Sons of Confederate, et al v. Glendening, et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Granting 26 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 10/15/2015. (nd2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS
INC., et al.
Plaintiffs

*
*

vs.

*

LAWRENCE J. HOGAN, JR., et al.

*

Defendants
*

*

*

*

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-97-178

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On February 25, 1997, this Court – by Judge Smalkin –
issued its Order and Judgment [ECF No. 13] declaring the
Defendants' refusal to issue automobile license plates bearing
the logo of the Sons of Confederate Veterans to be violative of
the First Amendement rights of the Plaintiffs, Sons of
Confederate Veterans, Inc., its Maryland Division and its then
Lieutenant Commander in Chief.
The Court now has before it the Motion to Vacate Judgment
and Dissolve Injunction [ECF No. 26] filed by Defendants on July
17, 2015.

In brief, Defendants contend that the Supreme Court

decision in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate
Veterans, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2239 (2015) requires
the Court to grant the motion.
The Court was unable to locate counsel of record for
Plaintiffs and was informed that the American Civil Liberties

1

Union of the Capital Area, that had participated in the
litigation, no longer wishes to participate.

By letter of

August 27, attached hereto as Exhibit A, the Court wrote to
Plaintiff Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. and the Rutherford
Institute (an organization with which Plaintiffs' counsel had
been associated).

The Court asked the Sons of Confederate

Veterans to either consent to the motion or obtain counsel to
oppose the motion.

On September 23, Plaintiff Sons of

Confederate Veterans, Maryland Division, by its current
Commander, filed a Motion for Continuance [ECF No. 28] that was
granted [ECF No. 29], extending the due date for response to
October 9.

However, as of this writing, no plaintiff has

consented to the said motion or had counsel enter an appearance
to oppose the motion.
The Court finds the instant motion to be unopposed and sees
no reason for its denial.

However, in order to insure that the

absence of any opposition to the motion is not due to any
misunderstanding on the part of presently unrepresented
plaintiffs, the Court temporarily will defer the effect of its
action.

Should any plaintiff contend that there is a reasonable

basis for an opposition to the motion, that Plaintiff must file
a motion for reconsideration prior to November 17, 2015.

2

Accordingly:
1.

The Motion To Vacate Judgment and Dissolve Injunction
[ECF No. 26] filed by Defendants is GRANTED.

2.

The Court is issuing herewith an Order vacating the
judgment and dissolving the injunction heretofore
issued herein, effective November 17, 2015.

SO ORDERED, on Thursday, October 15, 2015.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge

3