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
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
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
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