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)

Download PDF
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?