1:14-cv-00424 #67
1:14-cv-00424 #67
1:14-cv-00424 #67
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LUTHER STRANGE, in his official )
capacity as Attorney General for
)
the State of Alabama, et. al.,
)
)
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for
Enforcement of Injunction (Doc. 60), the Attorney Generals Response in
Opposition (Doc. 62), and Plaintiffs Reply (Doc. 64). This Court previously
enjoined the Attorney General and others in active concert and participation
with him from enforcing the Alabama laws prohibiting same-sex marriage
after ruling those laws are unconstitutional. (Doc. 29, p. 4).1 In light of this
injunction, Plaintiffs now move this Court to order the Attorney General to
exercise his control over litigation concerning the State of Alabamas samesex marriage laws pending in the Alabama Supreme Court. (Doc. 60, p. 1).
After careful consideration and for the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs
motion is DENIED.
This Court also addressed the constitutionality of the Alabama laws
prohibiting same-sex marriage in a companion case, Searcy v. Strange,
Southern District of Alabama Case No. 14-00208.
1
Court ruling may or may not harm Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have secured the
injunctive relief they seek pursuant to a federal court order.
In addition to procedural concerns, Plaintiffs argue state law gives the
Attorney General the authority to control all litigation concerning the
interests of the State. See Ala. Code 36-15-21. Thus the Attorney General is
authorized to dismiss the mandamus action on behalf of the state. (Doc. 60, p.
7). By failing to act, Plaintiffs say the Attorney General is allowing private
parties to stand in his shoes and speak in the name of the State as petitioner
relators when he has the authority to control the prosecution of the
mandamus. (Doc. 60, pp. 9 10). The mandamus action in the name of the
State of Alabama, Plaintiffs argue, simply seeks to accomplish what the
Attorney General is prohibited from doing directly. (Doc. 60, p. 10).
Plaintiffs, however, do not specifically show how the Attorney General
is trying to get around this Courts injunction. The Attorney General does not
appear to be in concert with the Alabama Policy Institute or the Alabama
Citizens Action Program, nor is he advising them. The Attorney General
attests he did not authorize or encourage the Petitioners to file the petition
for writ of mandamus. (Doc. 62, p. 4). Although the Attorney General
arguably could seek to control the mandamus action, Ex parte King, 59 So. 3d
21, 25 - 29 (Ala. 2010), he is not obligated to do so by this Courts orders.3
Whether the Attorney General can seize control over privately initiated
litigation on behalf of the State remains a question of Alabama law. In
contrast, it is clear the Attorney General can seize control over litigation
3