Others

2:13-cv-00922 #67

Categories
Published
of 33
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Description
Doc 67 - Plaintiff's Reply in support of summary judgment (and in opposition to summary judgment for defendant)
Transcript
  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA PAUL HARD, spouse and next best friend of CHARLES DAVID FANCHER, deceased; Plaintiff, v. ROBERT BENTLEY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Alabama; LUTHER JOHNSON STRANGE III in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Defendants, And PAT FANCHER, Intervenor-Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-922-WKW PLAINTIFF PAUL HARD’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 67 Filed 10/21/14 Page 1 of 33  i 󰁃󰁯󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁳 I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...1 II. UNDISPUTED FACTS & OBJECTIONABLE EXPERT TESTIMONY………………6 III. ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………………..8 A. This Court Is Empowered To Safeguard Plaintiff’s Fundamental Constitutional Rights……………………………………………………………………………..8 B. Alabama's Sanctity Laws Violate Plaintiff's Fundamental Rights To Marry and Remain Married……………………………………………...………………….10 C. The Sanctity Laws Violate the Equal Protection Clause by Discriminating on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Sex…………...………………………………...15 1. The Sanctity Laws Fail Under Heightened Scrutiny………………….…… 16 a. The Sanctity Laws Impermissibly Discriminate Based on Sexual Orientation……………………...…………………………….…….16 b. The Sanctity Laws Impermissibly Classify on the Basis of Sex.......18 2. The Sanctity Laws Fail Under Rational Basis Review…………………......19 a. The Sanctity Laws Do Not Further Biological Parenthood……….. 20 b. The Sanctity Laws Do Not Further Child Welfare or Familial Bonds ….......................................................................................... 21 c. No Other Justification for the Sanctity Laws Survives Rational Basis Review…………………………………………………………...…23 D. The Defendants' Briefs Reaffirm That the Sanctity Laws Violate Equal Protection Because They Are Borne of Impermissible Moral Disapproval of Lesbian and Gay People……………………...………………….……………….24 IV. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………….….26 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 67 Filed 10/21/14 Page 2 of 33   ii CASES  DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Mich. 2014) ..................................................................................... 7  Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) ............................................................................................................. 9, 10  Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014), cert. denied  , 2014 WL 4425162 (Oct. 6, 2014) ......... 8, 9, 16, 23  Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2011) ................................................................................................................. 25  Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) ................................................................................................................. 14  Bostic v. Shaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied  , 2014 WL 4230092 (Oct. 6, 2014) ................ passim Bostic, 760 F.3d at 376. In  Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) ..................................................................................................................... 12  Brenner v. Scott, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (N.D. Fla. 2014).................................................................................... 11  Burns v. Hickenlooper, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2014 WL 3634834 (D. Colo. July 23, 2014) ............................................. 12 Campbell v. Shinseki, 546 F. App’x 874 (11th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................ 6 City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) ..................................................................................................... 20, 24, 25  De Leon v. Perry, 66 (W.D. Tex. 2014) ................................................................................................................ 11  DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Mich. 2014) ..................................................................................... 2  Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973) ................................................................................................................... 5  Evans v. Utah, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2014 WL 2048343 (D. Utah May 19, 2014) ............................................. 10 Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011) ......................................................................................... 18, 19  Henry v. Himes, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2014 WL 1418395 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2014) ...................................... 2, 10  Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332 (1975) ................................................................................................................... 9  Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) ................................................................................................................. 13  J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994) ........................................................................................................... 18, 19  Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974) ................................................................................................................. 22 Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................ passim Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 67 Filed 10/21/14 Page 3 of 33   iii Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Utah 2013), aff’d  , 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014) .................. 18, 22  Latta v. Otter, __ F.3d. __, 2014 WL 4977682 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014) .......................................... 9, 16, 19, 21  Latta v. Otter, 2014 WL 1909999 (D. Idaho May 13, 2014), aff’d  , 2014 WL 4977682................................. 23  Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) .......................................................................................................... passim  Lofton v. The Secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................... 16, 17  Love v. Beshear, 989 F. Supp. 2d 536 (W.D. Ky. 2014) ..................................................................................... 18  Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) .............................................................................................................. passim  Majors v. Jeanes, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2014 WL 4541173 (D. Ariz. Sept. 12, 2014) ............................................ 11  Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) ..................................................................................................................... 23  McClain v. Metabolife International, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................. 7  Newell Rubbermaid, Inc. v. Raymond Corp., 676 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................... 7 Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d 968 (S.D. Ohio 2013) .................................................... 2 Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984) ................................................................................................................. 25 Planned Parenthood of Se. Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) ................................................................................................................. 14 Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) ................................................................................................................. 24 Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) ................................................................................................................. 18  Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 2 F. Supp. 3d 910 (E.D. La. 2014) ..................................................................................... 10, 11  Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) ............................................................................................................. 3, 15 SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................. 17, 18 Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009) ........................................................................................................... 11 Subsequently, in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) ........................................................................................................... 12, 13 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) ....................................................................................................... 12, 19, 24 United States v. Madden, 733 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................... 17 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 67 Filed 10/21/14 Page 4 of 33
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks