Valeria Tanco, et al v. William Haslam, et al

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed granting motion stay district court order [5058016-2] filed by Ms. Martha A. Campbell., decision not for publication. This case shall be assigned to a merits panel without delay. Ralph B. Guy , Jr., Circuit Judge; Eric L. Clay, Circuit Judge and William O. Bertelsman, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Case: 14-5297

Document: 29-1

Filed: 04/25/2014

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
No. 14-5297

FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Apr 25, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

VALERIA TANCO, et al.,
Plaintiff-Appellees,
v.
WILLIAM HASLAM, et al.,

ORDER

Defendants-Appellants.

BEFORE:

GUY and CLAY, Circuit Judges; BERTLESMAN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM. This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to stay the district
court’s order preliminarily enjoining the enforcement of Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-113
and Article XI, § 18 of the Tennessee Constitution, which prohibit the recognition in Tennessee
of marriages legally consummated by same-sex couples in other states, against the six named
plaintiffs in this action. The district court denied Defendants’ previous motion for a stay pending
the outcome of their appeal, finding that “all four factors weigh against a stay and in favor of
continuing enforcement of the Preliminary Injunction.” Jesty v. Haslam, No. 3:13-CV-01159,
2014 WL 1117069, at *5 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 20, 2014). For the reasons that follow, we find that a
stay of the district court’s order pending consideration of this matter by a merits panel of this
Court is warranted, and that this case should be assigned to a merits panel without delay.



The Honorable William O. Bertelsman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky,
sitting by designation.

Case: 14-5297

Document: 29-1

Filed: 04/25/2014

Page: 2

No. 14-5297
In deciding whether to issue a stay, the Court balances four factors: 1) whether the
moving party “has a strong or substantial likelihood of success on the merits”; (2) whether the
moving party “will suffer irreparable harm” if the order is not stayed; (3) whether issuing a stay
“will substantially injure other interested parties”; and (4) “where the public interest lies.” Baker
v. Adams Cnty./Ohio Valley School Bd., 310 F.3d 927, 928 (6th Cir. 2002). Because the law in
this area is so unsettled, in our judgment the public interest and the interests of the parties would
be best served by this Court imposing a stay on the district court’s order until this case is
reviewed on appeal. As Judge Black observed in granting a stay of injunction pending appeal for
Henry v. Himes, No. 1:14-CV-129, 2014 WL 1512541, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 16, 2014):
[R]ecognition of same-sex marriages is a hotly contested issue in
the contemporary legal landscape, and, if [the state’s] appeal is
ultimately successful, the absence of a stay as to [the district
court’s] ruling of facial unconstitutionality is likely to lead to
confusion, potential inequity, and high costs. These considerations
lead the Court to conclude that the public interest would best be
served by granting of a stay. Premature celebration and confusion
do not serve anyone’s best interests. The federal appeals courts
need to rule, as does the United States Supreme Court.
In the present case, as in Henry, we find that the public interest requires granting a stay
and transferring this case to a merits panel for expedited consideration––so that the merits panel
can assess whether a stay should remain in effect, and address the substantive issues in this case.
Defendants’ motion to stay the district court’s order is GRANTED, and this case shall be
assigned to a merits panel without delay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk
2