Opposition to Utah's request that Justice Sotomayor temporarily ban same-sex marriages there

8/13/2019 Opposition to Utah's request that Justice Sotomayor temporarily ban same-sex marriages there.

1/61

!"# %&'()*

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

+',- ,#./,0/,12+34/,!3, 35 61'.2/1 '7#2

'889:;?2

@#

A/,/B BC1D./!2/1 '7#2

,E?8"=FE=>?#

3= '889:;:"= >" G> ME=F:=K '88EEF >" >OE."="N"L:;E "Q >OE GJ8NELE D"JN> "Q >OE

6=:>EF G>E? IJ?>:;E Q"N >OE 1E=>O D:N;J:>

R/R3,' A6R$C $3MM3GC1C3 $13$'MM7CD'1C3 $13$G1'-$I6A+R/ 1$M/ AC +$'MM/'7$13$1./$6 C1/A$G1'1/G$DC,D6C1$D36,1$35$'MM/'7G$53,$1./$1/ 1.$DC,D6C1$$$I


2/61

::

1'07/$35$D3 1/ 1G$C!1,3A6D1C3! ################################################################################################%

0'DB+,36!A ###################################################################################################&

C# 1./ D'G/ 0/53,/ 1./ ACG1,CD1 D36,1 ######################################&

CC# THE DISTRICT COURTS RULING#######################################################X

CCC# THE DISTRICT COURTS DENIAL OF A STAY###################################V

C4# THE COURT OF APPEALS A/!C'7 35 ' G1'- ################################(

',+6R/!1 ########################################################################################################(

C# 'MM7CD'!1G RCGG1'1/ 1./C, ./C+.1/!/A 06,A/!T./! G//BC!+ '! 34/,,CAC!+ G1'- 35 ' D'G/ G1C77M/!AC!+ C! 1./ D36,1 35 'MM/'7G #############################################*

CC# 1./ D36,1 35 'MM/'7G T'G !31 A/R3!G1,'07-T,3!+ C! C1G 'MM7CD'1C3! 35 'DD/M1/A G1'!A',AGIN DENYING APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR A STAY PENDING

'MM/'7 ################################################################################################## %U

'# Respondents Have Challenged Utahs Same]GE^ RJ>:"=? G>N"=K9H GJ88"N>Respondents Due Process Claims############################################### %&

D# T:=F?"NOEN MNE;EFE=>? G>N"=K9H GJ88"N>Respondents Equal Protection Claims####################################### %(

A# T:=F?"NOEN MNE;EFE=>?2 C=;9JF:=K AE;:?:"=? PHRE


3/61

:::

CCC# THE APPLICANTS RIGHTS WILL NOT BE SERIOUSLY ANDC,,/M','07- C!I6,/A 0- A/!C'7 35 ' G1'- ########################## a*

'# '889:;? D


4/61

:@

1'07/$35$'61.3,C1C/G$

D'G/G'=FEN?"= @# DE9EPNEffE2X(U 6#G# *)U Z%\)&[ ..............................................................................................................a(

'`:; @# R;A"==E992!"# aY%&]D4]UU&\V Z/#A# 4


5/61

@

0JNFE= @# GO:=?EW:2*a* 5#&F %%(% Z5EF# D:N# aU%&[ ..........................................................................................a\

DEN>


6/61

@:

Fargo Women? .EO 3NK# @# G;O# %(() Z%\\&[............................................................................................................ )

5:?OEN]0"N=E @# GL:>O2!"# %a]D4]UUV)\ ZR#A#!#D#2 Q:9EF IJ=E %&2 aU%a[........................................................&*

5NEEL


7/61

@::

C= NE R


8/61

@:::

R


9/61

:^

,"?>WEN @# +"9FPENK2XX) 6#G# %&U( Z%\)U[.............................................................................................................. *

GOE R># G"9EF> @# ,"PEN>?2(%a 5#&F %a*\ Z%%>O D:N# aU%U[..........................................................................................&U

GE@;:W @# GO D:N#2 E @# !"=2aU* M#&F X) ZD


10/61

^

T


11/61

^:

R>2D"=>N"@EN?:# 'N># C2 i a\............................................................................................................. &


12/61

%

1" >OE ."="N"L:;E "Q >OE GJ8NELE D"JN> "Q

>OE 6=:>EF G>E? IJ?>:;E Q"N >OE 1E=>O D:N;J:>Y

,E?8"=FE=>? AENEW B:>;OE=2 R"JF: GPE:>H2 B >O:? LEL"N:"= >" >OE '889:;:"= >" G> ME=F:=K '88E" >OE 6=:>EF

G>E? D:N;J:> D"JN> "Q '88E:>J>:"=# AE;# aU2 aU%&2 REL"NOE A:?>N:;> D"JN> (Dist. Ct. 12/20 Order)2 '889# ']

%# 1OE NE9:EQ '889:;? ?EEW `N:;> D"JN> OE D"JN> "Q '88EOE # %UV2 !"# aY%&];@]UUa%*],G := >OE A:?>N:;>

D"JN> (Dist. Ct. 12/23 Order)2 '889# D]%m AE;# aX2 aU%&2 3NFEN AE=H:=K


13/61

a

/LENKE=;H R">:"= Q"N G>OE 1E=>O D:N;J:> (CA10 12/30G;OEFJ9:=K Order)2 >" N:;> D"JN> OE D"JN> "Q

Appeals, and in this memorandum, this Court should also deny Applicants request

Q"N < ?> "Q 2 D#I#2 := ;O


14/61

&

PE9"`2 OE # #

C2 i a\ ZEQQE;>:@E aUUV[m 6>:@E %\**[#

3= R >OE J=FEN9H:=K :"= := >OE

A:?>N:;> Dourt to challenge Utahs prohibition on same]?E^ LEE=>O 'LE=FLE=> >" >OE

6=:>EF G>E? D"=?>:>J>:"=# 3= 3;>"PEN %%2 aU%&2 ,E?8"=FE=>?


15/61

X

CC# THE DISTRICT COURTS$,67C +$The District Court ruled on summary judgment that Utahs laws barring

?EE=>O 'LE=FLE=># 1OE A:?>N:;> D"JN>

NE;"K=:fEF >O =" 8NE;EFE=> "Q >O:? D"JN> :? F:NE;>9H ;"=>N"99:=K2 OENEQ"NE2

NE9:EF "= := 6=:>EF G>E? @# T:=F?"N2 %&& G# D>#

a(*V ZaU%&[2 7


16/61

V

NE]?E^ 8? >O E=KOis debate because the state fails to demonstrate any

N:"=`EE= :>? 8N"O:P:>:"= "Q ? Q"J=F >O >OE 9# A:?># D># %aja& 3NFEN %#

'889:;? Q:9EF < L">:"= >" ?>OE E@E=:=K "= 5N:FN:;> D"JN> "NFENEF E^8EF:>EF PN:EQ:=K "@EN >OE `EEWE=F < OE "Q '88EOE 1E=>O D:N;J:> (CA10 12/22 Order). '> >OE ;"=;9J?:"= "Q >OE OE


17/61

(

?8E;J9:@E OE2 >OENE :? =" F:?8J>E >O ?? B FE=:EF < ?>`"]dJFKE 8 "Q '88E "Q '88E ;N:>:;H

"Q ?J;;E?? O `

show that the Court of Appeals was demonstrably wrong in its application of


18/61

*

EF ?>:"= := >OE ;"JN> "Q

appeals. . . . CF# 0ecause Applicants seek an overriding stay in a case already

pending before the Court of Appeals, they must meet an especially heavy burden.

/F`EN=:"=? "L:>>EF[# '889:;? F" ="> L Q"N < ?>


19/61

)

>" >OE nD"JN> "Q '88EOE nD"JN> "Q '88E?E9Q O IJ?>:;E ?O"J9F PE E^>NELE9H NEL8> >" LEE>2 >O:? OE:KO>E=EF

PJNFE=# '889:;? :=?>EE8 >OE:N OE:KO>E=EF PJNFE= PH ;:>:=K >"2 `:>O

@:N>J


20/61

\

Q"N LE :;E >" KN < ?> "Q '88E


21/61

%U

being recognized as legally married under Utahs laws. Nor is there a=H PEN?2 X)U 6#G# %&U%2 %&UV Z%\)*[

(OConnor, J., in chambers) (quoting D"9EL" >OE

D"JN> "Q '88eals decision is especially warranted when, as here, that court is

proceeding to adjudication on the merits with due expedition. +"=f:89E ;"=?>:>J>:"=OE D"JN> "Q '88EO '889:;? Q" LEE> >O E?>E?>2


22/61

%%

T:=F?"N L


23/61

%a

>OE:N 8N">E;>EF 9:PEN>H2 8N:@? := >OE:N E^:?>:=K

L2 >OEH ;9OE LOEN 8EN?"=? := ;"LL:>>EF ?OE

E^EN;:?E "Q < QJ=F :=H# CF#

GE;"=F2 >OEH ;9OE 9:=H PE;OEH E?> PE ?JPdE;> 9E >"2 OE L


24/61

%&

>OE:N ;O:9FNE= `:>O"J> 8N"@:F:=K ? >" ">OEN? "N >" >OE ?>E>O :?2 PH

="> PE:=K N:"=E :=>ENE?># CF#0# T:=F? N$and Other Precedents Strongly Support Respondents

AJE$MN ;E??$D9E=> `:>O >OE NEbJ:NELE=>? "Q FJE 8N";E??


25/61

%X

concurring) (noting that the difficulty of a question is inversely proportional to the

likelihood that a given answer will be clearly erroneous).

C= Q2 >OE NE:>J>:"=:>J>:"=


26/61

%V

E 9OE

N:KO> >" L# D># %ajaU 3NFEN %)]aV#

'889:;? O ,E?8"=FE=>? F" ="> O"

same]sex marriage because they cannot show that such a right is deeply rooted

in the Nations history and tradition. App9# %a ZbJ">:=K T"N:;EN=? "Q

F:?;N:L:=:"=# 1OE 8"?:>:"= JNKEF PH '889:;?>O ,E?8"=FE=>? ?EEW ="> >OE

same right to marry as others, but a new right to same]sex marriageNE8E? >OE


27/61

%(

that the Court of Appeals was demonstrably wrong in its application of the

EF ?>OEN ?>E?# %&& G# D># a()% (holding that the injury and indignity [inflicted by

GE;>:"= & "Q A3R'o :? < FE8N:@:"= "Q :E;>EF PH

the Fifth Amendment). C=FEEF2 "=E QEFENN:;> ;"JN> O


28/61

%*


29/61

%)

MN">E;>:"= D9:=K ,"LEN2 V%* 6#G# (&&[# 1OE

D"JN> Q"J=F >O GE;>:"= & "Q A3R' `E FEQ:=:>:"=? "Q L# a(\ 1OE D"JN> Q"J=F >O

A3R' `


30/61

%\

This Courts precedents:>J>:"=:=H# T:=F?"N=">EF >O 9"`EN ;"JN>? OE D"JN> 9E> ?>OE Second Circuits holding that heightened

?;NJ>:=H " ?J;O 9E=EF ?;NJ>:=H >" ;9:=KJ:?O


31/61

aU

This Courts precedents also support Respondents claim that the challenKEF

9? PN:;> D"JN> := >O:? ;N:;> D"JN> := MENNH @# G;O`ENE">H8E?2 :=;9JF:=K >OE ?>ENE">H8E >O


32/61

a%

LNEF >"2 E=>EN :=>" :LE NE9:"=?O:8 `:>O2


33/61

aa

Applicants argume=> F"E? ="> NE?"9@E >OE ;"=?>:>J>:"=EF PH >O:?

;


34/61

a&

heterosexual marriage); 4H Q" OE NEOE "PdE;>:@EY

`OE>OEN E^;9J?:"= "Q K? Q"N ;O:9FNE=# 0J> E^;9JF:=K >OE ;O:9FNE= "Q ?O"?E

PE=EQ:>? ;O"J> 8N"@:F:=K >" >OE

;O:9FNE= "Q "88"?:>E]sex parents. If anything, the States pN"O:P:>:"= "Q ?# D># %ajaU 3NFEN X(# 1OE O A3R' OOE ;O:9FNE= "Q ?:=K >O ?OE ?>E >" 8E=O"?E ;"J89E? OE:N ;O:9FNE= PH E^;9JF:=K >OEL

from protections in order to hold[] up and encourag[e] man]`"L


35/61

aX

"Q ="`]NE8JF:EF 9O 8E=:;" >OE P:


36/61

aV

;"=>E=F:=K >O 0 OE D"JN> "Q '88EN"99:=K :=

>O:? ;N:;> D"JN> E^89


37/61

a(

0J>E :??JE :=

0OE KE=FEN "Q >OE :=>E=FEF ?8"J?E?# 1OE R:==E?">< GJ8NELE

Court rejected the plaintiffs argument that the absence of an express statutory

8N"O:P:>:"= :


38/61

a*

J=;"=?>:>J>:"=E?# 0ENL:=E2 >OE @H "Q ?J;O < LE


39/61

a)

claim that, if they prevail on appeal, they will be injured by the administrative and

Q:=:=K >OE E=Q"N;ELE=> "Q < ?>E

9OEN

"Q >OE?E ;9


40/61

a\

providing guidance for agencies that encounter any conflicting laws); ?EE O >OE :=dJ=;>:"= NEbJ:NE? =" ;OOE E^:?>:=K 9EKNJ;>JNE "N

N:"= "Q ;:@:9 L ?O"`? >O2 9:WE

">OEN ?>E? `O:;O OEF ?:L:9:=K L"

;OOE @H "Q ?:>J>E

:NNE8J>E >O 9:L:>EF 8N">E;>:"= E;"=?>:>J>:"=


41/61

&U

O"`E@EN ?JP?>:ENL? "Q L"=EH2 >:LE E="JKO#).)

Applicants >O >O:? D"JN> ?O"J9F :??JE < ?>OE

District Court noted, the harm experienced by same]?E^ ;"J89E? := 6>


42/61

&%

I"99H2 V*a 5#&F (XX2 (V) Z\>O D:N# aUU\[ (rejecting argument that LENE9H PH

E=d":=:=K < ?>E 9EK:?9:@E 2 n< ;"JN>o ;NEEn?o < 8EN ?E ONJL8:=K


43/61

&a

E=d":=:=K >OE ?>J>E2 `O:;O NEbJ:NEF ; ?J88"N> >OE:N 8"?:>:"=# C= >O ;:>J>:"=OE ;"99E;>:"= "Q A!' ? HE> ;"=@:;>EF "Q ;EN>OE D"JN>


44/61

&&

OOE NEbJ:NELE=> "Q ;"L89:O >OE ;"LLEE=>O 'LE=FLE=>2 dJ?> E 9J>E >O

:L8ENL:??:P9H :=QN:=KEF J8"= 8?[m G>" FJE 8N";E?? OEN FE;:?:"=? :=@E 9O :L8ENL:??:P9H FE8N:@E

:=F:@:FJE;>:"= "Q >OE 9H2

8N:@


45/61

&X

Applicants exclusive empha?:? "= ?>E ?"@ENE:K=>H O2 9:WE

Utahs laws, the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment were produced by a

FEL";N:; 8N";E??2 OEN? O? EF# [I]> :? ENE?> >"

prevent the violation of a partys constitutional rights. '`EN=:"=? OE:N :=H >" ?O"` >:=K ?J>:"= ?O"` >O >OE D"JN> "Q '88E FEL"=?>NE :NNE8O >O >OE D"JN> "Q '88E


46/61

&V

O >" PE :??JEF PH < D"JN> "Q '88E


47/61

&(

R"NE"@EN2 >OE ;J>E E=> `:>O GJ8NELE D"JN> ,J9E %U2 `O:;O L


48/61

&*

constituted an unlawful bill of attainder and raised an insurmountable political

P" ?


49/61


50/61

&\

DE2 ?JPdE;>? KENL:=O L OEN QN"L ?JN@:@:=K >OE

:=?> # %ajaU 3NFEN V](# 5"N;:=K ?


51/61

XU

Q" ` OE PE?> FJN:=K >OE 8E=FE=;H "Q >O:? OE Q"NEK":=K NE


52/61

X%

D/,1C5CD'1/$35$G/,4CD/$

C ;EN>:QH >O < ;"8H "Q >O:? REL"N" '889:;:"= >" G> ME=F:=K '88E" >OE 6=:>EF G>E? D:N;J:> D"JN> "Q '88E &UU G"J>O2 G:^>O 59""NM#3# 0"^ %XU)V(G 7H2 6>?


53/61

ppendixDECLARATION 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


54/61

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 3rdday of January, 2014.

PEGGY A. TOMSIC

App.2


55/61

Exhibit A

App.3


56/61

Redacted

App.4


57/61

Exhibit B

App.5


58/61

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

__

FILED

United States Court of Ap

Tenth Circuit

December 30, 201

Elisabeth A. Shumak

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019178943 Date Filed: 12/30/2013 Page: 1

App.6


59/61

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


60/61


61/61

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 followingemail to Cabinet Members today in regards to issues stemming from the recentfederal 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 federaldistrict court ruling on same sex marriage. As indicated in yourresponses, many agencies will experience minimal or no impact.

For those agencies that now face conflicting laws either in statute oradministrative rule, you should consult with the Assistant AttorneyGenerals assigned to your agency on the best course to resolve thoseconflicts. You should also advise your analyst in GOMB of the plansfor addressing the conflicting laws.

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

Contact: Nate McDonald

Public Information Officer

801.538.1509 desk

801.694.0294 cell

[email protected]

Documents

Opposition to Utah's request that Justice Sotomayor temporarily ban same-sex marriages there