View
218
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
1/23
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
2/23
24. This motion is accompanied by a Memorandum in Support of the State of Idahos
Motion to Intervene and a proposed Answer of Intervenor-Defendant State of Idaho, a
copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1 to this motion.
The Attorney Generals office has contacted counsel for the parties and advised
them of the State of Idahos intention to file this motion. Defendants counsel have
indicated that they have no objection to the State of Idahos proposed intervention.
Plaintiffs counsel has not yet advised the Attorney General whether plaintiffs will
oppose the proposed intervention.
DATED this 11th day of December, 2013.
STATE OF IDAHO
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: /s/
W.SCOTT ZANZIG
Deputy Attorney General
STATE OF IDAHOS MOTION TO INTERVENE- 2
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18 Filed 12/11/13 Page 2 of 3
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
3/23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 11th day of December, 2013, I electronically
filed the foregoing State of Idahos Motion to Intervene with the Clerk of the Court using
the CM/ECF system which sent a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following Persons:
Deborah A. Ferguson
d@fergusonlawmediation.com
Craig Harrison Durham
craig@chdlawoffice.com
Shannon P. Minter
sminter@nclrights.org
Christopher F. Stoll
cstoll@nclrights.org
Theodore E. Argyle
teda@adaweb.net
Thomas Perry
tom.perry@gov.idaho.gov
/s/
W.SCOTT ZANZIG
STATE OF IDAHOS MOTION TO INTERVENE- 3
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18 Filed 12/11/13 Page 3 of 3
mailto:d@fergusonlawmediation.commailto:d@fergusonlawmediation.commailto:craig@chdlawoffice.commailto:craig@chdlawoffice.commailto:sminter@nclrights.orgmailto:sminter@nclrights.orgmailto:cstoll@nclrights.orgmailto:cstoll@nclrights.orgmailto:teda@adaweb.netmailto:teda@adaweb.netmailto:tom.perry@gov.idaho.govmailto:tom.perry@gov.idaho.govmailto:tom.perry@gov.idaho.govmailto:teda@adaweb.netmailto:cstoll@nclrights.orgmailto:sminter@nclrights.orgmailto:craig@chdlawoffice.commailto:d@fergusonlawmediation.com8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
4/23
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
5/23
I.
INTRODUCTION
This is an action in which plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of several Idaho
marriage laws.1 The State of Idaho is a sovereign State of the Union. As a sovereign, Idaho
has an interest in upholding its laws, including its laws governing marriage and domestic
relations.
Accordingly, Idaho moves for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:
(b) Permissive Intervention.
(1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permitanyone to intervene who:
(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main ac-
tion a common question of law or fact.
(2) By a Government Officer or Agency. On timely
motion, the court may permit a federal or state
governmental officer or agency to intervene if a partys
claim or defense is based on:
(A) a statute or executive order administered by the
officer or agency; or(B) any regulation, order, requirement, or agreement is-
sued or made under the statute or executive order.
(3) Delay or Prejudice. In exercising its discretion, the
court must consider whether the intervention will
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the
original parties rights.
1See generally Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Dkt. No. 1) (Complaint).
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF IDAHOS MOTION TO INTERVENE -2
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 2 of 7
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
6/23
II.
ARGUMENT
Idaho satisfies the requirements of both Rule 24(b)(1) and Rule 24(b)(2), either of
which is sufficient to permit Idahos intervention. Because Idahos intervention will not
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the claims under Rule 24(b)(3), Idaho should
be permitted to intervene.
A. Idahos Motion Is Timely Under Rule 24(b)(1) and 24(b)(2)Idaho has moved to intervene and submitted a proposed answer to the Complaint well
before January 14, 2013, the date by which the parties have stipulated the named defendants
will file their answers or Rule 12(b) motions.2 Thus, Idahos motion is timely.
B. Idaho Should Be Permitted to Intervene Pursuant to Rule 24(b)(1)(B), BecauseIts Defenses Address the Same Legal Issues at Stake in the Main Action
Idahos defenses of it statutes and rules whose constitutionality is challenged by the
Complaint will address the same legal issues in dispute between the existing parties, namely:
Are the challenged statutes and rules constitutional? Thus, Idaho satisfies Rule 24(b)(1)(B)s
requirement that its defense shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.
When an intervenor satisfies Rule 24(b)(1)(B)s commonality requirement, a court
may consider a number of factors in exercising its discretion whether to permit intervention.
The factors include:
the nature and extent of the intervenors interest, their standing to raise
relevant legal issues, the legal position they seek to advance, and its probable
relation to the merits of the case[,] whether changes have occurred in the
litigation so that intervention that was once denied should be reexamined,
whether the intervenors interests are adequately represented by other parties,
whether intervention will prolong or unduly delay the litigation, and whether
parties seeking intervention will significantly contribute to full development of
2Although Idaho has prepared a proposed answer to satisfy Rule 24(c)s requirement that it
submit a pleading with its motion, Idaho intends to present its defenses through a Rule 12(b) motion todismiss. If permitted to intervene, Idaho will file its Rule 12(b) motion by the January 14, 2013 deadlinefor responding to the Complaint.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF IDAHOS MOTION TO INTERVENE -3
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 3 of 7
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
7/23
the underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable
adjudication of the legal questions presented.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 898, 905 (9thCir. 2011) (quoting Spangler v. Pasadena
Bd. of Educ., 552 F.2d 1326, 1329 (9thCir. 1977)).
These discretionary factors weigh heavily in favor of permitting Idaho to intervene.
Idaho has a strong interest and right to defend its laws. [A] State clearly has a legitimate
interest in the continued enforceability of its own statutes. Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131,
137, 106 S. Ct. 2440, 91 L. Ed. 2d 110 (1986) (citingDiamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 65,
106 S. Ct. 1697, 90 L. Ed. 2d 48 (1986),andAlfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex
rel. Barez,458 U.S. 592, 601, 102 S. Ct. 3260, 73 L.Ed.2d 995 (1982)). [T]he power to
create and enforce a legal code . . . is one of the quintessential functions of a State.
Diamond, 476 U.S. at 68 (quoting Alfred L. Snapp,458 U.S. at 601). Idahos legal position
defending its laws against constitutional attack is squarely related to the issues in the
case. Given its strong interest in the outcome of the case, Idahos participation will
contribute to the just adjudication of the issues. And Idaho will cooperate with the other
parties in the case to avoid prolonging or delaying its resolution. Accordingly, the Court
should permit Idaho to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(b)(1)(B).
C. Idaho Should Be Permitted to Intervene Under Rule 24(b)(2)(A)-(B)Rule 24(b)(2) permits government officers or agencies to intervene where a partys
claim is based on statutes or regulations administered by the intervenor. The language in
Rule 24(b)(2) permitting governmental intervention was added by amendment in 1946. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 (1946 Advisory Committee Notes). [T]he whole thrust of the amendment
is in the direction of allowing intervention liberally to governmental agencies and officers
seeking to speak for the public interest . . . . 7C A. Wright, A. Miller, M. Kane, et al.,
Federal Practice & Procedure 1912 (3d ed.). Applying Rule 24(b)(2) inNuesse v. Camp,
385 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1967), the court reversed a district courts denial of a state officials
intervention motion, explaining as follows:
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF IDAHOS MOTION TO INTERVENE -4
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 4 of 7
http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1986122458&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)%23co_pp_sp_708_1705http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1986122458&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)%23co_pp_sp_708_1705http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1986122458&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)%23co_pp_sp_708_1705http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1986122458&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)%23co_pp_sp_708_1705http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1982129566&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)%23co_pp_sp_708_3265http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1982129566&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)%23co_pp_sp_708_3265http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1982129566&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)%23co_pp_sp_708_3265http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1982129566&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)%23co_pp_sp_708_3265http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1982129566&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)%23co_pp_sp_708_3265http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1982129566&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)%23co_pp_sp_708_3265http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1982129566&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)%23co_pp_sp_708_3265http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1982129566&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)%23co_pp_sp_708_3265http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1982129566&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)%23co_pp_sp_708_3265http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1986122458&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)%23co_pp_sp_708_1705http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1986122458&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)%23co_pp_sp_708_17058/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
8/23
It is a significant fact that the applicant for permissive intervention is a
government official. Rule 24(b) was expressly amended in 1946 so as to
permit intervention by a state or federal governmental official charged with
administering a state statute or regulation on which any party relies for his
claim or defense. The amendment was added to avoid exclusionary
constructions where public officials seek permission to intervene, and theamendment in effect expands the concept of claim or defense insofar as
intervention by a governmental officer or agency is concerned. It is perhaps
more accurate to say that it considers the governmental application with a
fresh and more hospitable approach.
Id. at 704-05 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Although Rule 24(b)(2) is written in terms of intervention by a state officer or agency
rather than by a State itself, Idahos motion is filed by the Attorney General, who is an
officer of the State. Idaho Const. art. IV, 1. As noted above, the Supreme Court has
recognized the importance of a States interest in defending its laws. E.g.,Maine v. Taylor,
477 U.S. at 137; Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. at 68. The Supreme Court also has
recognized that when the constitutionality of a States law is challenged in federal court, the
States agent designated to represent its interests is typically the States attorney general.
Hollingsworth v. Perry, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2664, 186 L. Ed. 2d 768 (2013). In
addition to his general duty to represent the States interest in defending its laws, Idahos
Attorney General has specific duties relevant to the issues in this case: he is responsible for
representing the subordinate State officers who administer Idahos statutes and rules such as
the tax statutes and rules plaintiffs have put at issue in their Complaint.3
It is commonplace for state attorneys general to intervene on behalf of their States in
pending litigation. See, e.g.,Northwest Food Processors Assn v. Reilly, 886 F.2d 1075 (9th
Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1004 (1990) (Attorney General of Oregon intervened on
behalf of State and its people). See alsoChaffee v. Roger, 311 F. Supp. 2d 962, 966 (D. Nev.
2004) (Attorney General of Nevada allowed to intervene under 28 U.S.C. 2403(b) to
3See Complaint, 34.h. The Attorney Generals duties are set forth in Idaho Code 67-1401.See also Idaho Code 67-1406 (Attorney General represents executive departments, agencies, officials,and officers, other than the Governor, universities, and certain self-governing agencies.)
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF IDAHOS MOTION TO INTERVENE -5
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 5 of 7
http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCPR24&originatingDoc=I7e4834278f7f11d98e8fb00d6c6a02dd&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCPR24&originatingDoc=I7e4834278f7f11d98e8fb00d6c6a02dd&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
9/23
defend constitutionality of statute); Otani v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 927 F. Supp. 1330
(D. Haw. 1996) (Attorney General of Hawaii intervened under 28 U.S.C. 2403(b) on
behalf of State to defend constitutionality of statute). Although in this case Idaho is not
entitled to intervene as a matter of right (due to the fact that plaintiffs have named Idahos
governor as a defendant),4 the State has a strong interest in defending its laws against
plaintiffs constitutional challenges. Accordingly, the Court should exercise its discretion to
permit Idaho to intervene through the Attorney General under Rule 24(b)(2).
D. Idahos Intervention Will Not Prejudice or Delay Adjudication of the OriginalParties Rights
Rule 24(b)(3) requires a court to consider whether the proposed intervention will
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties rights. Idahos
intervention will not cause any undue delay or prejudice. Idaho agrees to file its Rule
12(b)(6) motion promptly after the Court grants permission to intervene. Idahos Attorney
General will work cooperatively with the other parties counsel to achieve a prompt and fair
resolution of this case.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the State of Idaho respectfully requests that the Court grant
the State of Idahos Motion to Intervene.
DATED this 11th day of December 2013.
STATE OF IDAHO
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: /s/
W.SCOTT ZANZIG
Deputy Attorney General
4See 28 U.S.C. 2403(b) (State is entitled to intervene as a matter of right if constitutionality ofits statute is drawn in question and neither State nor its officer, agency, or employee is a party).
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF IDAHOS MOTION TO INTERVENE -6
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 6 of 7
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
10/23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
IHEREBYCERTIFYthat on the 11th day of December, 2013, I electronically filed
the foregoing Memorandum in Support of the State of Idahos Motion to Intervene with the
Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent a Notice of Electronic Filing to thefollowing Persons:
Deborah A. Ferguson
d@fergusonlawmediation.com
Craig Harrison Durham
craig@chdlawoffice.com
Shannon P. Minter
sminter@nclrights.org
Christopher F. Stoll
cstoll@nclrights.org
Theodore E. Argyle
teda@adaweb.net
Thomas Perry
tom.perry@gov.idaho.gov
/s/
W.SCOTT ZANZIG
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF IDAHOS MOTION TO INTERVENE -7
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 7 of 7
mailto:d@fergusonlawmediation.commailto:d@fergusonlawmediation.commailto:craig@chdlawoffice.commailto:craig@chdlawoffice.commailto:sminter@nclrights.orgmailto:sminter@nclrights.orgmailto:cstoll@nclrights.orgmailto:cstoll@nclrights.orgmailto:teda@adaweb.netmailto:teda@adaweb.netmailto:tom.perry@gov.idaho.govmailto:tom.perry@gov.idaho.govmailto:tom.perry@gov.idaho.govmailto:teda@adaweb.netmailto:cstoll@nclrights.orgmailto:sminter@nclrights.orgmailto:craig@chdlawoffice.commailto:d@fergusonlawmediation.com8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
11/23
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
STEVEN L.OLSEN
Chief of Civil Litigation Division
W.SCOTT ZANZIG, ISB # 9361
Deputy Attorneys General
Civil Litigation Division
Office of the Attorney General
954 W. Jefferson Street, 2ndFloor
P. O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0010
Telephone: (208) 334-2400
Fax: (208) 854-8073
scott.zanzig@ag.idaho.gov
Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor State of Idaho
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
SUSAN LATTA and TRACI EHLERS, LORI
WATSEN and SHARENE WATSEN, SHELIA
ROBERTSON and ANDREA ALTMAYER,
AMBER BEIERLE and RACHAELROBERTSON,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
C.L. BUTCH OTTER, as Governor of the
State of Idaho, in his official capacity, and
CHRISTOPHER RICH, as Recorder of Ada
County, Idaho, in his official capacity,
Defendants, and
STATE OF IDAHO ex rel.LAWRENCE G.
WASDEN, Attorney General,
Defendant-Intervenor.
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:13-cv-00482-CWD
PROPOSED ANSWER OFDEFENDANT-INTERVENOR
THE STATE OF IDAHO TO
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DKT. 1)
PROPOSED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR THE STATE OF IDAHO TO PLAINTIFFSCOMPLAINT FORDECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DKT.1) - 1
Exhibit 1
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 1 of 13
mailto:scott.zanzig@ag.idaho.govmailto:scott.zanzig@ag.idaho.govmailto:scott.zanzig@ag.idaho.gov8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
12/23
Defendant-Intervenor the State of Idaho, by and through its attorney of record, the
Attorney General of Idaho, files this Answer to the Complaint, Dkt. 1. Idaho answers
each paragraph of the Complaint as shown below. Any allegation of fact in the
Complaint not specifically admitted is denied. Any allegation of fact that Idaho does not
have sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny is generally denied. Any
statement that a portion of the Complaint is a statement of opinion and not an allegation
of fact or is a legal conclusion and not an allegation of fact is a denial if that portion of
the Complaint is an allegation of fact rather than a statement of opinion or a legal
conclusion. Failure to dispute a legal conclusion is not agreement with the legal
conclusion.
ANSWER
I. Idahos Answers to Paragraphs Labeled Introduction
1. Paragraph 1 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho agrees with Paragraph 1s legal conclusion that Idaho law does not
recognize same-sex marriages entered into in other jurisdictions.
2. Idaho is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations of fact of Paragraph 2 and therefore denies Paragraph 2.
3. Idaho is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations of fact of Paragraph 3 and therefore denies Paragraph 3.
4. Idaho is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations of fact of Paragraph 4 and therefore denies Paragraph 4.
5. Idaho is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations of fact of Paragraph 5 and therefore denies Paragraph 5. Idaho agrees with
Paragraph 5s legal conclusion that Idaho law does not allow same-sex couples to marry.
6. Idaho is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations of fact of Paragraph 6 and therefore denies Paragraph 6. Idaho agrees with
PROPOSED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR THE STATE OF IDAHO TO PLAINTIFFSCOMPLAINT FORDECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DKT.1) - 2
Exhibit 1
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 2 of 13
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
13/23
Paragraph 6s legal conclusion that Idaho law does not recognize other States same-sex
marriages.
7. Paragraph 7 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho agrees with Paragraph 7s legal conclusion that Idaho law does not
recognize same-sex marriages entered into in other jurisdictions and bars same-sex
couples from marrying.
8. Idaho is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations of fact of Paragraph 8 and therefore denies Paragraph 8.
9. If Paragraph 9 contains any allegations of fact, Idaho is without sufficient
knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of fact of Paragraph 9 and
therefore denies Paragraph 9. The remainder of Paragraph 9 contains statements of
opinion that Idaho neither admits nor denies.
10. Paragraph 10 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies.
11. Paragraph 11 contains conclusions of law and statements of opinion that
Idaho neither admits nor denies.
12. Paragraph 12 contains conclusions of law and statements of opinion that
Idaho neither admits nor denies.
13. Paragraph 13 contains conclusions of law and statements of opinion that
Idaho neither admits nor denies.
14. Paragraph 14 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho agrees that Plaintiffs have sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
II. Idahos Answers to Paragraphs Labeled Parties
15. Idaho is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations of fact of Paragraph 15 and therefore denies Paragraph 15.
PROPOSED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR THE STATE OF IDAHO TO PLAINTIFFSCOMPLAINT FORDECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DKT.1) - 3
Exhibit 1
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 3 of 13
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
14/23
16. Except as admitted in the next sentence, Idaho is without sufficient
knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of fact of Paragraph 16 and
therefore denies Paragraph 16. Publicly available information of the Bureau of
Occupational Licenses website shows that Lori Watsen is a Licensed Clinical Social
Worker and Idaho so admits.
17. Idaho is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations of fact of Paragraph 17 and therefore denies Paragraph 17.
18. Idaho is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations of fact of Paragraph 18 and therefore denies Paragraph 18.
19. Idaho admits the allegations of fact in Paragraph 19, namely, that
Defendant C.L. Butch Otter is the governor of Idaho, that Governor Otter is a person
subject to suit under 1983, and that Governor Otters official residence is in Ada
County, Idaho, which is in the District of Idaho. The remainder of Paragraph 19 contains
conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor denies. Idaho agrees that Article IV,
5, of the Idaho Constitution is accurately quoted in Paragraph 19, but that section of the
Idaho Constitution is mistakenly labeled as Article VI, not as Article IV.
20. Idaho admits the allegations of fact in Paragraph 20, namely, that
Defendant Christopher Rich is the Clerk/Auditor/Recorder of Ada County, that Mr. Rich
is a person subject to suit under 1983, and that Mr. Richs official residence is in Ada
County, Idaho, which is in the District of Idaho. The remainder of Paragraph 19 contains
conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor denies.
21. Paragraph 21 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
PROPOSED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR THE STATE OF IDAHO TO PLAINTIFFSCOMPLAINT FORDECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DKT.1) - 4
Exhibit 1
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 4 of 13
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
15/23
III. Idahos Answers to Paragraphs Labeled Jurisdiction and Venue
22. Paragraph 22 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho agrees that Plaintiffs have sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 28 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.
23. Paragraph 23 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho agrees that it has consented to personal jurisdiction by moving to
intervene. Idaho contests that Plaintiffs have stated claims under the Constitution and
laws of the United States, but agrees that 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343 confer subject
matter jurisdiction to determine whether Plaintiffs have stated claims under the
Constitution and laws of the United States, except where subject matter jurisdiction is
precluded by the Anti-Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 1341.
24. Paragraph 24 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho agrees that venue would be proper in the District of Idaho.
25. Paragraph 25 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies.
IV. Idahos Answers to Paragraphs Labeled Statement of Facts
26. Paragraph 26 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho agrees with Paragraph 26s historical statement of the law.
27. Paragraph 27 contains conclusions of law and statements of opinion that
Idaho neither admits nor denies. Idaho agrees that Paragraph 27 accurately quotes Idaho
Code 32-209 as it was amended by 1996 Idaho Session Law, chapter 331.
28. Paragraph 28 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho agrees that Paragraph 28 accurately quotes Idaho Code 32-201.
29. Paragraph 29 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho agrees that Paragraph 29 accurately quotes Article III, 28, of the Idaho
Constitution, as it was adopted by the people at the general election of 2006.
PROPOSED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR THE STATE OF IDAHO TO PLAINTIFFSCOMPLAINT FORDECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DKT.1) - 5
Exhibit 1
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 5 of 13
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
16/23
30. Paragraph 30 contains conclusions of law and statements of opinion that
Idaho neither admits nor denies. To the extent that Paragraph 30 contains allegations of
fact, Idaho is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations of fact of Paragraph 30 and therefore denies Paragraph 30.
31. Idaho is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations of fact of Paragraph 31 and therefore denies Paragraph 31. Idaho agrees that
Idaho law would not recognize a same-sex marriage performed in California.
32. Idaho is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations of fact of Paragraph 32 and therefore denies Paragraph 32. Idaho agrees that
Idaho law would not recognize a same-sex marriage performed in New York.
33. Idaho is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations of fact of Paragraph 33 and therefore denies Paragraph 33.
34. Paragraph 34 contains conclusions of law and statements of opinion that
Idaho neither admits nor denies.
V. Idahos Answers to Paragraphs Labeled Claims for Relief
35. Idaho incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 34 asits answer to Paragraph 35.
36. Paragraph 36 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies.
37. Paragraph 37 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies.
38. Paragraph 38 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho disagrees with Paragraph 38s conclusions of law.
39. Paragraph 39 contains conclusions of law and statements of opinion that
Idaho neither admits nor denies. Idaho disagrees with Paragraph 39s conclusions of law.
PROPOSED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR THE STATE OF IDAHO TO PLAINTIFFSCOMPLAINT FORDECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DKT.1) - 6
Exhibit 1
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 6 of 13
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
17/23
40. Paragraph 40 contains conclusions of law and statements of opinion that
Idaho neither admits nor denies. Idaho disagrees with Paragraph 40s conclusions of law.
41. Paragraph 41 contains conclusions of law and statements of opinion that
Idaho neither admits nor denies. Idaho disagrees with Paragraph 41s conclusions of law.
42. Paragraph 42 contains conclusions of law and statements of opinion that
Idaho neither admits nor denies. Idaho disagrees with Paragraph 42s conclusions of law.
43. Paragraph 43 contains conclusions of law and statements of opinion that
Idaho neither admits nor denies. Idaho disagrees with Paragraph 43s conclusions of law.
44. Idaho incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 43 as
its answer to Paragraph 44.
45. Idaho is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations of fact of Paragraph 45 and therefore denies Paragraph 45.
46. Idaho is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations of fact of Paragraph 46 and therefore denies Paragraph 46.
47. Paragraph 47 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho agrees that there are rights, responsibilities, benefits, privileges and
protections available to legally married couples.
48. Paragraph 48 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies.
49. Paragraph 49 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies.
50. Paragraph 50 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies.
51. Paragraph 51 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho agrees that Idaho law does not recognize Plaintiffs Susan Latta and Traci
Ehlers or Plaintiffs Lori and Sharene Watsen as married.
PROPOSED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR THE STATE OF IDAHO TO PLAINTIFFSCOMPLAINT FORDECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DKT.1) - 7
Exhibit 1
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 7 of 13
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
18/23
52. Paragraph 52 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho disagrees with Paragraph 52s conclusions of law.
53. Paragraph 53 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho disagrees with Paragraph 53s conclusions of law.
54. Paragraph 54 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho denies that any defendant has denied any Plaintiff her constitutional rights.
55. Paragraph 55 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies.
56. Paragraph 56 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies.
57. Idaho incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 56 as
its answer to Paragraph 57.
58. Paragraph 58 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies.
59. Paragraph 59 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho agrees that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is
enforceable by 42 U.S.C. 1983 and that the Fourteenth Amendment, 1, provides that
no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
60. Paragraph 60 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho denies that any defendant has denied any Plaintiff equal protection of the
laws.
61. Paragraph 61 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho denies that Governor Otter has violated Plaintiffs rights to equal
protection of the law.
62. Paragraph 62 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho denies that Mr. Rich has violated Plaintiffs Andrea Altmayer, Shelia
PROPOSED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR THE STATE OF IDAHO TO PLAINTIFFSCOMPLAINT FORDECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DKT.1) - 8
Exhibit 1
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 8 of 13
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
19/23
Robertson, Amber Beierle, and Rachael Robertson equal protection of the law.
63. Paragraph 63 contains conclusions of law and statements of opinion that
Idaho neither admits nor denies.
64. Paragraph 64 contains conclusions of law and statements of opinion that
Idaho neither admits nor denies.
65. Paragraph 65 contains statements of opinion that Idaho neither admits nor
denies.
66. Idaho is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations of fact of Paragraph 66 and therefore denies Paragraph 66.
67. Paragraph 67 contains statements of opinion that Idaho neither admits nor
denies.
68. Paragraph 68 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho denies that its laws excluding same sex couples from legal recognition are
based on sexual orientation because Idaho also excludes heterosexual couples from, for
example, recognition as domestic partners.
69. Paragraph 69 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho disagrees with Paragraph 69s conclusions of law.
70. Paragraph 70 contains statements of opinion that Idaho neither admits nor
denies.
71. Paragraph 71 contains conclusions of law and statements of opinion that
Idaho neither admits nor denies. Idaho agrees that Idaho statutes do not prohibit
employment, public accommodation, or housing discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation.
72. Paragraph 72 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho asserts that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage serves
legitimate governmental interests that survive rational basis review. See Sevcik v
PROPOSED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR THE STATE OF IDAHO TO PLAINTIFFSCOMPLAINT FORDECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DKT.1) - 9
Exhibit 1
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 9 of 13
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
20/23
Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1014-1018 (D. Nev. 2012) (protection of the traditional
form of civil marriage), appeal pending.
73. Paragraph 73 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho disagrees with Paragraph 73s conclusions of law.
74. Paragraph 74 contains conclusions of law and statements of opinion that
Idaho neither admits nor denies. The State admits that Andrea Altmayer is precluded
from marrying Sheila Robertson because Andrea Altmayer is a woman and not a man.
The State admits that Amber Beierle is unable to marry Rachael Robertson because
Amber Beierle is a woman and not a man.
75. Paragraph 75 contains conclusions of law and statements of opinion that
Idaho neither admits nor denies.
76. Paragraph 76 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies.
77. Paragraph 77 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho asserts that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage serves
legitimate governmental interests that survive rational basis review. See Sevcik v
Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1014-1018 (D. Nev. 2012) (protection of the traditional
form of civil marriage), appeal pending.
78. Paragraph 78 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies. Idaho asserts that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage serves
legitimate governmental interests that survive rational basis review. See Sevcik v
Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1014-1018 (D. Nev. 2012) (protection of the traditional
form of civil marriage), appeal pending.
79. Idaho incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 78 as
its answer to Paragraph 79.
80. Paragraph 80 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
PROPOSED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR THE STATE OF IDAHO TO PLAINTIFFSCOMPLAINT FORDECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DKT.1) - 10
Exhibit 1
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 10 of 13
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
21/23
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
22/23
89. Paragraph 89 contains conclusions of law that Idaho neither admits nor
denies.
90. Idaho denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested in their Prayer
for Relief, or to any other relief.
VI. Additional Allegations of Fact and Conclusions of Law
91. Defendant-Intervenor the State of Idaho is a sovereign State of the Union.
The attributes of sovereignty include, among other things, the authority to prescribe laws
regarding legally recognized marriages and who qualifies to marry under Idaho law. As a
sovereign, Idaho has an interest in the enforcement of its laws, including its marriage
laws. A State faces irreparable harm when it is enjoined from effectuating statutes
enacted by representatives of its people. Maryland v. King, 567 U.S.____, 133 S. Ct. 1,
3, 183 L. Ed. 2d 667 (2012) (Roberts, C. J., in chambers) (quoting New Motor Vehicle
Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1351, 98 S. Ct. 359, 54 L. Ed. 2d. 439
(1977) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers)).
DEFENSES
1. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Inparticular, Plaintiffs claims under the Fourteenth Amendment fail to raise a substantial
federal question. Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971), appeal
dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S. Ct. 39 (1972).
2. There is a rational basis for Idahos marriage laws regarding same-sex
marriage.
3. The Anti-Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 1341, precludes assertion of
federal subject matter jurisdiction over issues of Plaintiffs eligibility to file joint tax
returns.
4. Idaho has never granted, then retracted, recognition of same-sex marriages.
5. Federal statute, which has not been challenged in the Complaint, provides
PROPOSED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR THE STATE OF IDAHO TO PLAINTIFFSCOMPLAINT FORDECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DKT.1) - 12
Exhibit 1
Case 1:13-cv-00482-CWD Document 18-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 12 of 13
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18
23/23
Recommended