Connolly et al v. Brewer et al
Filing
88
ORDER AND OPINION granting 47 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. This court hereby declares Article 30, Section 1, of the Arizona Constitution; A.R.S § 25-101 and A.R.S. § 25-125(A) unconstitutional by virtue of the fact tha t they deny same-sex couples the equal protection of the law. It is further ordered that defendants are hereby ordered to permanently cease enforcement of those provisions of Arizona law declared unconstitutional by this order. Finally, this court declines to stay the effect of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 58 Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 10/16/14.(LSP)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
Joseph Connolly, et al.,
11
12
Plaintiffs,
vs.
13
14
15
Michael K. Jeanes, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:14-cv-00024 JWS
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re: Motions at dockets 47 and 58]
16
17
18
I. MOTIONS PRESENTED
At docket 47 plaintiffs move for summary judgment. Defendants respond at
19
docket 59. Plaintiffs’ reply is at docket 70. Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief is at docket 86.
20
Defendants move for summary judgment at docket 58. Plaintiffs’ respond at docket 70.
21
Defendants’ reply is at docket 80. Defendants’ supplemental brief is at docket 87. Oral
22
argument has not been requested by either side and, particularly in light of recent
23
24
25
26
27
28
developments in the law of the Ninth Circuit, would not be of assistance to the court.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are same-sex couples who either were married in another jurisdiction
and seek to have Arizona recognize their marriages or are same-sex couples who wish
1
2
3
to wed in Arizona. Certain provisions of Arizona law make it impossible for either group
of plaintiffs to achieve their goal. They are Article 30, Section 1, of the Arizona
Constitution which states that only a marriage between one man and one woman is
4
5
valid and recognizable in Arizona; A.R.S. § 25-101(C) which provides that same-sex
6
marriage is prohibited in Arizona; and A.R.S. § 25-125(A) which defines marriage as
7
between a male and female person (collectively “the challenged laws”). Plaintiffs ask
8
the court to declare that the challenged laws deny them equal protection of the law and
9
therefore are invalid under the United States Constitution. They also ask the court to
10
permanently enjoin the enforcement of the challenged laws. Defendants deny that the
11
12
laws violate the United States Constitution.
III. DISCUSSION
13
14
When the pending motions were filed, their resolution would have required this
15
court to produce a lengthy and detailed opinion. However, in the interim, the Court of
16
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that substantially identical provisions of
17
18
19
Nevada and Idaho law that prohibit same-sex marriages are invalid because they deny
same-sex couples equal protection of the law, the right to which is guaranteed by the
20
Constitution of the United States. 1 This court is bound by the precedent set by the
21
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.2 For that reason, the plaintiffs are entitled to a
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Latta v. Otter,
(9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014).
F.3d
, Nos. 14-35420, 14-35421, and 12-17668, 2014 WL 4977682
2
See Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1171 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Circuit law . . . binds all
courts within a particular circuit, including the court of appeals itself. Thus, the first panel to
consider an issue sets the law not only for all the inferior courts in the circuit, but also future
panels of the court of appeals.”) (citation omitted).
-2-
1
2
3
declaration that the challenged laws are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction
prohibiting their enforcement.
The court has considered whether to stay this decision to allow defendants to
4
5
appeal. It is clear, however, that an appeal to the Ninth Circuit would be futile. It is also
6
clear—based on the Supreme Court’s denial of petitions for writs of certiorari filed in
7
connection with several circuit court decisions which held that same-sex marriage must
8
be recognized in Indiana, 3 Oklahoma,4 Utah,5 Virginia,6 and Wisconsin7—that the High
9
Court will turn a deaf ear on any request for relief from the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
10
IV. CONCLUSION
11
12
For the reasons given in the preceding section of this order, plaintiffs’ motion for
13
summary judgment at docket 47 is granted as follows: this court hereby declares
14
Article 30, Section 1, of the Arizona Constitution; A.R.S § 25-101© and A.R.S. § 25-
15
125(A) unconstitutional by virtue of the fact that they deny same-sex couples the equal
16
protection of the law. It is further ordered that defendants are hereby ordered to
17
18
19
20
21
3
22
Bogan v. Baskin, No. 14-277, 2014 WL 4425162 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014).
4
23
24
25
26
27
28
Smith v. Bishop, No. 14-136, 2014 WL 3854318 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014).
5
Herbert v. Kitchen, No. 14-124, 2014 WL 3841263 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014).
6
McQuigg v. Bostic, No. 14-251, 2014 WL 4354536 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014); Rainey v.
Bostic, No. 14-153, 2014 WL 3924685 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014); Schaefer v. Bostic, No. 14-225,
2014 WL 4230092 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014).
7
Walker v. Wolf, No. 14-278, 2014 WL 4425163 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014).
-3-
1
2
3
permanently cease enforcement of those provisions of Arizona law declared
unconstitutional by this order. Finally, this court declines to stay the effect of this order.
Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
4
5
DATED this 16th day of October 2014.
6
7
8
/S/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?