Case 3:14-cv-00818-CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 11/10/14 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
CAMPAIGN FOR SOUTHERN
EQUALITY; REBECCA BICKETT;
ANDREA SANDERS; JOCELYN
PRITCHETT; and CARLA WEBB,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PHIL BRYANT, in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of Mississippi; JIM
HOOD, in his official capacity as
Mississippi Attorney General; and
BARBARA DUNN, in her official capacity
as Hinds County Circuit Clerk,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 3:14-cv-00818-CWR-LRA

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

MCDUFF & BYRD

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &

GARRISON LLP

767 North Congress Street

Jackson, Mississippi 39202
(601) 969-0802

1285 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10019
(212) 373-3000

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:14-cv-00818-CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 11/10/14 Page 2 of 10

In seeking to defend the constitutionality of the Mississippi laws that exclude gay couples
from civil marriage, Defendants do not offer a single argument that has not already been
rejectedrepeatedlyby federal courts across the country. This reply focuses mainly on the
arguments not previously addressed, none of which provide any persuasive justification for the
ongoing discrimination against the gay citizens of Mississippi at issue here.
I.

Baker v. Nelson Does Not Control the Outcome Here

This Court is not bound by the Supreme Courts summary affirmance in Baker v. Nelson,

a case brought by a gay couple in Minnesota arguing that their inability to marry constituted
unlawful sex discrimination in the early 1970s, before these Plaintiffs were even born. 409 U.S.
810 (1972). The Supreme Court, which was then required to accept plaintiffs appeal under its
since-repealed mandatory appellate jurisdiction, summarily dismissed the Baker appeal in a onesentence order for want of a substantial federal question. Id. But while summary affirmances
obviously are of precedential value, they are not of the same precedential value as would be an
opinion of this Court treating the question on the merits. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 671
(1974). See also Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 476 n.20 (1979); Morse v.
Republican Party of Va., 517 U.S. 186, 203 n.1 (1996); Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176
(1977) (per curiam).
Although Defendants argue that lower courts may only depart from a summary
disposition when the Court has overruled the decision by name . . . or when the Court has
overruled the decision by outcome, DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-1341, 2014 WL 5748990, at *7
(6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014), the Supreme Court has made it clear that summary dispositions are not
binding when doctrinal developments indicate otherwise. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332,
344 (1975). Here, [t]he jurisprudence of equal protection and substantive due process has
undergone what can only be characterized as a sea change since 1972. Whitewood v. Wolf, 992
1

Case 3:14-cv-00818-CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 11/10/14 Page 3 of 10

F. Supp. 2d 410, 420 (M.D. Pa. 2014). In 1972, when Baker was decided, the Supreme Court
had not yet decided that (a) sex is a quasi-suspect classification, Frontiero v. Richardson, 411
U.S. 677, 688 (1973), (b) a classification of [gays and lesbians] undertaken for its own sake
lacked a rational basis, Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635 (1996), (c) [p]ersons in a
homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons
do, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003) or (d) treating gay couples marriages
differently from straight couples demean[ed] the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the
Constitution protects, United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2694 (2013).
It is therefore not surprising that nearly every court to consider the issue since Windsor
(other than the Sixth Circuit) has concluded that the Supreme Courts forty-two year old
summary affirmance in Baker does not bar claims like those made by plaintiffs here. Baker was
decided in 197242 years ago and the dark ages so far as litigation over discrimination against
homosexuals is concerned. Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648, 659-60 (7th Cir. 2014), cert.
denied, --- S. Ct. ---, 2014 WL 4425162 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014).1 Given that the Second Circuit
concluded Baker was not binding, and that the Second Circuit was later affirmed in the Windsor,
1

See also Latta v. Otter, No. 14-35420, 2014 WL 4977682, at *3 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014); Bostic v. Schaefer, 760
F.3d 352, 375 (4th Cir. 2014) (In light of the Supreme Courts apparent abandonment of Baker and the
significant doctrinal developments that occurred after the Court issued its summary dismissal in that case, we
decline to view Baker as binding precedent.); Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193, 1204-08 (10th Cir. 2014);
Marie v. Moser, No. 14-cv-02518, 2014 WL 5598128, at *1 n.4 (D. Kan. Nov. 4, 2014); Brenner v. Scott, 999
F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1290 (N.D. Fla. 2014); De Leon v. Perry, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632, 647 (W.D. Tex. 2014);
Bowling v. Pence, No. 1:14-CV-00405, 2014 WL 4104814, at *4 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 19, 2014); Love v. Beshear,
989 F. Supp. 2d 536, 542 (W.D. Ky. 2014); Baskin v. Bogan, No: 1:14-CV-00355, 2014 WL 2884868, at *5*6
(S.D. Ind. June 25, 2014); Wolf v. Walker, 986 F. Supp. 2d 982, 98991(W.D. Wis. 2014); Whitewood, 992 F.
Supp. 2d at 41920; Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1133 n.1 (D. Or. 2014); Latta v. Otter, No.
1:13-CV-00482-CWD, 2014 WL 1909999, at *7*9 (D. Idaho May 13, 2014); Tanco v. Haslam, No. 3:13-CV01159, 2014 WL 997525 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 14, 2014); Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456, 46970 (E.D. Va.
2014); Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1252, 1277 (N.D. Okla. 2014); Kitchen v.
Herbert, 755 F.3d 1173, 120408 (10th Cir. 2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1195 (D. Utah
2013); Wright v. State of Ark., No. 60-CV-13-2662, 2014 WL 1908815, at *6 (Ark. Cir. Ct. May 9, 2014);
Huntsman v. Heavilin, No. 2014-CA-305-K, at *4 (Fla Cir. Ct. July 17, 2014); Pareto v. Ruvin, No. 14-1661
CA 24, at *10 (Fla. Cir. Ct. July 25, 2014); Barrier v. Vasterling, No. 1416-CV-03892, at *11 (Mo. Cir. Ct.
Oct. 3, 2014). But see DeBoer v. Snyder, 2014 WL 5748990, at *5*7; Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, No. 14cv-1253, 2014 WL 5361987, at *4*10 (D.P.R. Oct. 21, 2014).

Case 3:14-cv-00818-CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 11/10/14 Page 4 of 10

[t]he Supreme Courts willingness to decide Windsor without mentioning Baker speak volumes
regarding whether Baker remains good law. Lawson v. Kelly, No. 14-0622, slip op. 7 (W.D.
Mo. Nov. 7, 2014) (citing Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d at 374 (4th Cir. 2014)).2
II.

Neither Federalism nor Democratic Means Can Justify Mississippis Overt

Discrimination Against Gay People
Nor do principles of federalism permit Defendants to deprive gay and lesbian

Mississippians of equal protection or due process of law. One might think Windsor was a case
about federalism. However, the majority [in Windsor] said it is unnecessary to decide whether
this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the
federal balance, and couched the violation in terms of the Fifth Amendment. Therefore,
according to the majority, Windsor is not a case about federalism. Lawson, slip op. at 4 n.2
(citing Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2690).
Justice Kennedy made this point explicitly in Windsor when he stated three times that
while the definition and regulation of marriage has . . . been treated as being within the
authority and realm of the separate States . . . [s]tate laws defining and regulating marriage, of
course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 269091
(emphasis added). See also id. at 2692 (The States interest in defining and regulating the
marital relation [is] subject to constitutional guarantees.) (emphasis added); id. (DOMA
rejects the long-established precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage are
uniform for all married couples within each State, though they may vary, subject to
constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next.) (emphasis added). Indeed, in his dissent,

Contrary to the suggestion in footnote 1 of the Defendants brief, it is absolutely clear that a summary
disposition cannot be cited as endorsing the rationale of the decision below. See Wis. Dept of Revenue v.
William Wrigley Jr., Co., 505 U.S. 214, 225 n.2 (1992) (In any event, our summary disposition affirmed only
the judgment below, and cannot be taken as adopting the reasoning of the lower court. (emphasis in original));
see also Montana v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 523 U.S. 696, 715 n.14 (1998).

Case 3:14-cv-00818-CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 11/10/14 Page 5 of 10

Justice Scalia noted that the Windsor majority formally disclaimed reliance upon principles of
federalism. Id. at 2705 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
For these reasons, courts have held that the Supreme Courts decision in Windsor does
not support upholding the constitutionality of state marriage bans. Windsor does not teach us
that federalism principles can justify depriving individuals of their constitutional rights; it
reiterates Lovings admonition that the states must exercise their authority without trampling
constitutional guarantees. Bostic, 760 F.3d at 379. See also Latta v. Otter, No. 12-17668, 2014
WL 4977682, at *9 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193, 1207 (10th Cir.
2014); Marie, 2014 WL 5598128, at *10.
III.

Caution/Wait and See is Not a Legitimate Justification Even Under Rational

Basis
While Defendants argue that gay marriage bans pass rational basis review on the ground

that a state might wish to exercise caution or wait and see before changing a norm . . .
accepted for centuries, DeBoer, 2014 WL 5748990, at *11, indulging an aversion to or fear of
change at the expense of depriving individuals of constitutionally-guaranteed rights is not a
legitimate governmental objective.3 Judge Sutton, referring to the fact that marriage for gay
people has been legal in Massachusetts since 2003, asserted that: [e]leven years later, the clock
has not run on assessing the benefits and burdens of expanding the definition of marriage. Id.
But under Judge Suttons logic, when would the clock have run? In 2053, after 50 years? In
2103, after a century?4 Such a wait and see approach fails to recognize the role of courts in

Indeed, Mississippi law is hardly the product of a wait and see approach. By enshrining discrimination in the
State constitution, Section 263A fixed the status quo in stone, requiring another statewide referendum in order
to change it.
In fact, although marriage between gay couples has been authorized for a decade in Massachusetts, there have
been no adverse impacts on divorce rates or other metrics of the stability of marriage. See, e.g., Nate Silver,
Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans, FiveThirtyEight (Jan. 12, 2010, 9:12 AM),
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states/ (citing government data and noting that
divorce rates in Massachusetts went down by 21 percent after the state legalized gay marriage).

Case 3:14-cv-00818-CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 11/10/14 Page 6 of 10

the democratic process. . . . Judges may not simultaneously find a right violated yet defer to an
uncertain future remedy voluntarily undertaken by the violators. McGee v. Cole, 13 Civ.
24068, slip op. 17 n.5 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 7, 2014).5
Judge Posner, quoting Justice Alitos dissent in Windsor, characterized this type of
argument as follows: at present, no oneincluding social scientists, philosophers, and
historianscan predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread
acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. Baskin, 766 F.3d at 669 (quoting Windsor, 133 S.
Ct. at 2716 (Alito, J., dissenting)). Judge Posner, however, then explained the problem with this
with this line of reasoning: What follows, if prediction is impossible? . . . [W]hile many
heterosexuals (though in America a rapidly diminishing number) disapprove of same-sex
marriage, there is no way they are going to be hurt by it in a way that the law would take
cognizance of. . . . Many people strongly disapproved of interracial marriage, and, more to the
point, many people strongly disapproved (and still strongly disapprove) of homosexual sex, yet
Loving v. Virginia invalidated state laws banning interracial marriage, and Lawrence v. Texas
invalidated state laws banning homosexual sex acts. Id. at 66970.
Thus, at its essence, any such appeal to wait and see or go slow is really most likely
the result of an instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in
some respects from ourselves. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356,

If Judge Suttons view that courts are bound by the original meaning of the drafters of the Fourteenth
Amendment, DeBoer, 2014 WL 5748990, at *8*9, were correct, segregation in public facilities would still be
constitutional since there is no question that that was the common practice and understanding when the
Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Professor Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School has made this point:
Imagine that you were the federal judge deciding on the lawfulness of segregation in the school boards of
Topeka, Kansas, in 1951, before the case that became Brown v. Board of Education reached the Supreme Court.
According to [Judge] Sutton, youd have to decide for the school board and uphold segregation, which had been
deemed constitutional since Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. But that cant be right. By 1951, it had become clear
that a constitution that recognizes separate but equal would be a constitution hardly worth following at all.
Noah Feldman, Gay Marriage Ruling is Conservative, and Wrong, BloombergView (Nov. 6, 2014, 7:42 PM),
http://www.bloombergview.com /articles/ 2014-11-06/gay-marriage-ruling-is-conservative-and-wrong.

Case 3:14-cv-00818-CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 11/10/14 Page 7 of 10

374 (2001) (Kennedy, J., concurring). After all, this very same go slow argument was made in
the past against extending rights to African-Americans, among others. See, e.g., Watson v. City
of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526, 53536 (1963). But an instinctive mechanism to guard against
people who appear to be different can never be a legitimate governmental objective. See
Romer, 517 U.S. at 634 ([I]f the constitutional conception of equal protection of the laws
means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically
unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest. (citation omitted,
emphasis in original)). Minorities trampled on by the democratic process have recourse to the
courts; the recourse is called constitutional law. Baskin 766 F.3d at 671.
IV.

Encouraging Biological Parents Is Not Connected to Discriminating Against Gay

People in Marriage
Finally, in response to the Defendants and Sixth Circuits assertion that states have an

interest in regulat[ing] sex, most especially the intended and unintended effects of male-female
intercourse, DeBoer, 2014 WL 5748990, at *9, Judge Posner observed that: the only rationale
that the states put forth with any convictionthat same-sex couples and their children dont need
marriage because same-sex couples cant produce children, intended or unintendedis so full of
holes that it cannot be taken seriously. Baskin, 766 F.3d at 656 (emphases in original).
Indeed, this argument cannot withstand analysis because the remedythe right to marry
only for straight couplesapplies to vast numbers of people for whom no such incentive is
needed or even relevant. They include the old, the infertile, and those who have no intention of
having children, all of whom may marry under Mississippi law. Same-sex couples are not the
only category of couples who cannot reproduce accidentally. For example, opposite-sex couples
cannot procreate unintentionally if they include a post-menopausal woman or an individual with
a medical condition that prevents unassisted conception. Bostic, 760 F.3d at 381. If Mississippi

Case 3:14-cv-00818-CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 11/10/14 Page 8 of 10

really wants to increase the percentage of children being raised by their two biological parents,
they might do better to ban assisted reproduction using donor sperm or eggs, gestational
surrogacy, and adoption, by both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, as well as by single
people. Latta, 2014 WL 4977682 at *7. And, as discussed in our moving brief, marriage in
Mississippi confers a wide range of benefits that have absolutely nothing to do with procreation
or children, including filing joint tax returns, hospital visitation, and inheritance, among many
others.
*

This case is not a legal dispute over social policy (Opp. Br. at 1) or a debate about
whether to allow the democratic processes begun in the States to continue . . . or to end them
now. DeBoer, 2014 WL 5748990, at *1. Rather, it is about the lives of real people like
Plaintiffs who work hard at their jobs, pay their taxes, and raise their kids. As Judge Daughtrey,
the dissenting judge in the Sixth Circuit explained last week: Instead of recognizing the
plaintiffs as persons, suffering actual harm as a result of being denied the right to marry . . . , my
colleagues view the plaintiffs as social activists who have somehow stumbled into federal court,
inadvisably, when they should be out campaigning to win the hearts and minds of . . .
voters. . . . But these plaintiffs are not political zealots trying to push reform on their fellow
citizens; they are committed same-sex couples . . . who want to achieve equal status . . . with
their married neighbors, friends, and coworkers, to be accepted as contributing members of their
social and religious communities, and to be welcomed as fully legitimate parents at their
childrens schools. Id. at *27.

Case 3:14-cv-00818-CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 11/10/14 Page 9 of 10

Dated: November 10, 2014

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
WHARTON & GARRISON LLP

MCDUFF & BYRD

By: /s/ Roberta A. Kaplan

Roberta A. Kaplan*
Lead Counsel
Andrew J. Ehrlich*
Jaren Janghorbani*
Joshua D. Kaye*
Warren Stramiello*
Jacob H. Hupart*
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Tel: (212) 373-3000
Fax: (212) 757-3990
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

By: /s/ Robert B. McDuff

Robert B. McDuff
Bar No. 2532
Sibyl C. Byrd
Bar No. 100601
Jacob W. Howard
Bar No 103256
767 North Congress Street
Jackson, Mississippi 39202
Tel: (601) 969-0802
Fax: (601) 969-0804
[email protected]
[email protected]
SILIN & ELLIS
Rita Nahlik Silin
Bar No. 102662
Dianne Herman Ellis
Bar No. 102893
1161 Robinson Avenue
Ocean Springs, Mississippi 39564
Tel: (228) 215-0037
Fax: (228) 284-1889
[email protected]
[email protected]

WALTON LAW OFFICE

Diane E. Walton*
168 S. Liberty Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Tel: (828) 255-1963
Fax: (828) 255-1968
[email protected]
*Admitted pro hac vice
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Campaign for
Southern Equality, Rebecca Bickett,
Andrea Sanders, Jocelyn Pritchett and
Carla Webb

Case 3:14-cv-00818-CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 11/10/14 Page 10 of 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on November 10, 2014, I electronically transmitted the above and
foregoing document to the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system for filing

By: /s/ Roberta A. Kaplan

Roberta A. Kaplan
Admitted pro hac vice
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Tel: (212) 373-3000
Fax: (212) 757-3990
[email protected]