Fields et al v. Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives et al

Filing 120

ORDER denying House's motion 114 for stay of injunction. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 10/16/18. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRIAN FIELDS, et al.,

:
:
Plaintiffs
:
:
v.
:
:
SPEAKER OF THE PENNSYLVANIA :
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
:
et al.,
:
:
Defendants
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1764
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2018, upon consideration of the motion
(Doc. 114) for a stay of injunction filed by defendant the Pennsylvania House of
Representatives (the “House”), wherein the House asks the court to exercise its
discretion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) to stay its August 29,
2018 order (Doc. 110) enjoining the continuance and enforcement of the House’s
guest chaplain policy and pre-2017 invocation practices, and upon consideration of
the parties briefing in support of and opposition thereto, (Docs. 116, 118), and the
court observing that the factors to consider when deciding a motion for stay
pending appeal include (1) whether the movant has made a strong showing of likely
success on the merits on appeal, (2) whether—absent a stay—the movant will suffer
irreparable injury, (3) whether the other parties of interest in the proceedings will
be substantially injured by a stay, and (4) “where the public interest lies,” In re
Revel AC, Inc., 802 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481
U.S. 770, 776 (1987)), and the court further observing that the Supreme Court of the

United States finds the first two factors to be the “most critical,” Nken v. Holder,
556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009), and it appearing in the case sub judice that the first two
factors weigh heavily against granting a stay insofar as the merits of the
constitutional issues at bar have been firmly decided against the House and the
House has failed to demonstrate significant hardship—let alone irreparable injury—
when faced with an injunction, see generally Fields v. Speaker of the Pa. House of
Representatives, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2018 WL 4110560 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 29, 2018), and it
further appearing that the remaining two factors likewise favor plaintiffs’ position
inasmuch as plaintiffs would continue to suffer First Amendment injuries and the
public interest is served by the injunction, see id. at *15, it is hereby ORDERED that
the House’s motion (Doc. 114) is DENIED.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania