Others

2:14-cv-04010 #13

Categories
Published
of 156
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 14 - Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
Transcript
    1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION  Colleen Therese Condon and ) Civil Action No.: 2:14-cv-04010- RMG Anne Nichols Bleckley, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) -v- ) )  Nimrata (Nikki) Randhawa Haley, in her ) PLAINTIFFS ’   official capacity as Governor of South ) NOTICE OF MOTION South Carolina; Alan Wilson, in his official ) AND MOTION FOR capacity as Attorney General; and Irvin G. ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT Condon, in his official capacity as Judge of ) Probate Charleston County, ) ) Defendants. ) ) COMES NOW, Plaintiffs COLLEEN CONDON and NICHOLS BLECKLEY, by and through their attorneys, and move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) and Local Civil Rule 7.03 (D.S.C.) for this Court to order summary judgment in their favor on the grounds that there is no genuine issue of material fact and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law declaring unconstitutional under the United States Constitution provisions of the South Carolina Constitution and state statutes, namely S.C. Const. Art. XVII, § 15, S.C. Code Ann. § 20-1-10 and S.C. Code Ann. § 20-1- 15 (hereinafter jointly referenced as the “marriage ban”) , and enjoining Defendants and their officers, employees, and agents from enforcing the marriage ban and any other sources of state law that preclude same-sex couples from marriage or refuse to recognize their lawful marriages. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to declare South Carolina’s marriage ban unconstitutional and to allow all same-sex couples the freedom to marry the persons they love in this state. 2:14-cv-04010-RMG Date Filed 10/22/14 Entry Number 13 Page 1 of 2    2 Respectfully submitted, LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. s/Elizabeth L. Littrell______________ Elizabeth L. Littrell (Georgia Bar  No. 454949) 730 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1070 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Phone: (404) 897-1880 Fax: (404) 897-1884  blittrell@lambdalegal.org  ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS  Admitted Pro Hac Vice Motion  By Order dated October 17, 2014     SOUTH CAROLINA EQUALITY COALITION, INC. s/Nekki Shutt_____________________   M. Malissa Burnette (Fed. I.D.  No.:1616)  Nekki Shutt (Fed. I.D. No.: 6530) CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC 1812 Lincoln Street Post Office Box 1390 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Telephone: 803-404-6900 Facsimile: 803-404-6901 mmburnette@callisontighe.com nekkishutt@callisontighe.com    s/Victoria L. Eslinger_______________   Victoria L. Eslinger (Fed. I.D. No.:738)  NEXSEN PRUET, LLC P.O. Drawer 2426 Columbia, South Carolina 29202-2426 Telephone: 803-253-8249 Facsimile: 803-253-8228 veslinger@nexsenpruet.com  2:14-cv-04010-RMG Date Filed 10/22/14 Entry Number 13 Page 2 of 2    1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION  Colleen Therese Condon and ) Civil Action No.: 2:14-cv-04010- RMG Anne Nichols Bleckley, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) -v- ) ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT   Nimrata (Nikki) Randhawa Haley, in her ) OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION  official capacity as Governor of South ) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT South Carolina; Alan Wilson, in his official ) capacity as Attorney General; and Irvin G. ) Condon, in his official capacity as Judge of ) Probate Charleston County, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Plaintiffs Colleen Condon and Nichols Bleckley submit this memorandum in support their motion for summary judgment and request that this Court declare unconstitutional under the United States Constitution provisions of the South Carolina Constitution and state statutes, namely S.C. Const. Art. XVII, § 15, S.C. Code Ann. § 20-1-10 and S.C. Code Ann. § 20-1-15 (hereinafter jointly referenced as the “marriage ban”) , and enjoin Defendants and their officers, employees, and agents from enforcing the marriage ban and any other sources of state law that  preclude same-sex couples from marriage or refuse to recognize their lawful marriages. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs bring this civil rights action to enforce the clear and unequivocal law in the Fourth Circuit that government officials must allow same-sex couples the freedom to marry: The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual’s life. Denying same -sex couples this choice  prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance. 2:14-cv-04010-RMG Date Filed 10/22/14 Entry Number 13-1 Page 1 of 16    2  Bostic v. Schaefer  , 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014), cert denied  , 2014 U.S. LEXIS 6405 (Oct. 6, 2014). NATURE OF THE CASE Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking to declare South Carolina’s marriage ban unconstitutional under the United States Constitution and to enjoin Defendants from enforcing those provisions of the State’s c onstitution and statutes which deny Plaintiffs, and all same-sex couples, the freedom to marry the persons they love. Defendants Haley and Wilson may disagree with the avalanche of federal court decisions ruling that states may not, consistent with constitutional guarantees of liberty and equal  protection, prohibit same-sex couples and their families from the privileges and protections of marriage, 1  but they may not disregard the rule of law. The legal issue is now completely settled 1   See, e.g., Latta v. Otter, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19828 (9th Cir. Oct. 15, 2014);  Baskin v.  Bogan , 766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014);  Bishop v. Smith , 760 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2014);  Kitchen v. Herbert  , 755 F.3d 1193, 1206 (10th Cir. 2014);  Bostic v. Schaefer  , 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014);  Bishop v. U.S. ex rel. Holder  , 962 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (N.D. Okla. 2014);  Baskin v. Bogan ,  No. 1:14-CV-00355-RLY, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86114 (S.D. Ind. June 25, 2014);  Bostic v.  Rainey , 970 F. Supp. 2d 456 (E.D. Va. 2014);  Bourke v. Beshear  , No. 3:13-CV-750-H, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17457 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2014);  Bowling v. Pence , 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114926 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 19, 2014);  Brenner v. Scott  , 999 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (N.D. Fla. 2014);  Burns v. Hickenlooper  , U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100894 (D. Colo. July 23, 2014) (granting a  preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Colorado's ban);  DeBoer v. Snyder  , 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Mich. 2014);  De Leon v. Perry , 975 F. Supp. 2d 632, 662 (W.D. Tex. 2014);  Evans v. Utah , 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69177 (D. Utah May 19, 2014) (granting a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Utah’s ban); Geiger v. Kitzhaber,  994 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Or. 2014);  Henry v. Himes , No. 1:14-CV-129, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51211 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2014);  Kitchen v. Herbert  , 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Utah 2013);  Latta v. Otter  , No. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66417 (D. Idaho May 13, 2014);  Lee v. Orr  , No. 13-CV-8719, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21620 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2014);  Love v. Beshear  , 989 F. Supp. 2d 536 (W.D. Ky. 2014); Obergefell v. Wymslo , 962 F. Supp. 2d 968 (S.D. Ohio 2013); Tanco v. Haslam , No. 3:13-CV-01159, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33463 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 14, 2014) (granting a preliminary 2:14-cv-04010-RMG Date Filed 10/22/14 Entry Number 13-1 Page 2 of 16
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