusal to recognize existing legal marriages raises distinct
duo rocoss Issuos roInfIng fo quosfIons of roIInnco, soffIod oxocfnfIons, nnd fho
established principle that oxIsfIng mnrIfnI, fnmIIy, nnd InfImnfo roInfIonshIs nro
nrons Info whIch fho govornmonf gonornIIy shouId nof Infrudo wIfhouf subsfnnfInI
justification) (emphasis in original).
III. THE APPLICANTS RIGHTS WI!! OT II SI!IO!S!Y A
I!!IIA!AI!Y IJ!!I IY IIA! OI A STAY
Iofh fho IsfrIcf Courf nnd Courf of AonIs concIudod fhnf AIIcnnfs dId
nof show fhoy wouId suffor nny IrronrnbIo hnrm by comIyIng wIfh fho InjuncfIon
ondIng nonI. Isf. Cf. l2/23 Ordor nf 45 CAl0 l2/24 Ordor nf 2. To obfnIn n
sfny from fhIs Court, Applicants must show the Court of Appeals application of the
standard was demonstrably wrong, CoIomnn, 424 !.S. nf l304, or fhnf now
cIrcumsfnncos wnrrnnfIng roIIof hnvo nrIson. Insfond of ovon nffomfIng fo moof
fhnf burdon, AIIcnnfs moroIy ronssorf fho snmo nrgumonfs fhnf woro roorIy
rojocfod ns Inndoqunfo by bofh fho IsfrIcf Courf nnd Courf of AonIs. AIIcnnfs

28

claim that, if they prevail on appeal, they will be injured by the administrative and
fInnncial costs of determining whether and how to unwind the marital status of
snmosex unions performed before reversal of the district courts decision. Appl. at
2l22. In nddIfIon, fhoy cInIm fhnf nn ordor rovonfIng fho onforcomonf of n sfnfo
Inw Is In itself an irreparable harm to the states sovereignty. Id. nf l92l. oIfhor
of fhoso cInIms consfIfufos IrronrnbIo hnrm.
A. AIIcnnfs Cnnnof Show IrronrnbIo Hnrm Insod on IofonfInI
QuosfIons !ognrdIng fho VnIIdIfy of SnmoSox Couples
MnrrIngos

AIIcnnfs nssorf fhnf ormIffIng snmosex couples to marry has grave
practical consequences, but the only specific harm they identify is the potential
administrative and financial costs of addressing whether and how to unwind the
mnrIfnI sfnfus of snmosex unions performed before reversal of the district courts
decision. Appl. at 21. As an initial matter, it bears emphasis that the District
Courts Order has been in effect since December 20, 2013. Hundreds of samesox
couIos In !fnh hnvo nIrondy mnrrIod. MnrIssn !nng, SnmoSox CouIos Shnffor
MnrrIngo !ocords In !fnh, SnIf !nko TrIb., oc. 26, 20l3,
hff//www.sIfrIb.com/sIfrIb/nows/5?3l095??8/soxcounfymnrrIngos
couIos.hfmI.csngo=l. The Governors Office has directed all state agencies to
comply with the District Courts decision and, based upon an initial survey of
roIovnnf sfnfo offIcInIs, hns sfnfod fhnf fho Imncf of doIng so wIII bo mInImnI. Soo
Ix. C fo A. (email from Governors Chief of Staff stating that based upon a survey
of Cabinet members many agencies will experience little or no impact and

29

providing guidance for agencies that encounter any conflicting laws); soo nIso Isf.
Cf. l2/20 Ordor nf 4?48 (finding that the process of allowing samesox mnrrIngo Is
straightforward and requires no change to state tax, divorce, or inheritance laws).
ComIyIng wIfh fho InjuncfIon roquIros no chnngo In fho oxIsfIng IognI sfrucfuro or
ndmInIsfrnfIon of cIvII mnrrIngo, nnd fho ovIdonco boforo fhIs Courf shows fhnf, IIko
ofhor sfnfos whIch hnvo ImIomonfod sImIInr ruIIngs, !fnh cnn rondIIy nnd
offocfIvoIy comply with the District Courts order.
Moreover, Applicants claim they will suffer irreparable harm if the marriage
bnn Is uhoId on nonI hns no morIf. As AIIcnnfs fhomsoIvos ncknowIodgo, If Is
by no monns cIonr fhnf such n ruIIng wouId roquIro fho Sfnfo fo sook or wouId rosuIf
In fho InvnIIdnfIon of fho oxIsfIng mnrrIngos. Soo AI. nf 2l nofIng fhnf If fho
marriage ban is upheld, Applicants would have to determine whether to seek
InvnIIdnfIon. Iurfhor, fodornI nnd sfnfo courfs roguInrIy nddross comIox Issuos
rognrdIng fho vnIIdIfy of mnrrIngos In ofhor confoxfs.
?
ShouId AIIcnnfs docIdo fo
chnIIongo fho vnIIdIfy of snmosex couples marriages if Applicants prevail on
nonI, fhoy cnn do so fhrough fho normnI judIcInI rocoss nnd wIII suffor no
IrronrnbIo hnrm. !ndor woIIsettled law, any administrative or financial costs
fhnf mIghf nrIso from fho AIIcnnfs sookIng such doformInnfIons cnnnof consfIfufo
IrronrnbIo Injury. Soo Snmson v. Murrny, 4l5 !.S. 6l l9?4 (Mere injuries,

?
Soo, o.g., Iurdon v. ShInsokI, ?2? I.3d ll6l Iod. CIr. 20l3 doformInIng fho nIIcnbIo
standard to assess the validity of an alleged marriage in a claim for veterans benefits); CorwoII v.
CorwoII, l?9 I.3d 82l !fnh Cf. A. 2008 (determining the effect of an annulment on a partys
nbIIIfy fo sook n rofocfIvo ordor undor n sfnfufo fhnf IImIfod rofocfIon ngnInsf cohnbIfnnf nbuso fo
mnrrIod nnd formorIy mnrrIod orsons Sfrnuss v. Horfon, 20? I.3d 48 CnI. 2009 doformInIng fho
vnIIdIfy of mnrrIngos onforod Info by snmosox couIos In CnIIfornIn boforo fho onncfmonf of n sfnfo
consfIfufIonnI nmondmonf bnrrIng such mnrrIngos.

30

howovor subsfnnfInI, In forms of monoy, fImo nnd onorgy nocossnrIIy oxondod In
fho nbsonco of n sfny, nro nof onough.).
8

Applicants nrgumonf fhnf fhIs Courf shouId Issuo n sfny bocnuso snmosox
couples and their children may suffer dignitary and financial losses from the
invalidation of their marriages, soo A. nf 2l, cufs onfIroIy fho ofhor wny.
Applicants cannot simultaneously concede that being stripped of ones marital
sfnfus cnusos rofound, IrronrnbIo hnrm nnd urgo fho Courf fo InfIIcf fhnf vory
Injury on fho mnrrIod !osondonfs nnd ofhor mnrrIod snmosox couIos. As fho
District Court noted, the harm experienced by samesox couIos In !fnh ns n rosuIf
of their inability to marry is undisputed. Dist. Ct. 12/20 Order at 50. That
ImmodInfo, confInuIng, nnd sovoro hnrm fnr oufwoIghs nny socuInfIvo robIoms
fhnf mIghf bo cnusod by fho ossIbIo InvnIIdnfIon of fhoIr mnrrIngos In fho fufuro.
I. AIIcnnfs Cnnnof IsfnbIIsh IrronrnbIo Hnrm Insod on fho
Moro InjoInIng of n Sfnfo !nw

Applicants argument that an order enjoining the enforcement of a state law
nIwnys InfIIcts irreparable harm, regardless of the laws validity or invalidity, has
no morIf. Tho govornmonf doos nof suffor IrronrnbIo hnrm whon nn onjoInod
monsuro Is unconsfIfufIonnI. Soo, o.g., Scoff v. !oborfs, 6l2 I.3d l2?9, l29? llfh
CIr. 20l0 ([T]he public, when the state is a party asserting harm, has no interest
in enforcing an unconstitutional law.); Indo. !IvIng Cfr. of S. CnI. v. MnxwoII

8
AIIcnnfs cIfnfIon fo !ognIIznfIon AssIsfnnco Irojocf, 5l0 !.S. nf l30506, Is Innf. Thnf
docIsIon found fhnf, bocnuso fho InInfIffs In fhnf cnso IIkoIy dId nof hnvo sfnndIng, fho dIsfrIcf courf
IIkoIy dId nof hnvo nufhorIfy fo Infrudo uon fho InfornnI workIngs of n fodornI ndmInIsfrnfIvo
agency, particularly where doing so imposed a considerable administrative burden. Id. If dId nof
hold that, in an ordinary case, mere administrative burden constitutes irreparable harm.

3l

JoIIy, 5?2 I.3d 644, 658 9fh CIr. 2009 (rejecting argument that moroIy by
onjoInIng n sfnfo IogIsInfIvo ncf, ln courf cronfols n or so hnrm frumIng nII ofhor
harms).
Applicants attempt to bootstrap irreparable harm based on their inability to
onforco n monsuro fhnf hns boon docInrod fo bo InvnIId by fho IsfrIcf Courf, nnd
IIkoIy fo bo hoId InvnIId by fho Courf of AonIs, Is unnvnIIIng. If Applicants
nrgumonf woro corrocf, fhon nny fImo n sfnfo soughf fo sfny nn ordor onjoInIng n
Inw found fo bo unconsfIfufIonnI by n Iowor courf, fho sfnfo wouId wIn. Applicants
nrgumonf wouId unduIy fI fho scnIo In fnvor of fho govornmonf In nny cnso
chnIIongIng n govornmonf onncfmonf, nnd ngnInsf fho consfIfufIonnI rIghfs of fho
cIfIzonry. Cf. MnxwoIIJoIIy, 5?2 I.3d nf 658 nofIng fhnf If hnrm fo n sfnfo whon n
Inw Is onjoInod were dispositive, the rule requiring balance of competing claims of
injury would be eviscerated) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
The cases to which Applicants cite do not stand for the proposition that a
sfnfo Is Injurod whonovor Ifs Inws nro onjoInod. AIIcnnfs cIfo fo ow Mofor
VohIcIo Ionrd v. OrrIn W. Iox Co., 434 !.S. l345 l9?? !ohnquIsf, J., In
chnmbers), but that decision found that a majority of the Court [would] likely
reverse judgment of the District Court and uphold the challenged state law. Id. nf
l34?. Horo, fho Courf of AonIs ronchod fho oosIfo concIusIon. CAl0 l2/24
Ordor nf 2. Moroovor, unIIko AIIcnnfs, who cnnnof oInf fo nny concrofo wny In
whIch ormIffIng snmosox couIos fo mnrry cnusos nny IrronrnbIo, Iof nIono
ncfunI, hnrm, fho docIsIon In ow Mofor VohIcIo Ionrd oxInInod In dofnII how

32

onjoInIng fho sfnfufo, whIch roquIrod cnr donIors fo obfnIn nrovnI boforo
roIocnfIng, wouId cnuso IrronrnbIo hnrm fo oxIsfIng donIors nnd fho ubIIc. 435
!.S. nf l35l. Applicants citation to MnryInnd v. KIng, l33 S. Cf. l 20l2, nIso doos
nof suorf fhoIr osIfIon. In fhnf cnso, whIch InvoIvod n consfIfufIonnI chnIIongo fo
n sfnfo Inw nufhorIzIng fho coIIocfIon of A snmIos from IndIvIdunIs chnrgod
wIfh buf nof yof convIcfod of corfnIn crImos, fho Courf nIso doformInod fho Inw wns
likely to be upheld and enjoining it pending appeal would cause an ongoing and
concrete harm to Marylands law enforcement and public safety interests. Id. nf
3. Horo, Aplicants have not shown that the Court of Appeals was demonstrably
wrong in concluding that Applicants nro nof IIkoIy fo succood on nonI, nor hnvo
they demonstrated ongoing and concrete harm to any specific state
Inforosfs. Finally, Applicants citation to a concurring opinion in Abboff, l34 S. Cf.
506, is likewise unavailing. As with the other cited decisions, the opinions finding
of IrronrnbIo hnrm cnusod by onjoInIng n sfnfo Inw wns rodIcnfod on fho Courf of
Appeals determination that the State was likely to prevail on the morIfs of fho
constitutional question. Id. nf 506.
Applicants invocation of the states interest in controlling the definition of
marriage within their borders, Appl. at 19, to show irreparable harm merely
roonfs fhoIr nrgumonfs on fho morIfs of Respondents constitutional claims; it does
nof show IrronrnbIo hnrm. In nny ovonf, howovor, If Is woII osfnbIIshod fhnf ovory
states marriage laws must respect the constitutional rights of persons and nro
subject to constitutional guarantees. WIndsor, l33 S. Cf. nf 269l92. WhIIo sfnfos

33

hnvo rImnry nufhorIfy ovor fnmIIy Inw In our fodornI sysfom, fhnf doos nof InsuInfo
sfnfo mnrrIngo Inws from fho roquIromonf of comIInnco wIfh fho commnnds of fho
Iourfoonfh Amondmonf, jusf ns If doos nof InsuInfo sfnfo Inws rognrdIng nronfngo
or chIId cusfody from fhnf roquIromonf. Soo, o.g., TroxoI v. CrnnvIIIo, 530 !.S. 5?
2000 IurnIIfy oInIon InvnIIdnfIng sfnfo cusfody nnd vIsIfnfIon sfnfufo fhnf
ImormIssIbIy InfrIngod uon nronfnI rIghfs SfnnIoy v. IIIInoIs, 405 !.S. 645
l9?2 InvnIIdnfIng sfnfo Inw fhnf nufomnfIcnIIy donIod cusfody fo unmnrrIod
fnfhors.
The District Courts decision that Utahs marriage ban violates Respondents
consfIfufIonnI rIghfs fo duo rocoss nnd oqunI rofocfIon no moro consfIfufos
IrronrnbIo Injury to Applicants or breaches the principle of federalism, soo AI.
nf 20, fhnn ofhor docIsIons InvnIIdnfIng sfnfo Inws fhnf ImormIssIbIy dorIvo
IndIvIdunIs of oqunI rofocfIon of fho Inws or burdon fundnmonfnI rIghfs fo IIborfy,
rIvncy, nnd InfImnfo association. As this Court has made clear, federalism
protects the liberty of the individual; it is not . . . a matter of rights belonging only
to the State[]. Iond v. !nIfod Sfnfos, l3l S. Cf. 2355, 2364 20ll. Applicants
omhnsIs on fho sovoroIgnfy of fho sfnfo nnd Ifs ooIo ovorIooks fhnf !osondonfs
and their families are also Utah citizens and cannot be made stranger[s] to its
laws. !omor, 5l? !.S. nf 635. Utahs citizenry, which includes Respondents and
fhoIr fnmIIIos, Is nof hnrmod by n docIsIon fhnf roquIros fho sfnfo fo rofocf
fundnmonfnI IIborfIos oqunIIy for nII Ifs cIfIzons.

34

Applicants exclusive emphasIs on sfnfo sovoroIgnfy nIso ovorIooks fhnf, IIko
Utahs laws, the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment were produced by a
domocrnfIc rocoss, nnd !osondonfs nnd ofhors hnvo n comoIIIng Inforosf In
onsurIng fhnf fhoso rIghfs nro rosocfod. [I]f Is nIwnys In fho ubIIc Inforosf fo
prevent the violation of a partys constitutional rights. Awnd v. ZIrInx, 6?0 I.3d
llll, ll32 l0fh CIr. 20l2 InfornnI cIfnfIons nnd quofnfIons omIffod
In sum, Applicants argument that a state is injured any time its laws are
enjoined, regardless of their validity or invalidity, finds no support in this Courts
precedents, and Applicants reliance on that argument serves only to undorscoro
fhoIr InnbIIIfy fo show nny wny fhnf ormIffIng snmosox couIos fo mnrry cnusos
nny IrronrnbIo, Iof nIono ncfunI, hnrm. oIfhor AIIcnnfs nor fho ubIIc hnvo nn
Inforosf In onforcIng unconsfIfufIonnI Inws or roIognfIng snmosox couIos nnd fhoIr
fnmIIIos fo n orofunI sfnfo of fInnncInI, IognI, nnd socInI vuInornbIIIfy. AIIcnnfs
cnnnof show fhnf fho Courf of AonIs cIonrIy orrod In concIudIng fhnf AIIcnnfs
dId nof domonsfrnfo IrronrnbIo hnrm In fho nbsonco of n sfny.
IV. THI AII!ICATS HAVI OT SHOW THAT THIS CASI IS
!IKI!Y TO II !IVIIWI I THIS CO!!T !IO IIA!
ISIOSITIO I THI CO!!T OI AIIIA!S
Ivon If AIIcnnfs couId show bofh fhnf fho Courf of AonIs wns
demonstrably wrong and that its rights will be seriously and irreparably
injured by the stay, they cannot show that this case is likely to be reviewed in this
Courf nffor fho Tonfh CIrcuIf ruIos on fho nonI. W. AIrIInos, 480 !.S. nf l305.
Applicants burdon on fhIs Issuo Is hIgh, bocnuso If Is nonrIy ImossIbIo fo
demonstrate that this Court will be likely to review a decision and opinIon fhnf

35

hnvo yof fo bo Issuod by n Courf of AonIs. Soo CorfnIn nmod nnd !nnnmod
onCIfIzon ChIIdron nnd ThoIr Inronfs v. Toxns, 448 !.S. l32?, l33l l980
(Powell, J., in chambers) (noting that only in exceptional cases will a litigant be
nbIo fo osfnbIIsh boforo docIsIon by fho Courf of AonIs fhnf fhIs Courf Is IIkoIy fo
grnnf corfIornrI.
Applicants argument that this Court is likely to review this case because the
Courf grnnfod corfIornrI In Iorry, l33 S. Cf. 2652, hns no morIf. Soo AI. nf 8.
!osondonfs sfrongIy concur wIfh fho Courf of AonIs fhnf AIIcnnfs hnvo nof
shown fhoy nro IIkoIy fo rovnII on nonI. onofhoIoss, bocnuso fho Tonfh CIrcuIf
hns nof yof Issuod nn noIInfo docIsIon on fho morIfs In fhIs cnso, If Is nof ossIbIo
fo rodIcf wIfh corfnInfy how, or on whnf bnsIs, fho Courf of AonIs mIghf ruIo.
Thoroforo, nny dIscussIon of fho Issuo Is romnfuro.
Applicants suggest that this Court has a general . . . policy of granting
corfIornrI whon n fodornI courf InvnIIdnfos n sfnfo sfnfufo bnsod on fho fodornI
consfIfufIon. Soo AI. nf 8 cIfIng Knrchor v. nggoff, 455 !.S. l303 l982
Ironnnn, J., In chnmbors nnd !omnn v. SIncock, 3?? !.S. 695 l964. In fncf, fho
Suromo Courf Cnso SoIocfIons Acf wns nmondod In l988, sIx yonrs nffor Knrchor
nnd fwonfy four yonrs nffor !omnn, fo nchIovo fho oosIfo rosuIf. Soo 28 !.S.C.
l254 commonfnry noting rejection of tho romIso of oId subdIvIsIon 2 . . . fhnf n
federal courts invalidation of a state law was suspect and should therefore be
guaranteed access to the highest court in the land for a final determination).

36

Moroovor, fho cnsos cIfod fo by AIIcnnfs do nof suorf fhoIr cInIm fhnf
such n oIIcy oxIsfs. In Knrchor, JusfIco Ironnnn found fhnf corfIornrI wouId IIkoIy
bo grnnfod, nof bocnuso n sfnfo sfnfufo wns nf Issuo, buf rnfhor bocnuso fhoro wns
confusIon In fho fhroojudgo courf boIow ns fo fho IognI fosf fhnf shouId bo nIIod
fo rodIsfrIcfIng Inws bnsod on n rIor Suromo Courf docIsIon nnd Ifs rogony. 455
!.S. nf l299l300. !omnn Is n docIsIon on fho morIfs nnd doos nof IncIudo nny
dofnII rognrdIng fho rIor ordor grnnfIng n sfny.
Moroovor, roconf docIsIons donyIng corfIornrI In cnsos whoro fodornI courfs
sfruck down sfnfo sfnfufos on fodornI consfIfufIonnI grounds boIIo fho oxIsfonco of
nny such nIIogod oIIcy. Soo, o.g., Irowor v. Inz, 656 I.3d l008 9fh CIr. 20l3
nffIrmIng roIImInnry InjuncfIon ngnInsf ArIzonn sfnfufo ns vIoInfIvo of fho IqunI
IrofocfIon CInuso, corf. donIod, l33 S. Cf. 2884 !nIfod Sfnfos v. AInbnmn, 69l
I.3d l269 llfh CIr. 20l3 nffIrmIng roIImInnry InjuncfIon ngnInsf AInbnmn
sfnfufo ns roomfod by fodornI Inw, corf. donIod, l33. S. Cf. 2022. Thoso docIsIons
nro consIsfonf wIfh Suromo Courf !uIo l0, whIch mnkos no monfIon of whofhor n
cnso InvoIvos n fodornI courf sfrIkIng down n sfnfo Inw on fodornI consfIfufIonnI
grounds ns n roIovnnf consIdornfIon In grnnfIng corfIornrI.
AIIcnnfs nIso suggosf fhnf n grnnf of corfIornrI Is IIkoIy bocnuso, fhoy
nssorf, n fnvornbIo docIsIon for !osondonfs on nonI wouId cronfo n cIrcuIf sIIf
due to the Eighth Circuits decision in CIfIzons for IqunI IrofocfIon v. IrunIng, 455
I.3d 859 8fh CIr. 2006. Iuf fho InInfIffs In IrunIng broughf dIfforonf cInIms
fhnn fhoso nf Issuo horo. In IrunIng, fho InInfIffs nrguod onIy fhnf obrnskn Inw

3?

constituted an unlawful bill of attainder and raised an insurmountable political
bnrrIor fo snmosex couples obtaining the benefits of marriage; plaintiffs expressly
did nof nssorf n rIghf fo mnrrIngo or snmosex unions. Id. nf 865. Indood, ns fho
lower court made abundantly clear, the court was not asked to decide whether a
sfnfo hns fho rIghf fo dofIno mnrrIngo In fho confoxf of snmosox nnd oosIfosox
relationships. CIfIzons for IqunI Irof., Inc. v. IrunIng, 368 I. Su. 2d 980, 985
n.l . ob. 2005 soo nIso Id. at 995 n.11 ([T]he court need not decIdo whofhor
and to what extent Nebraska can define or limit the states statutory definition of
marriage.).
The District Courts decision is the first postWIndsor fodornI courf docIsIon
fo sfrIko down n sfnfo mnrrIngo bnn. Tho consfIfufIonnI Issuos rosonfod by fhIs
cnso InInIy nro of gronf Imorfnnco howovor, curronfIy fhoro nro moro fhnn
fwonfyfIvo sfnfo nnd fodornI InwsuIfs, In nf Ionsf fIffoon sfnfos, chnIIongIng sfnfo
Inws bnrrIng mnrrIngo by snmosox couIos on fodornI consfIfufIonnI grounds.
9
Tho

9
SovcIk v. SnndovnI, o. l2l?668 9fh CIr., nonI fIIod Ocf. l8, 20l3, o. 2l2CV005?8 .
ov., fIIod Ar. l0, 20l2 Jnckson v. AborcrombIo, os. l2l6995, l2l6998 9fh CIr., nonI
dockofod Sof. l0, 20l3, o. lllCV00?34 . Hnw., fIIod oc. ?, 20ll Iroomnn v. Inrkor, o.
4l3CV03?55 S.. Tox., fIIod oc. 26, 20l3 !nffn v. Offor, o. ll3CV00482 . Idnho, fIIod
ov. 8, 20l3 o!oon v. Iorry, o. 5l3CV00982 W.. Tox., fIIod Ocf. 28, 20l3 Tnnco v. HnsInm,
o. 3l3ll59 M.. Tonn., fIIod Ocf. 2l, 20l3 CoIgor v. KIfzhnbor, o. 6l3CV0l834 . Or, fIIod
Ocf. l5, 20l3 InIIndIno v. Corboff, o. 2l3CV0564l I.. In., fIIod Sof. 26, 20l3 Irndncs v.
HnIoy, o. 3l3CV0235l .S.C., fIIod Aug. 28, 20l3 HnrrIs v. MconnoII, o. 5l3CV000??
W.. Vn., fIIod Aug. l, 20l3 Iourko v. Ioshonr, o. 3l3CV00?50 W.. Ky., fIIod JuIy 26, 20l3
OborgofoII v. KnsIch, o. ll3CV0050l S.. OhIo, fIIod JuIy l9, 20l3 IosfIc v. MconnoII, o.
2l3CV00395 I.. Vn., fIIod JuIy l8, 20l3 JornIgnn v. Crnno, o. 4l3CV004l0 I.. Ark., fIIod
JuIy l8, 20l3 WhIfowood v. WoIf, o. ll3CV0l86l M.. In., fIIod Juno 9, 20l3 IIsho v.
!nIfod Sfnfos, o. 404CV00848 .. OkIn., fIIod ov. 3, 2004 IIshorIorno v. SmIfh, o. l2CV
00589 M...C., fIIod Juno l3, 20l2 oIoor v. Snydor, o. l2CVl0285 I.. MIch., fIIod Jnn. 23,
20l2 Inssoff v. Snydor, o. 2l2CVl0038 I.. MIch., fIIod Jnn. 5, 20l2 WrIghf v. Arknnsns, o.
60CVl32662 Ark. CIr. Cf., fIIod JuIy l, 20l3 IrInkmnn v. !ong, o. 20l3CV325?2 CoIo. Isf.
Cf., fIIod Ocf. 30, 20l3 Ky. Equality Fedn v. Beshear, o. l3CI0l0?4 Ky. CIr. Cf., fIIod Sof. l0,
20l3 CommonwonIfh v. CInry, o. llC!3329 Ky. CIr. Cf., mofIon for InvocnfIon of mnrIfnI
rIvIIogo fIIod Juno 6, 20l3 onnIdson & CuggonhoIm v. Monfnnn, o. IV20l0?02 Monf. Isf.

38

Courfs of AonIs, IncIudIng fho Tonfh CIrcuIf, hnvo nof yof hnd n chnnco fo
address these issues. Therefore, while it is certainly possible that the Court could
grnnf corfIornrI in this case, Applicants cannot show that it very likely would do
so. CoIomnn, 424 !.S. nf l304.
V. C!ATIC A STAY WO!! CA!SI !ISI!TI,
I!!IIA!AI!I HA!M TO SAMISIX CO!I!IS A THII!
CHI!!I
As WIndsor affirmed, marriage is a status of immense import. 133 S. Ct. at
2692. In nddIfIon fo subjocfIng snmosox couIos nnd fhoIr chIIdron fo rofound
legal and economic vulnerability and harms, Utahs oxcIusIonnry mnrrIngo Inws
sfIgmnfIzo fho roInfIonshIs of snmosox couIos ns InforIor nnd unoqunI. In
WIndsor, fho Courf ochood rIncIIos sof forfh In !ovIng, 388 !.S. l, forfysIx yonrs
onrIIor, fIndIng fhnf dIscrImInnfIon ngnInsf snmosex couples demeans the couple,
whoso mornI nnd soxunI choIcos fho Constitution protects. . . . 133 S.Ct. at 2694
cIfIng !nwronco, 539 !.S. 558. Tho Courf mndo cIonr fhnf fho dIscrImInnfory
treatment humiliates tens of thousands of children now boIng rnIsod by snmosox
couples and that the law in question makes it even more difficult for the children
fo undorsfnnd fho InfogrIfy nnd cIosonoss of fhoIr own fnmIIy nnd Ifs concord wIfh
other families in their community and in their daily lives. Id. In confrnsf fo fho
States speculative concerns, the harm experienced by samesox couIos In !fnh ns
a result of their inability to marry is undisputed. Dist. Ct. 12/20 Order at 50.

Cf., fIIod JuIy 22, 20l0, nmondod comInInf fIIod JuIy l5, 20l3 In ro MnrrIngo of J.I. nnd H.I., o.
ll0024 Tox., nrguod ov. 5, 20l3 Sfnfo v. nyIor, o. ll0ll4 Tox., nrguod ov. 5, 20l3.


39

Cnsos ncross fho counfry hnvo nIrondy domonsfrnfod fhnf fho InnbIIIfy fo
mnrry, or hnvo nn oxIsfIng mnrrIngo rocognIzod by fho sfnfo, subjocfs gny nnd
IosbInn couIos nof onIy fo cnfnsfrohIc nnd ormnnonf hnrm, buf nIso fo fho
InfoIornbIo fhronf of such hnrm. A dIsfrIcf courf In IIIInoIs, for Insfnnco, grnnfod n
fomorary restraining order to medically critical plaintiffs who, if not permitted to
marry immediately, would be deprived of significant federal rights and
benefits. !oo v. Orr, o. l3cv8?l9, 20l3 W! 64905??, nf *3 .. III. oc. l0,
20l3. The stay of the Northern District of Californias ruling in Iorry ondIng
nonI cosf CnIIfornIn couIo Sfncoy Schuoff nnd !osIy TnbondnHnII fho
oorfunIfy fo Iogally marry before Leslys death just sIx dnys boforo fhIs Courf
issued its decision, leaving her partners status a widow in legal limbo. Soo Mnry
CnIInhnn, Judge Grants Legal Recognition to Sebastopol Womens Marriage After
!ognI InffIo, Tho Iross omocrnf, Sofombor l8, 20l3,
hff//www.rossdomocrnf.com/nrfIcIo/20l309l8/nrfIcIos/l309l9524.
l0

In fhIs cnso, AoIIoos Knron Archor nnd Knfo CnII fnco n sImIInr fnfo If n
sfny Is Issuod ondIng rosoIufIon of fhIs nonI. If Is undIsufod fhnf Knron CnII Is
sufforIng from n formInnI IIInoss fhnf mny vory woII rovonf hor from survIvIng fho
Insfnnf nonI. Isf. Cf. l2/20 Ordor nf 56. IorcIng snmosox couIos nnd fhoIr

l0
Soo nIso OborgofoII v. WymysIo, Cnso o. ll3cv50l, 20l3 W! 6?26688 S.. OhIo oc. 23,
20l3 hoIdIng fhnf IncorrocfIy cInssIfyIng InInfIffs ns unmnrrIod on n donfh corfIfIcnfo wouId rosuIf
In sovoro nnd IrronrnbIo hnrm IncIudIng donInI of sfnfus ns survIvIng souso wIfh Ifs nffondnnf
bonofits and inability to comply with decedents final wishes); CrIogo v. OIIvor, Cnso o. 202CV
20l32?5?, ocInrnfory Judgmonf, InjuncfIon, nnd Ioromfory WrIf of Mnndnmus, sII. o. nf *4
.M. Isf. Cf. Sof. 3, 20l3 hoIdIng donInI of rIghf fo mnrry consfIfufos IrronrnbIo hnrm nffor
formInnIIy III InInfIff movod for fomornry rosfrnInIng ordor nIIowIng hor fo mnrry hor nrfnor
boforo dyIng CrIogo v. OIIvor, Cnso o. 202CV20l32?5?, IInInfIffs !oor nnd oumnn's
MofIon for Tomornry !osfrnInIng Ordor .M. Isf. Cf. Aug. 2l, 20l3 dofnIIIng IrronrnbIo hnrms
snmosox couIo wIfh formInnIIy III nrfnor wouId suffor If unnbIo fo IognIIy mnrry In ow MoxIco.

40

fnmIIIos fo wnIf nnd hoo for fho bosf durIng fho ondoncy of fhIs nonI Imosos nn
InfoIornbIo nnd dohumnnIzIng burdon fhnf no fnmIIy shouId hnvo fo onduro.
ll

COC!!SIO
Ior fho forogoIng ronsons, fho AIIcnfIon shouId bo donIod.

!osocffuIIy submIffod fhIs 3
rd
dny of Jnnunry, 20l4.



JAMIS I. MAC!IIY

CounsoI of !ocord for !osondonfs


ll
AIIcnnfs nofo fhnf fho Infh CIrcuIf In fho CnIIfornIn IroosIfIon 8 IIfIgnfIon grnnfod n
sfny ondIng nonI. Yof ns soon ns fhIs Courf Issuod Ifs docIsIon In WIndsor, fho Infh CIrcuIf
ImmodInfoIy IIffod Ifs sfny. Soo Iorry v. Irown, ?25 I.3d 968, 9?0 9fh CIr. 20l3 (The stay in the
above matter is dissolved effective immediately.). In addition, courts that have consIdorod fhIs
Issuo sInco WIndsor hnvo rofusod fo sfny fhoIr ruIIngs or fo sfny Iowor courf ruIIngs nIIowIng snmo
sox couIos fo mnrry ondIng nonI. Soo, o.g., Cnrdon Sfnfo IqunIIfy v. ow, ?9 A.3d l036 .J.
20l3 ow Jorsoy Suromo Courf ordor donyIng sfny CrIogo v. OIIvor, Cnso o. 202CV20l3
2?5?, ocInrnfory Judgmonf, InjuncfIon, nnd Ioromfory WrIf of Mnndnmus, sII. o. nf *2*3 .M.
Isf. Cf. So. 3, 20l3 ordorIng counfy cIorks In IornnIIIIo nnd SnndovnI CounfIos fo bogIn IssuIng
mnrrIngos IIconsos fo qunIIfIod snmosex couples based on courts determination that any exclusion of
fhoso couIos from mnrrIngo wns unconsfIfufIonnI Crny v. Orr, o. ll3CV08449, 20l3 W!
63559l8 nf *6 .. III. oc. 5, 20l3 grnnfIng InjuncfIon ormIffIng n snmosox couIo fo mnrry
before the effective date of recently enacted Illinois statute eliminating the states ban on marriage
by snmosox couIos.

4l

CI!TIIICATI OI SI!VICI

I corfIfy fhnf n coy of fhIs Momornndum In OosIfIon fo AIIcnfIon fo Sfny
Judgmonf IondIng AonI fo fho !nIfod Sfnfos CIrcuIf Courf of AonIs for fho
Tonfh CIrcuIf, nnd nccomnnyIng AondIx, wns sonf vIn oIocfronIc mnII nnd
!nIfod Sfnfos mnII on Jnnunry 3, 20l4, fo

IhIII S. !off
hIIIoffufnh.gov
Sfnnford I. Iursor
sursorufnh.gov
!TAH ATTO!IY CII!A!
l60 Insf 300 Soufh, SIxfh IIoor
I.O. Iox l40856
SnIf !nko CIfy, !fnh 84ll40856

Monfo oII Sfownrf
SfownrfSTM!nw.com
CrnIg C. TnyIor
STIWA!T TAY!O! & MO!!IS I!!C
l2550 W. IxIoror rIvo, SuIfo l00
IoIso, Idnho 83?l3

CounsoI for AIIcnnfs
!nIh Chnmnoss
rchnmnosssIco.org
nrcy Coddnrd
dgoddnrdsIco.org
SA!T !AKI CO!TY IST!ICT ATTO!IYS
200l Soufh Sfnfo Sfroof, S3500
SnIf !nko CIfy, !fnh 84l90l2l0

CounsoI for ShorrIo Swonson







JAMIS I. MAC!IIY

CounsoI of !ocord for !osondonfs





Appendix

DECLARATION OF PEGGY A. TOMSIC
Counsel for Respondents

I, Peggy A. Tomsic, declare and state as follows:
1. I am an attorney with the Salt Lake City, Utah, law firm of Magleby &
Greenwood P.C. I am a member in good standing of the Utah State Bar, and have
been since my admission in 1982. I am counsel of record for Respondents in the
underlying action in the United States District Court for the District of Utah and
the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and have an application
pending before this United States Supreme Court. I make this Declaration on the
basis of my personal knowledge.
2. A true and accurate copy of the email from the Chief Deputy Clerk of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Doug Cressler, (Chief
Deputy Clerk), to counsel for Applicants and for Respondents, dated December 26,
2013, and proposing a five week briefing schedule, is attached as Exhibit A.
3. On December 27, 2013, I had a telephone conversation with
Applicants counsel, who requested that Applicants be given four weeks to prepare
their opening brief. I agreed to that request. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and
accurate copy of the briefing schedule ordered by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on December 30, 2013, consistent with what the
parties had proposed to the Chief Deputy Clerk.
App.1

4. A true and accurate copy of the Press Release from Derek Miller, Chief
of Staff for the Governor of Utah, dated December 24, 2013, is attached as Exhibit
C.
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury based on my personal knowledge
that the foregoing is true and accurate.
Dated this 3
rd
day of January, 2014.


PEGGY A. TOMSIC


App.2










Exhibit A
App.3
Redacted
App.4










Exhibit B
App.5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
DEREK KITCHEN, individually, et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
GARY R. HERBERT, in his official
capacity as Governor of Utah, et al.,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
SHERRIE SWENSEN, in her official
capacity as Clerk of Salt Lake County,
Defendant.
No. 13-4178
(D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)
_________________________________
ORDER
_________________________________
This matter is before the court to set an expedited briefing schedule. The schedule
set here overrides the minute entry on the docket dated December 27, 2013.
The appellants opening brief and appendix shall be filed on or before January 27,
2014. In this regard we strongly encourage the parties to confer on the materials to
include in the appendix. See generally Fed. R. App. P. 30 and 10th Cir. R. 30.1.
The appellees response brief shall be filed on or before February 18, 2014. Any
reply brief shall be filed on or before February 25, 2014. Requests for extension of time
EALS
___ __
EEEEEE
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 30, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019178943 Date Filed: 12/30/2013 Page: 1
App.6
2
are very strongly discouraged, and will be considered only under extraordinary
circumstances.
Entered for the Court
ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019178943 Date Filed: 12/30/2013 Page: 2
App.7










Exhibit C
App.8

For Immediate Release
December 24, 2013



Governor's Office gives direction to state agencies on same sex
marriage issues

SALT LAKE CITY - (Dec. 24, 2013) The Governor's Office sent the following
email to Cabinet Members today in regards to issues stemming from the recent
federal court rulings on Amendment 3 to the Utah State Constitution:

Dear Cabinet,
Thanks to each of you for providing an analysis of the impacts to the
operations in your respective agencies based on the recent federal
district court ruling on same sex marriage. As indicated in your
responses, many agencies will experience minimal or no impact.

For those agencies that now face conflicting laws either in statute or
administrative rule, you should consult with the Assistant Attorney
Generals assigned to your agency on the best course to resolve those
conflicts. You should also advise your analyst in GOMB of the plans
for addressing the conflicting laws.

Where no conflicting laws exist you should conduct business in
compliance with the federal judge's ruling until such time that the current
district court decision is addressed by the 10th Circuit Court.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Derek B. Miller
Chief of Staff
Governor's Office
State of Utah
# # #
Contact: Nate McDonald
Public Information Officer
801.538.1509 desk
801.694.0294 cell
nmcdonald@utah.gov
App.9

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi