14-1283 #02983
-
Upload
equality-case-files -
Category
Documents
-
view
232 -
download
0
Transcript of 14-1283 #02983
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
1/69
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1283
CATHERINE BURNS; et al.
PlaintiffsAppellees,
v.
JOHN SUTHERS, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Colorado;
DefendantAppellant, and
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, JR., in his official capacity as Governor of
Colorado; and
PAM ANDERSON, in her official capacity as Clerk and Recorder for
Jefferson County,
Defendants.
ATTORNEY GENERALS OPPOSED MOTION TO HOLD
APPEAL IN ABEYANCE PENDING THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT'S DECISIONS INKITCHENv. HERBERTANDBISHOP
v. SMITH
For the following reasons, Colorado Attorney General John
Suthers respectfully moves to hold this appeal in abeyance until this
Courts decisions inKitchen v. Herbert, No. 13-4178 (10th Cir.) and
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303861 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 1
Docket Reference 10202983
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
2/69
2
Bishop v. Smith, Nos. 14-5003 and 14-5006 (10th Cir.) become final.
Plaintiffs oppose this motion.
1.
The underlying case is about the government institution of
marriage, and this appeal concerns the district courts entry of a
preliminary injunction, barring Defendants from enforcing or applying
Colorado law, which limits marriage to one man and one woman.
2. Plaintiffs, all of whom challenge the constitutionality of Colorados
non-recognition of same-sex marriages, are same-sex couples who are
either married under other states laws or are unmarried and desire to
be married under Colorados laws. Plaintiffs filed suit six days after
this Court issued its decision inKitchen, in which a divided panel of this
Court held that Utahs ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs claims are the same claims that theKitchenplaintiffs
asserted in the District of Utah and theBishopplaintiffs asserted in the
Northern District of Oklahoma.
3. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
enforcement or application of Article II, Section 31 of the Colorado
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303861 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 2
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
3/69
3
Constitution and C.R.S 14-2-104(1)(b) and 14-2-104(2) as bases for
denying marriage to same-sex couples or denying recognition of
otherwise valid same-sex marriages entered in other states.
4. On July 23, 2014, following a motions hearing, the district court
entered a preliminary injunction in Plaintiffs favor and granted a
temporary stay of its decision. The district court, however, declined to
stay its decision pending full appeal, but stayed further proceedings
regarding the merits of Plaintiffs claims until the final mandate is
issued inKitchen.
5.
Also on July 23, 2014, Attorney General Suthers promptly
commenced the instant interlocutory appeal of the district courts
preliminary injunction order and sought a stay pending appeal of the
district courts order granting plaintiffs motion for preliminary
injunction. On August 21, 2014, this Court stayed the district courts
preliminary injunction order pending this appeal.
6. Since the commencement of this appeal, three same-sex marriage
cases have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303861 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 3
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
4/69
4
August 5, 2014, Utahs governor and attorney general filed a petition
for a writ of certiorari, seeking the Supreme Courts review of a decision
by a divided panel of this Court inKitchen, and specifically, whether
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits
a state from defining or recognizing marriage only as the legal union
between a man and a woman.
7. One day later, on August 6, 2014, the Tulsa County Court Clerk
for the State of Oklahoma filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking
review of another decision from a divided panel of this Court inBishop
v. Smith, and specifically, [w]hether the Due Process Clause and the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution forbid the State of Oklahoma from defining
marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
8.
Two days later, on August 8, 2014, Virginias State Registrar of
Vital Records filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision inBostic v. Rainey, No.
14-1167, in which a divided panel of the court affirmed the district
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303861 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 4
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
5/69
5
courts determination that Virginias same-sex marriage ban is
unconstitutional. Like the instant appeal, and theKitchenandBishop
appeals,Bosticconcerns [w]hether Virginia violates the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses by denying the right of marriage to same-
sex couples and by refusing to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully
performed outside of Virginia. SeeBostic cert. petition, attached as
Exhibit A.
9.Although a divided panel of the Tenth Circuit has ruled that
Utahs and Oklahomas bans and non-recognition of same-sex marriage
are unconstitutional, those constitutional questions, which are also at-
issue in this case, are and will remain unsettled until the Tenth
Circuits decisions inKitchenandBishopbecome final in one of two
ways, namely: (a) the Supreme Court denies a petition for writ of
certiorari and the Tenth Circuit issues its mandates; or (b) the Supreme
Court grants the petitions for writ of certiorari and issues final
decisions.
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303861 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 5
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
6/69
6
10.
Without question, the Supreme Courts determination of the
constitutional questions concerning same-sex marriage will directly
bear on and control this case. If the Supreme Court accepts Utahs and
Oklahomas arguments, or otherwise allows those states to enforce
traditional definitions of marriage, Plaintiffs claims in this case will fail
as a consequence.
11. This Court has previously granted motions to hold appeals in
abeyance in analogous circumstances. Most recently, inArmstrong v.
Sebelius, No. 13-1218, this Court granted the U.S. Secretary of Health
and Human Services motion to abate an appeal concerning whether for-
profit, secular corporations have a constitutional right to deny certain
employee health benefits on the basis of religion. This Court abated the
Armstrongappeal in favor of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, No.
12-6294 (10th Cir.), which concerned the same issue, was procedurally
more advanced, and was already heard by the court en banc. Because a
decision in Hobby Lobbywas forthcoming and could controlArmstrong,
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303861 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 6
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
7/69
7
this Court abated theArmstrongappeal. SeeExs. B & C, Sebeliuss
Motion to Hold Appeal in Abeyance; Order granting motion.
12.
As withArmstrong, an abeyance of the above-captioned
appeal is warranted becauseKitchenandBishopare virtually
guaranteed to control this case once those decisions become final.
Moreover, an abeyance will not prejudice Plaintiffs because the district
court proceedings have been stayed until a mandate is issued in
Kitchen. Likewise, an abeyance will not prejudice the other defendants
in this case, who have chosen not to participate in the instant appeal.
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303861 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 7
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
8/69
8
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN W. SUTHERSAttorney General
/s/Kathryn A. Starnella
MICHAEL FRANCISCO*
Assistant Solicitor General
KATHRYN A. STARNELLA*
Assistant Attorney GeneralAttorneys for Defendant-Appellant
John Suthers, in his official capacity
as Attorney General of Colorado
Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial
Center
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
Telephone: 720-508-6551; 720-508-6176
FAX: 720-508-6041
E-Mail: [email protected];
*Counsel of Record
September 2, 2014
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303861 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 8
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
9/69
9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 2, 2014, I electronically filed theforegoing using the courts CM/ECF system, which will send notification of
such filing counsel for the Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Defendants.
/s Kathryn A. Starnella
KATHRYN A. STARNELLA*
Assistant Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant John
Suthers, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of Colorado
Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
Telephone: 720-508-6176
FAX: 720-508-6041
E-Mail: [email protected]
*Counsel of Record
CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION AND PRIVACY
REDACTIONS
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Attorney Generals Opposed
Motion to Hold Appeal in Abeyance Pending the U.S. Supreme Courts
DecisionsKitchenv. Herbert andBishop v. Smith, as submitted in Digital Form
via the courts ECF system, is an exact copy of any written document filed
with the Clerk and has been scanned for viruses with the Symantec Endpoint
Protection, Antivirus Version 1.183.1310.0, and, according to the program, is
free of viruses. In addition, I certify all required privacy redactions have been
made.
/s Kathryn A. Starnella
KATHRYN A. STARNELLA
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303861 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 9
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
10/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 1
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
11/69
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
12/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 3
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
13/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 4
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
14/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 5
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
15/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 6
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
16/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 7
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
17/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 8
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
18/69
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
19/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 10
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
20/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 11
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
21/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 12
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
22/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 13
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
23/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 14
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
24/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 15
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
25/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 16
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
26/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 17
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
27/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 18
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
28/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 19
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
29/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 20
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
30/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 21
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
31/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 22
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
32/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 23
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
33/69
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
34/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 25
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
35/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 26
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
36/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 27
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
37/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 28
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
38/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 29
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
39/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 30
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
40/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 31
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
41/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 32
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
42/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 33
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
43/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 34
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
44/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 35
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
45/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 36
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
46/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 37
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
47/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 38
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
48/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 39
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
49/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 40
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
50/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 41
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
51/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 42
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
52/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 43
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
53/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 44
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
54/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 45
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
55/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 46
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
56/69
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
57/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 48
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
58/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 49
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
59/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 50
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
60/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 51
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
61/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 52
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
62/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303862 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 53
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
63/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303863 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 1
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
64/69
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
65/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303863 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 3
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
66/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303863 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 4
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
67/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303863 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 5
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
68/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303864 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 1
-
8/11/2019 14-1283 #02983
69/69
Appellate Case: 14-1283 Document: 01019303864 Date Filed: 09/02/2014 Page: 2