PAUL HARD, spouse and next best friend of CHARLES DAVID FANCHER, deceased;
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT BENTLEY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Alabama; LUTHER JOHNSON STRANGE, III in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Alabama; PAT FANCHER
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-922-WKW
PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO GOVERNOR BENTLEYS MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE BASIS THAT HE PURPORTEDLY HAS NO AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH ALABAMAS MARRIAGE RESTRICTIONS
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53 Filed 08/04/14 Page 1 of 13 2
A. Introduction Governor Bentley asks to be dismissed from this litigation because, he now says, [h]e has no direct enforcement responsibilities with respect to Alabamas marital and domestic relations laws. See Motion to Dismiss the Claims Against Governor Bentley (Dkt. No. 48) (Motion to Dismiss) at 3. This is a surprising basis for a dismissal motion. For the last four years, Governor Bentley has publicly and emphatically stated precisely the opposite: that he does have the authority and will exercise that authority to enforce Alabamas marriage restrictions. He recently confirmed this fact in this litigation by admitting without qualification Plaintiffs factual allegation that [b]y virtue of his position, Governor Bentley maintains, and has exercised, enforcement authority in connection with the Sanctity Laws. See Complaint (Dkt. No.1) 16; see also Answer of Governor Bentley and Attorney General Strange (Dkt. No. 18) 16 (Answer). Plaintiffs allegation that Governor Bentley has maintained and exercised enforcement authority in connection with the marriage restrictions (including through an attempt to prevent same-sex spouses of members of the Alabama National Guard from accessing benefits to which they were entitled under federal law) taken together with the Governors unqualified admission of that allegation, make dismissal improper. The pleadings, at the very least, make plausible the proposition that Plaintiff will be able to prove his claims against Governor Bentley and that the Governor will be unable to establish Eleventh Amendment immunity. Cf. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 682 (2009) (examining whether allegations in a complaint made a particular element of claim sufficiently plausible). But Governor Bentley also relies upon matters outside the pleadings in order to put his own spin on Plaintiffs allegations. See Motion to Dismiss at 4 n.1 (citing news reports outside the Complaint to assert that one of Plaintiffs allegations is flatly contradicted by other news Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 13 3
reports). At the very least, Defendants evidence, along with the evidence that Plaintiff submits here, including a still-operative Executive Order precluding the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, creates a factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of Governor Bentleys actual enforcement authority and conduct in connection with those marriage restrictions. Especially in light of the fact that Governor Bentley initially admitted that he has the authority necessary to permit him to be named in this case, fairness demands that if the Court is at all inclined to agree with Governor Bentleys new-found argument, Governor Bentley ought to be required before invoking Eleventh Amendment immunity to respond to discovery, including by deposition, to explain the inconsistencies between his prior statements and conduct and his current litigation position. B. Plaintiff Named Governor Bentley Because the Governor Repeatedly Has Asserted That He Has the Authority and Obligation To Enforce Alabamas Marriage Restrictions
Governor Bentley incorrectly asserts that Plaintiff cites only to the Governors supreme executive power as the basis for his inclusion in this litigation. That is flat wrong. Plaintiff filed his Complaint knowing full well that Governor Bentley, to be named as a defendant, must, by virtue of his office, have some connection with the enforcement of the allegedly unconstitutional [provision]. See C.M. ex rel Marshall v. Bentley, Case No. 2:13 CV591WKW, 2014 WL 1378432 (M.D. Ala. April 8, 2014) (Watkins, C.J.) (quoting Luckey v. Harris, 860 F.2d 1012, 1015 (11th Cir. 1988) (quoting Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 157 (1908)). That is why Plaintiff decidedly did not rely only on the fact that the Governor holds supreme executive power. Rather, Plaintiff also alleged that, [b]y virtue of his position, Governor Bentley maintains and has exercised, enforcement authority in connection with the Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53 Filed 08/04/14 Page 3 of 13 4
Sanctity Laws. See Compl. 16; cf. Luckey, 860 F.2d at 115 (state official subject to suit if responsible for enforcing or implementing the challenged law). Plaintiff had good reason to make (and Governor Bentley had good reason to admit) the factual allegation that the Governor maintains and has exercised enforcement authority. In the four years since running for office in 2010, Governor Bentley has repeatedly and expressly represented to the people of Alabama that, as Governor, he has the formal authority to enforce Alabamas law and constitutional provision prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriage, and that he will exercise that authority. His 2010 campaign website announced: I will ensure that Alabama does not follow the trend of allowing gay marriages or civil unions, and I will protect our states right to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
See Declaration of David C. Dinielli in Opposition to Governor Bentleys Motion to Dismiss (Dinielli Decl.) Ex. A (Robert Bentley for Governor 2010 Family and Social Values) (emphasis added). More recently, on the very day this lawsuit was announced, Governor Bentley publicly confirmed his intent to continue to use his power as Governor to resist marriage equality and enforce Alabamas marriage restrictions: Governor Bentley will fight the merits of this lawsuit, [his spokesperson] said. Like most Alabamians, the Governor strongly believes in the traditional definition of marriage, as being between a man and a woman. He will work everyday [sic] to continue to protect the sanctity of marriage in Alabama.
See Dinielli Decl. Ex. B (Alabama Man Files Federal Lawsuit Seeking Recognition of Same- Sex Marriage Performed in Massachusetts (February 12, 2014)) (emphasis added). Governor Bentley has made clear that his intention to enforce the marriage restrictions flows not from some personal predilection or set of personal beliefs, but rather from his official Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53 Filed 08/04/14 Page 4 of 13 5
obligations as Governor. He is reported in May of this year to have stated, in connection with the marriage restrictions: I have to defend the constitution, Bentley said. . . . I am the executive for the state and I have to defend the laws of the state. . . . Whatever the people vote on, I support. I believe in the peoples right to vote and this is how they feel, so I support the people.
See Dinielli Decl. Ex. C (Gov. on AL Gay Marriage Ban: This Is How the People Feel (May 21, 2014)) (emphasis added). When a separate case challenging Alabamas marriage restrictions was filed in the Northern District of Alabama, Governor Bentley doubled down: It [the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage] law was voted on 81 percent by the people of the state, Bentley said. So whatever the laws are I have to execute.
See Dinielli Decl. Ex. D (Marriage Says We Are Family: Birmingham Women Fight to Force Alabama to Recognize Their Massachusetts Marriage (June 10, 2014)) (emphasis added). Indeed, Governor Bentley apparently believes that the obligation to enforce the marriage restrictions is a central part of his job: I personally believe in marriage between a man and a woman, Bentley says. I dont know what will happen as far as judges are concerned but whatever the laws are, my job is to uphold those laws.
See Dinielli Decl. Ex. E (How Do Robert Bentley and Parker Griffith Compare? (May 22, 2014)) (emphasis added). C. Governor Bentley Has Taken at Least One Affirmative Act To Enforce Alabamas Marriage Restrictions
Governor Bentley has done more than just make pronouncements (and make a judicial admission) regarding his enforcement authority. He has taken at least one official action in his capacity as Governor in which he has attempted to exercise his authority to enforce Alabamas Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53 Filed 08/04/14 Page 5 of 13 6
marriage restrictions. Soon after the United States Supreme Court held the federal Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional in 2013, the federal government directed state national guards to extend spousal benefits to same-sex spouses. Governor Bentley initially announced that he would refuse to permit the Alabama National Guard to do so, apparently on the basis of his belief that he was obliged to enforce Alabamas Sanctity Laws. According to news reports, he announced, When theyre under my command we will obey Alabama state law. See Compl. 16. Governor Bentley (relying on matters outside the Complaint), now asserts that this allegation (which he initially admitted in his Answer) is flatly contradicted by other news reports. See Motion to Dismiss at 4 n.1 (citing news reports). These articles reflect that, despite his initial pronouncement that the Alabama National Guard would not comply with the federal directive, Governor Bentley changed his mind, and decided to permit the Alabama National Guard to extend benefits to same-sex spouses. See id. These additional articles do not contradict the assertion that Governor Bentley has exercised authority in connection with Alabamas marriage restrictions; they confirm it. First, Governor Bentley decided to use his authority to enforce Alabamas marriage restriction; then he apparently changed his mind and decided that the federal directive trumped Alabamas restrictions. These are two actions (rather than one) showing that the Governor has some connection to the unconstitutional marriage restrictions regarding who should be deemed a spouse within Alabamas borders. See Luckey, 860 F.2d at 1015 (named official must have some connection to the unconstitutional act). 1
1 Governor Bentley has not submitted a declaration explaining what he did or did not do in connection with the extension of benefits to same-sex spouses of members of the Alabama National Guard. Instead, he initially admitted the truth of a news report alleged in the Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53 Filed 08/04/14 Page 6 of 13 7
D. At Least One Prior Governor Also Took Official Action To Prevent the Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages
Governor Bentley is not the first Alabama Governor to take formal action to prevent the recognition of same-sex marriages. In August 1996, prior to the enactment of the law or constitutional amendment challenged in this case, then-Governor Fob James, Jr. signed Executive Order Number 1996-24. That Executive Order was issued in response to a then- pending Hawaii case challenging that states marriage restrictions. See Dinielli Decl. Ex. F at 1 (Executive Order). The Executive Order was premised on the assertion that the Governor . . . is given the authority and it is his duty to act to enforce the laws . . . in every portion of the State. See id. at 1. 2 Based on that authority, Governor James expressly directed Alabama probate judges and others not to issue marriage licenses to, or recognize marriages between, people of the same sex: [U]ntil all judicial processes are exhausted, or until such time as the legislature acts on the question of same-sex marriages, no license shall be issued by any probate judge or any other person . . . for the marriage of persons of the same sex . . . . A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same sex . . . shall not be recognized as a valid marriage. . . .
It shall be the responsibility of all officers and employees of all departments, agencies, boards, commissions, authorities, task forces, and divisions of the executive branch of State Government, and all political subdivisions thereof, to comply with and enforce the terms and provisions of this Executive Order.
Complaint, and then simply submitted additional news reports (which themselves are hearsay) that he argues contradict the admitted allegation. The state of the record on this point simply confirms that, if Governor Bentley wants to invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity, he should, at the least, be willing in this case to provide discovery regarding his effort to enforce the marriage restriction. See infra section D. 2 Governor Jamess Executive Order also asserted that it was justified because Gods law prohibits members of the same sex from having sexual relations with each other, see Dinielli Decl. Ex. F (Executive Order) at 2, a plainly unconstitutional justification for state action restricting a fundamental right. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), Bostick v. Schaefer, Case Nos. 141167, 141169, 141173., 2014 WL 3702493 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014). Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53 Filed 08/04/14 Page 7 of 13 8
Dinielli Decl. Ex. F (Executive Order) at 3. So by this Executive Order, then-Governor James (1) prohibited probate judges from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples; (2) declared that out-of-state same-sex marriages are to be disregarded; and (3) directed every authority and division of the executive branch to enforce the terms of the Executive Order. Despite the broad and authoritative actions taken by Governor James to prevent recognition of same-sex marriage, Governor Bentley now asserts in his motion that, in contrast to Governor James, [h]e has no direct enforcement responsibilities with respect to Alabamas marital and domestic relations laws. See Motion to Dismiss at 3. In the years since Governor Jamess term, however, there have been no relevant changes to the Governors constitutional authority or to marital and domestic relations law. Governor Bentley makes no effort to explain what has changed in the law to strip him of the authority exercised by Governor James. Nor does he explain the basis for any disagreement with former Governor James and the still- operative Executive Order regarding the extent of the Governors authority as it relates to preventing same-sex marriage. 3 If Governor James could direct probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then surely Governor Bentley can at the conclusion of this lawsuit (if Plaintiff prevails) direct that probate judges should issue licenses to same-sex couples. In this way, Governor Bentley has some connection with the subject marriage restrictions, and his motion should therefore be denied.
3 In litigation pending in the Northern District of Alabama, Governor Bentley admitted the issuance of the Executive Order, which has not been amended or modified and remains in effect today. See Aaron-Brush v. Bentley, Case No. 2:14-CV-01091-RDP (N.D. Ala. 2014) (Dkt. No. 13 (Answer 22, 23) (admitting issuance of Executive Order)). If Governor Bentley believes that this still-operative Executive Order exceeds his constitutional authority, he should withdraw it. Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53 Filed 08/04/14 Page 8 of 13 9
E. At The Least, Governor Bentley Should Provide Discovery, Including Deposition Testimony, Explaining The Inconsistencies Between His Current Litigation Assertion and His Past Conduct
As mentioned, Governor Bentley makes no effort to explain why it is that Governor James had authority to direct who should be permitted to marry and which marriages should count, but that he, contrary to the still-governing Executive Order, has no direct enforcement responsibilities with respect to Alabamas marital and domestic relations laws. See Motion to Dismiss at 3. Nor has Governor Bentley offered any admissible facts to counter the admitted allegation that he took official action to prevent the Alabama National Guard from extending benefits to same-sex spouses. Nor has he offered any justification for the inconsistency between his recent litigation position and his four-year pattern of proclaiming to the public that he will use his position as Governor to maintain Alabamas marriage restrictions. The question whether a particular official has some connection to a challenged act is fact bound, and cannot always be resolved simply by examining relevant constitutional and statutory provisions without reference to facts. Instead, courts look to the particular officials actual exercise of supervisory power to determine whether there exists the requisite nexus between the particular official and the challenged act. See, e.g., Kitchen v. Herbert, --- F.3d ---, 2014 WL 2868044, at *7 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014). Kitchen is the Tenth Circuit case holding Utahs marriage restrictions to be unconstitutional, and it came to the Tenth Circuit on appeal from a district court decision made on full record developed on cross-motions for summary judgment. See Kitchen, 2014 WL 2868044, at *3. Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53 Filed 08/04/14 Page 9 of 13 10
In evaluating the question whether plaintiffs could sue the Utah Governor, 4 the Tenth Circuit looked beyond the text of the state constitution and the challenged restrictions to the Governors actual words and deeds, noting the Governors willingness to exercise his duty to enforce that states marriage restrictions. See Kitchen, 2014 WL 2862044, at *6. The Court observed that, among other things, the Utah Governor had himself told state agencies how they should respond to the district court order holding the marriage restrictions unconstitutional. See id. at *6. The Court noted that a state official is a proper defendant if, as Governor Jamess Executive Order and Governor Bentleys words and actions make clear, the official is responsible for general supervision of the administration by the local . . . officials of a challenged provision. See id. at *7 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 282 n.14 (1986)). This is so even if state officials are not specifically empowered to ensure compliance with the statute at issue, if they clearly have assisted or currently assist in giving effect to the law. See Kitchen, 2014 WL 2868044, at *7 (quoting Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Wagnon, 476 F.3d 818, 828 (10th Cir. 2007)). This is a sensible rule; state officials should not be heard to claim they have no enforcement authority if they have shown a willingness to enforce a law or actually have taken
4 The Tenth Circuit analyzed the Eleventh Amendment question in the course of evaluating whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue the Utah Governor. Specifically, as the Kitchen court and others have explained, whether plaintiffs can meet the redressability element of the standing requirement with respect to a particular government official depends on whether, under Ex Parte Young, the official has sufficient enforcement authority and therefore can be named as a defendant. See Kitchen, 2014 WL 2868044, at *4. This is presumably why the Governor also raises a standing argument in his motion to dismiss. See Motion to Dismiss at 5. Generally speaking, however, if a government official has sufficient enforcement authority to be sued under Ex Parte Young, then a plaintiff can satisfy the redressabilty prong of a traditional standing analysis and name him as a defendant. See Kitchen, 2014 WL 2868044, at *4. Governor Bentley does not argue otherwise. See Motion to Dismiss at 5 (bases for arguing no standing are largely the same reasons as arguing for Eleventh Amendment immunity). Thus, the parties in this case appear to be in agreement that, if Governor Bentley can be named as a Defendant under Ex Parte Young, Plaintiff has standing to name him as a Defendant. Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53 Filed 08/04/14 Page 10 of 13 11
steps to do so. Plaintiff submits that the record on this motion easily supports the conclusion that Governor Bentley has expressed the requisite willingness to enforce Alabamas marriage restrictions, and actually has taken steps to do so. But if this Court believes that Governor Bentleys arguments bear weight, Plaintiff submits that, at the least, the Court should permit discovery into the scope and nature of the Governors authority, and in particular his past statements and actions suggesting that he does maintain such authority. Plaintiff is mindful that the discovery cutoff in this case is August 15, 2014. Plaintiff has not taken discovery into these issues because, until recently, there was no need to do so. Governor Bentley answered the Complaint on March 10, 2014 admitting without qualification that he maintains and has exercised sufficient enforcement authority in connection with the Sanctity Laws to make him a Defendant in this case. He then waited until July 24, 2014 just three weeks before the discovery cutoff to make his motion for dismissal. Extending the discovery period for this limited purpose would not require delay of the summary judgment briefing. Plaintiff could include evidence relevant to the question of Governor Bentleys actual authority in his response to the Defendants cross-motion for summary judgment, due to be filed on October 22, 2014. See Dkt. No. 44 (Uniform Scheduling Order) at 1. 5
But Plaintiff submits that it would be fundamentally unfair to permit the Governor, without any kind of a developed record, to invoke Eleventh Amendment Immunity despite his
5 There is a possibility that some discovery relating to Governor Bentley may need to be conducted after the August 15 cutoff in any event. The Governor and Attorney General have refused to respond to an interrogatory asking for Alabamas interests in a law requiring public schoolchildren be taught that homosexuality is not acceptable, and Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel. See Dkt. No. 46. Plaintiff also has served a deposition notice on Governor Bentley to explore the meaning of Governor Bentleys sworn interrogatory response explaining why Alabama does not permit the recognition of same-sex marriage, and the Governor has moved for a protective order. See Dkt. No. 51. The resolution of those pending motions may require that some discovery be completed after the current cutoff. Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53 Filed 08/04/14 Page 11 of 13 12
public announcements, the still-operative Executive Order, and his conduct in connection with the extension of benefits to spouses of members of the Alabama National Guard. F. Conclusion For all the foregoing reasons, Governor Bentleys Motion to Dismiss should be denied. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the Court permit discovery, including a deposition of Governor Bentley, into the nature and extent of the Governors efforts to maintain and enforce Alabamas marriage restrictions. August 4, 2014 Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
By: /s/ David C. Dinielli David C. Dinielli* (California Bar No. 177904) Samuel Wolfe (ASB-2945-E63W) 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 david.dinielli@splcenter.org sam.wolfe@splcenter.org *Admitted pro hac vice
(Attorneys for Plaintiff)
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53 Filed 08/04/14 Page 12 of 13 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 4 th day of August, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following counsel of record: David Bryson Byrne, Jr., Esq. Office of the Governor State Capitol 600 Dexter Avenue Suite NB-05 Montgomery, AL 36130
James William Davis, Esq. Laura Elizabeth Howell, Esq. State of Alabama Office of the Attorney General 501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36130
Gabriel Joseph Smith, Esq. Foundation For Moral Law 1 Dexter Avenue Opelika, AL 36103
/s/ Tonya White-Evans
Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53 Filed 08/04/14 Page 13 of 13 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 1 of 4 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 4 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 3 of 4 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-1 Filed 08/04/14 Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT A Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-2 Filed 08/04/14 Page 1 of 2 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-2 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT B Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-3 Filed 08/04/14 Page 1 of 4 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-3 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 4 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-3 Filed 08/04/14 Page 3 of 4 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-3 Filed 08/04/14 Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT C Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-4 Filed 08/04/14 Page 1 of 3 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-4 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 3 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-4 Filed 08/04/14 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT D Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-5 Filed 08/04/14 Page 1 of 5 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-5 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 5 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-5 Filed 08/04/14 Page 3 of 5 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-5 Filed 08/04/14 Page 4 of 5 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-5 Filed 08/04/14 Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT E Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-6 Filed 08/04/14 Page 1 of 4 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-6 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 4 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-6 Filed 08/04/14 Page 3 of 4 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-6 Filed 08/04/14 Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT F Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-7 Filed 08/04/14 Page 1 of 4 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-7 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 4 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-7 Filed 08/04/14 Page 3 of 4 Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 53-7 Filed 08/04/14 Page 4 of 4
Mary Becenti, As Trustee For The Testamentary Trust Known As "Randy's Laundry," and Individually v. Sheryl Vigil and Raymond Brooks, 902 F.2d 777, 10th Cir. (1990)
Remarks of Mr. Calhoun of South Carolina on the bill to prevent the interference of certain federal officers in elections: delivered in the Senate of the United States February 22, 1839