Majors et al v. Horne et al

Filing 88

ORDER AND OPINION granting 59 Plaintiff's 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 because they deny same-se x 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. The court declines to stay the effect of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDER denying as moot 82 Defendats' 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

Nelda Majors, et al.,

11
12

Plaintiffs,
vs.

13
14
15

Tom Horne, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:14-cv-00518 JWS
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re: Motions at dockets 59 and 82]

16
17
18

I. MOTIONS PRESENTED
At docket 59 plaintiffs move for summary judgment. Defendants respond at

19

docket 83, and plaintiffs reply at docket 85. Defendants move for summary judgment at

20

docket 82. Plaintiffs respond at docket 85, and defendants’ reply has not yet been filed.

21

Oral argument was not requested and, given recent developments in the law of the

22
Ninth Circuit, would not be of assistance to the court.
23
24
25

II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are same-sex couples who were married in another jurisdiction and

26

seek to have Arizona recognize their marriages, same-sex couples who wish to wed in

27

Arizona, and an organization that purports to represent the interests of same-sex

28

1
2
3

couples in Arizona. There are provisions of Arizona law that make it impossible for
same-sex couples to wed in Arizona and which also make it impossible for Arizona to
recognize the validity of same-sex marriages lawfully entered in other jurisdictions. The

4
5

provisions at issue are Article 30, Section 1, of the Arizona Constitution which states

6

that only a marriage between one man and one woman is valid and recognizable in

7

Arizona; A.R.S. § 25-101(C) which provides that same-sex marriage is prohibited in

8

Arizona; and A.R.S. § 25-125(A) which defines marriage as between a male and female

9

person (collectively “the challenged laws”). Plaintiffs ask the court to declare that the

10
challenged laws deny them equal protection of the law and therefore are invalid under
11
12

the United States Constitution. They also ask the court to permanently enjoin the

13

enforcement of the challenged laws. Defendants deny that the laws violate the United

14

States Constitution.

15
16

III. DISCUSSION
When the pending motions were filed the law of this circuit was not clear. Thus,

17
18
19

resolution of the motions would have required this court to write a lengthy decision.
However, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that substantially

20

identical provisions of Nevada and Idaho law that prohibit same-sex marriages are

21

invalid because they deny same-sex couples equal protection of the law, the right to

22

which is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. 1 This court is bound by

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-

1
2
3

decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.2 For that reason, plaintiffs are
entitled to a declaration that the challenged laws are unconstitutional together with a
permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of the challenged laws.

4
5

A stay of this decision to allow defendants to appeal is not warranted. It is clear

6

that an appeal to the Ninth Circuit would not succeed. It is also clear—based on the

7

Supreme Court’s denial of petitions for writs of certiorari filed in connection with several

8

circuit court decisions which held that same-sex marriage must be recognized in

9

Indiana,3 Oklahoma,4 Utah,5 Virginia,6 and Wisconsin7—that the High Court will turn a

10
deaf ear on any request for relief from the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
11
IV. CONCLUSION

12
13

For the reasons given in the preceding section of this order, plaintiffs’ motion for

14

summary judgment at docket 59 is granted as follows: this court hereby declares

15

Article 30, Section 1, of the Arizona Constitution; A.R.S § 25-101©; and A.R.S. § 25-

16

125(A) unconstitutional because they deny same-sex couples the equal protection of

17
18
19
20
21

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).
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

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.
The court declines to stay the effect of this order. Defendants’ cross-motion for

4
5
6

summary judgment is denied as moot.
DATED this 16th day of October 2014.

7
8
9

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-