1:13-cv-00482 #18

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

[email protected]

Craig Harrison Durham

[email protected]

Shannon P. Minter

[email protected]

Christopher F. Stoll

[email protected]

Theodore E. Argyle

[email protected]

Thomas Perry

[email protected]

/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:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/13/2019 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.



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:


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_1705

8/13/2019 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.)


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).



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

[email protected]

Craig Harrison Durham

[email protected]

Shannon P. Minter

[email protected]

Christopher F. Stoll

[email protected]

Theodore E. Argyle

[email protected]

Thomas Perry

[email protected]

/s/

W.SCOTT ZANZIG


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/13/2019 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

[email protected]

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

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/13/2019 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.






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.


allegations of fact of Paragraph 6 and therefore denies Paragraph 6. Idaho agrees with


Exhibit 1


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.


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.



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.


denies.

11. Paragraph 11 contains conclusions of law and statements of opinion that

Idaho neither admits nor denies.






denies. Idaho agrees that Plaintiffs have sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

II. Idahos Answers to Paragraphs Labeled Parties




Exhibit 1


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.





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.


denies.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


Exhibit 1


8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18

15/23

III. Idahos Answers to Paragraphs Labeled Jurisdiction and Venue


denies. Idaho agrees that Plaintiffs have sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 28 U.S.C.

2201 et seq.


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.


denies. Idaho agrees that venue would be proper in the District of Idaho.


denies.

IV. Idahos Answers to Paragraphs Labeled Statement of Facts


denies. Idaho agrees with Paragraph 26s historical statement of the law.


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.


denies. Idaho agrees that Paragraph 28 accurately quotes Idaho Code 32-201.


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.


Exhibit 1


8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18

16/23


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 31 and therefore denies Paragraph 31. Idaho agrees that

Idaho law would not recognize a same-sex marriage performed in California.


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.





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.


denies.


denies.


denies. Idaho disagrees with Paragraph 38s conclusions of law.


Idaho neither admits nor denies. Idaho disagrees with Paragraph 39s conclusions of law.


Exhibit 1


8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18

17/23









44. Idaho incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 43 as

its answer to Paragraph 44.






denies. Idaho agrees that there are rights, responsibilities, benefits, privileges and

protections available to legally married couples.


denies.


denies.


denies.


denies. Idaho agrees that Idaho law does not recognize Plaintiffs Susan Latta and Traci

Ehlers or Plaintiffs Lori and Sharene Watsen as married.


Exhibit 1


8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18

18/23






denies. Idaho denies that any defendant has denied any Plaintiff her constitutional rights.


denies.


denies.




denies.


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.


denies. Idaho denies that any defendant has denied any Plaintiff equal protection of the

laws.


denies. Idaho denies that Governor Otter has violated Plaintiffs rights to equal

protection of the law.


denies. Idaho denies that Mr. Rich has violated Plaintiffs Andrea Altmayer, Shelia


Exhibit 1


8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18

19/23

Robertson, Amber Beierle, and Rachael Robertson equal protection of the law.





65. Paragraph 65 contains statements of opinion that Idaho neither admits nor

denies.




denies.


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.




denies.


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.


denies. Idaho asserts that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage serves

legitimate governmental interests that survive rational basis review. See Sevcik v


Exhibit 1


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.




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.




denies.















Exhibit 1


8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18

21/23

8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18

22/23


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


Exhibit 1


8/13/2019 1:13-cv-00482 #18

23/23

Documents

1:13-cv-00482 #18