Court Filings

Georgia Attorney Sam Olens Wants Gay Marriage Lawsuit Dismissed

Categories
Published
of 16
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
Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens continues to defend the state's gay marriage ban, arguing in an Oct. 22 legal filing that the fundamental right to marry shouldn't be extended to gay couples.
Transcript
  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION CHRISTOPHER INNIS * et al, * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. * 1:14-CV-01180-WSD DEBORAH ADERHOLD, et al, * * Defendants. * __________________________________________________________________ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT __________________________________________________________________ Chief Justice John Marshall famously described the role of the federal  judiciary as declaring “what the law is .”  Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) (emphasis added). But like their Complaint, Plaintiffs’ Opposition is based on speculation about where the law may be going, or where it has gone in other circuits, not what it is  today in this Circuit. And the law today – in this Circuit – precludes their claims. 1  This Court should decline the invitation to disregard binding precedent, apply the law as it is, and dismiss the Complaint. 1  Two cases presenting similar claims are now pending before the Eleventh Circuit. See    Brenner, et al. v. Sec’y of Florida Dep’t of Health, et al. , No. 14-14061 (11th Cir.); Grimsley, et al. v.   Sec’y of Florida Dep’t of Health, et al ., No. 14-14066 (11th Cir.). A ruling of the Eleventh Circuit in those cases could well be dispositive of the claims asserted here. Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 46 Filed 10/22/14 Page 1 of 16  2 I.    Baker v. Nelson  Forecloses Plaintiffs’ Claims. Plaintiffs argue that  Baker v. Nelson  is inapplicable because (1) they present different claims than those decided in  Baker  , and (2) doctrinal developments since  Baker   have rendered it no longer applicable. Both arguments fail. A.   Plaintiffs Assert the Same Claims as those Decided in  Baker . Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish  Baker   by suggesting that they have asserted two claims not decided there. Plaintiffs suggest first that  Baker was about the issuance of state marriage licenses, not the recognition of out-of-state marriages, and second, this case, unlike  Baker  , includes claims by parents seeking to marry. Plaintiffs’ attempt is unavailing.   Neither of these alleged distinctions present different issues from those decided in  Baker  . Although Plaintiffs seek to frame their claims differently, the core of each claim remains the same: does the Due Process Clause or Equal Protection Clause confer a right to marry on same-sex couples? This is the only issue they have posed in this case, and the only claims for relief they have pled. See  Am. Compl. 93-103 (asserting claim for relief under Due Process Clause for denying same-sex couples the right to marry); 104-27 (asserting claim for relief under Equal Protection Clause for denying same-sex couples the right to marry). Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 46 Filed 10/22/14 Page 2 of 16  3 And that is the issue squarely presented and decided in  Baker  . As  Baker remains binding, Plaintiffs’ claims fail. Plaintiffs’ claim about recognition of out-of-state marriages rests on their general Due Process and Equal Protection theories. They do not assert a claim under the Full Faith and Credit Clause or any other legal theory that would distinguish them from their fellow Plaintiffs who seek to be married here. Plaintiffs’ claim about parents marrying is similarly grounded. Plaintiffs Elizabeth and Krista Wurz do not assert any claim for adoption, and do not allege that they have sought to adopt jointly and been denied. See  Am. Compl. ¶¶ 34-41. Rather, they simply assert that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses grant them a right to marry. That assertion was squarely presented and rejected in  Baker  . B. Baker Remains Binding Despite Plaintiffs’ Purported “Doctrinal Developments,” and Forecloses Plaintiffs’ Claims. Plaintiffs rely on language from the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in  Bowers v.  Hardwick  , which was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court. Opp. at 15-16. 19-20. That reversal renders  Bowers  no longer binding. The Eleventh Circuit has explained in the context of the prior panel precedent rule that, “[f]or any part of a decision to be binding under the prior panel precedent rule, the decision must not have been vacated or reversed by the Supreme Court--it must have survived the Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 46 Filed 10/22/14 Page 3 of 16  4 possibility of Supreme Court review.” Gulf Power Co. v. United States , 187 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.7 (11th Cir. 1999). 2  In reversing the Eleventh Circuit, the Supreme Court explicitly noted that the Eleventh Circuit’s analysis of summary affirmance law had been challenged but declined to decide the issue. “Petitioner also submits that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the District Court was not obligated to follow our summary affirmance in [a previous case]. We need not resolve this dispute, for we prefer to give plenary consideration to the merits of this case rather than rely on our earlier action in [the previous summary affirmance].”  Bowers v. Hardwick  , 478 U.S. 186, 189 n.4 (1986). This disposition by the Supreme Court rendered the Eleventh Circuit’s statements in  Bowers  no longer controlling. Plaintiffs’ discussion of doctrinal developments 3  does not rebut the State’s argument that the Eleventh Circuit has interpreted  Romer   and  Lawrence  narrowly 2  Although the prior panel precedent rule is generally framed in terms focusing on its application to subsequent panels of the Eleventh Circuit, judges in this district have applied it to determine the extent to which a previous decision of the Eleventh Circuit is binding on district courts. See , e.g. ,  Bloodworth v. Colvin , 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60386, at *7 n.3 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 15, 2014 ); Insituform Techs., Inc. v.  AMerik Supplies, Inc. , 850 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1360 (N.D. Ga. 2012);  Jan R. Smith Constr. Co. v. DeKalb County , 18 F. Supp. 2d 1365, 1373 (N.D. Ga. 1998). 3  Plaintiffs wrongly dismiss the State’s argument that subsequent Supreme Court decisions have made clear that lower courts are to follow Supreme Court precedent until the Court informs them otherwise, regardless of lesser doctrinal developments. Opp. at 20 n.5 (arguing subsequent cases irrelevant because they were opinions on the merits, not summary dismissals). Plaintiffs note that the 10 th  Circuit also rejected this argument on that basis.  Id  . (citing Kitchen v. Herbert  , Case 1:14-cv-01180-WSD Document 46 Filed 10/22/14 Page 4 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