Burns et al v. Hickenlooper et al

Filing 63

ORDER granting 62 Defendants Joint, Unopposed Motion to Make Preliminary Injunction Permanent; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant John W. Hickenlooper, Jr., in hi s official capacity as Governor of Colorado; John Suthers, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Colorado; and Pam Anderson, in her official capacity as Clerk and Recorder for Jefferson County; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs a re awarded costs and shall within 14 days of the date of this Order file a bill of costs, in accordance with the procedures under Fed.R.Civ.P.54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1, which shall be taxed by the Clerk of Court. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 10/17/2014.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01817-RM-KLM
CATHERINE BURNS;
SHEILA SCHROEDER;
MARK THRUN;
GEOFFREY BATEMAN;
RACHEL CATT;
CASSIE RUBALD;
BREANNA ALEXANDER;
STACY PARRISH;
ANGELA CRANMORE;
JULIANNE DELOY;
KAREN COLLIER; and
DENISE LORD;
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, JR., in his official capacity as Governor of Colorado;
JOHN SUTHERS, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Colorado; and
PAM ANDERSON, in her official capacity as Clerk and Recorder for Jefferson County,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
THIS MATTER is before the Court on “Defendants’ Joint, Unopposed Motion to Make
Preliminary Injunction Permanent” (“Joint Motion”) (ECF No. 62), requesting that the
preliminary injunction issued on July 23, 2014, be made permanent and a final judgment be
entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54. Upon consideration of the Joint Motion, and being otherwise
fully advised, Defendants’ Joint Motion is GRANTED for the reasons stated herein.

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 1, 2014, Plaintiffs, same-sex couples, filed a Complaint for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief seeking to declare certain laws banning same-sex marriage as unconstitutional
under the United States Constitution, and to enjoin Defendants from enforcing those laws.
Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”) that same day. By Order
(“Order”) dated July 23, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion and enjoined Defendants
from enforcing or applying Article II, Section 31 of the Colorado Constitution and C.R.S. §§ 142-104(1)(b) and 14-2-104(2) (collectively, the “Challenged Laws”) as a basis to deny marriage to
same-sex couples or to deny recognition of otherwise valid same-sex marriages entered in other
states.
Defendant Attorney General appealed the Order and obtained from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit a stay (“Stay”) of the Order pending final resolution of
Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014) and Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir.
2014), cases which held that same-sex marriage bans do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
On October 6, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review of Kitchen and
Bishop. Thereafter, upon motion filed by the parties, the Tenth Circuit dissolved the Stay,
dismissed the appeal of the Order, and issued the mandate. Defendants’ Joint Motion is now
before the Court, which represents that the issuance of a permanent injunction will resolve all of
Plaintiffs’ claims for relief in this case.
II.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

“To obtain a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must show: ‘(1) actual success on the
merits; (2) irreparable harm unless the injunction is issued; (3) the threatened injury outweighs
2

the harm that the injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) the injunction, if issued, will
not adversely affect the public interest.’” Kitchen, 755 F.3d at 1208 (quoting Sw. Stainless, LP v.
Sappington, 582 F.3d 1176, 1191 (10th Cir. 2009)). By Defendants’ unopposed Joint Motion, all
parties agree that these four factors are met. In light of Kitchen and Bishop, and for the reasons
stated in the Order, the Court agrees. The Court finds and concludes: (1) Colorado’s Challenged
Laws impermissibly violate Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry under the Due Process and
Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution; (2) Plaintiffs suffered – and will
continue to suffer – irreparable harm in the form of violations of their constitutional right unless
the injunction is issued 1; (3) the balance of equities tip strongly in favor of Plaintiffs as their
actual and threatened injury outweigh any harm 2 that the injunction may cause Defendants; and
(4) the public interest will not be adversely affected by the injunction because the preservation of
constitutional rights serves everyone’s interest.
III.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, all claims in this case have been resolved. It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ Joint, Unopposed Motion to Make Preliminary Injunction
Permanent (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED. In accordance therewith, Defendants, their officers,
agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons who are in active concert or
participation with them, are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing or applying Article
II, Section 31 of the Colorado Constitution and C.R.S. §§ 14-2-104(1)(b) and 14-2-104(2) as a

1

Notwithstanding the Defendant Attorney General’s dismissal of the appeal of the Order and of pending appeals in
similar proceedings, this injunction is necessary in order to permanently secure the protection of the constitutional
right at issue.
2
In light of Defendants’ position, it appears they will suffer no harm.

3