Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 191 views

    Case Nos. 14-35420 & 14-35421: Plaintiffs-Appellees

    Uploaded by

    Equality Case Files
    The appellants, Christopher Rich and the State of Idaho, do not oppose the appellees' motion to dissolve the stay of the district court's judgment and injunction. While the appellants believe Idaho's marriage laws are constitutional, they recognize the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in related cases and denial of a stay in this case mean they cannot satisfy the stringent standards for maintaining the stay. However, their non-opposition should not be seen as conceding the correctness of the rulings invalidating similar marriage laws. The appellants may still pursue further review and believe other states' marriage laws could be upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Nos. 14-35420 & 14-35421: Plaintiffs-Appellees

    Uploaded by

    Equality Case Files
    191 views5 pages
    The appellants, Christopher Rich and the State of Idaho, do not oppose the appellees' motion to dissolve the stay of the district court's judgment and injunction. While the appellants believe Idaho's marriage laws are constitutional, they recognize the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in related cases and denial of a stay in this case mean they cannot satisfy the stringent standards for maintaining the stay. However, their non-opposition should not be seen as conceding the correctness of the rulings invalidating similar marriage laws. The appellants may still pursue further review and believe other states' marriage laws could be upheld.

    Original Description:

    Doc 188 - Appellants Rich and Idaho's Response to motion to lift stay

    Original Title

    14-35421 #188

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellants, Christopher Rich and the State of Idaho, do not oppose the appellees' motion to dissolve the stay of the district court's judgment and injunction. While the appellants believe Idaho's marriage laws are constitutional, they recognize the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in related cases and denial of a stay in this case mean they cannot satisfy the stringent standards for maintaining the stay. However, their non-opposition should not be seen as conceding the correctness of the rulings invalidating similar marriage laws. The appellants may still pursue further review and believe other states' marriage laws could be upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    191 views5 pages

    Case Nos. 14-35420 & 14-35421: Plaintiffs-Appellees

    Uploaded by

    Equality Case Files
    The appellants, Christopher Rich and the State of Idaho, do not oppose the appellees' motion to dissolve the stay of the district court's judgment and injunction. While the appellants believe Idaho's marriage laws are constitutional, they recognize the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in related cases and denial of a stay in this case mean they cannot satisfy the stringent standards for maintaining the stay. However, their non-opposition should not be seen as conceding the correctness of the rulings invalidating similar marriage laws. The appellants may still pursue further review and believe other states' marriage laws could be upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    1

    Case Nos. 14-35420 & 14-35421




    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


    SUSAN LATTA, et al.,
    Plaintiffs-Appellees,

    vs.

    C.L. BUTCH OTTER, et al.,
    Defendants-Appellants,

    and

    STATE OF IDAHO,
    Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant.


    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Idaho
    D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00482-CWD
    (Dale, M.J ., Presiding)


    APPELLANTS RICH AND IDAHOS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO
    DISSOLVE THE STAY OF THE DISTRICT COURTS JUDGMENT AND
    INJUNCTION


    LAWRENCE G. WASDEN
    ATTORNEY GENERAL

    STEVEN L. OLSEN
    Chief of Civil Litigation Division
    W. SCOTT ZANZIG, ISB NO. 9361
    CLAY R. SMITH, ISB NO. 6385
    Deputy Attorneys General
    Statehouse, Room 210, Boise, ID 83720
    Telephone: (208) 334-2400
    Fax: (208) 854-8073
    Counsel for Appellants Christopher Rich and State of Idaho
    Case: 14-35421 10/13/2014 ID: 9274637 DktEntry: 188 Page: 1 of 5
    2

    Appellees request dissolution of the stay entered by this Court on May 20,
    2014. Dkt. 191. In relevant part, they rely on the Courts opinion issued on
    October 7, 2014 (Dkt. 180-1), the denial of certiorari by the United States Supreme
    Court in seven cases from the Fourth, Seventh and Tenth Circuits on the previous
    day,
    *
    and the denial of a stay application by the Supreme Court with respect to this
    Courts October 7 opinion on October 10, 2014 (Otter v. Latta, 14A374
    (Dkt. 190)). Appellants Christopher Rich and State of Idaho do not oppose
    Appellees motion.
    The October 7 decision affirmed the district courts judgment invalidating
    Article III, Section 28 of the Idaho Constitution and Idaho Code 32-201
    and -209 to the extent that they preclude same-sex marriages in Idaho or
    recognition of such marriages lawfully entered into under the laws of another State.
    The petitions for writ of certiorari denied on October 6 were directed to the
    invalidation of similar restrictions in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and

    *
    Bostic v. Schaeffer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014)), cert. denied, No. 14-153, 2014
    WL 3924685 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014), No. 14-225, 2014 WL 4230092 (U.S. Oct. 6,
    2014), & No. 14-251, 2014 WL 4354536 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014); Baskin v. Bogan,
    Nos. 14-2386 et al., 2014 WL 4359059 (7th Cir. Sept. 4, 2014), cert. denied,
    No. 14-277, 2014 WL 4425162 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014), & No. 14-278, 2014 WL
    4425163 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014); Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2014),
    cert. denied, No. 14-136, 2014 WL 3854318 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014); Kitchen v.
    Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, No. 14-124, 2014 WL
    3841263 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014).

    Case: 14-35421 10/13/2014 ID: 9274637 DktEntry: 188 Page: 2 of 5
    3

    Wisconsin. Following denial of these petitions, existing stays were vacated upon
    issuance of mandates from the affected Courts of Appeals.
    Appellants Rich and Idaho have concluded, given the actions taken by the
    Supreme Court with respect to the certiorari petitions and in No. 14A374, that they
    cannot satisfy the stringent standards governing issuance of stays. E.g.,
    Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 189 (2010) (per curiam); cf. Lair v. Bullock,
    697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009)).
    Their non-opposition to Appellees motion should not be interpreted as a
    concession to the correctness of this Courts October 7 decision or the opinions of
    the Fourth, Seventh and Tenth Circuits as to which certiorari was denied.
    Appellants believe that Article III, Section 28 and 32-201 and -209 are
    consistent with the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth
    Amendment to the United States Constitution. Other States currently in litigation
    before other Courts of Appeals over the validity of their marriage statutes have
    taken comparable positions and may prevail. Appellants non-opposition therefore
    does not reflect reconsideration of their position concerning the validity of Idahos
    marriage laws or the strength of their legal position. Nor does it reflect a
    determination not to pursue further review of the October 7 opinion.
    //
    //
    Case: 14-35421 10/13/2014 ID: 9274637 DktEntry: 188 Page: 3 of 5
    4

    DATED this 13th day of October 2014.
    Respectfully submitted,
    HON. LAWRENCE G. WASDEN
    Attorney General

    Steven L. Olsen
    Chief of Civil Litigation

    /s/ Clay R. Smith
    Clay R. Smith, ISB #6385
    W. Scott Zanzig, #9361
    Deputy Attorneys General
    Statehouse, Room 210
    Boise, ID 83720
    Attorneys for Appellants Rich and Idaho

    Case: 14-35421 10/13/2014 ID: 9274637 DktEntry: 188 Page: 4 of 5
    5

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the
    Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the
    appellate CM/ECF system on October 13, 2014.
    I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and
    that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.

    /s/ Clay R. Smith
    Clay R. Smith





    Case: 14-35421 10/13/2014 ID: 9274637 DktEntry: 188 Page: 5 of 5

    You might also like