Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/16/14 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

PAUL HARD, spouse and next best friend of

CHARLES DAVID FANCHER, deceased;
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-922-WKW

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,
Defendants,
And
PAT FANCHER,
Intervenor-Defendant.

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF

PLAINTIFFS COMPILATION OF POST-WINDSOR MARRIAGE DECISIONS
This second notice further supplements docket 41, prepared at the request of this Court,
identifying federal court decisions addressing the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting either
same-sex marriage or recognition of out-of-state marriages issued since United States v.
Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2680 (2013). Plaintiff has previously filed two documents in
connection with docket 41. The original notice, docket 42, was filed on April 28, 2014 and
identified eleven relevant cases. The first supplemental notice, docket 45, was filed on July 16,
2014 and identified eight additional relevant cases. This second supplemental notice identifies
twenty-three more relevant cases. Two of these cases, Connolly v. Jeanes, No. 2:14-CV-00024
JWS, 2014 WL 5320642 (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2014), and Majors v. Horne, No. 2:14-CV-00518

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/16/14 Page 2 of 17

JWS, 2014 WL 5286743 (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2014), are companion cases containing identical
language and appear as one numbered item in the list below. Another of the twenty-three
relevant cases, Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2014), is a companion case to Kitchen
v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014), the Tenth Circuits primary opinion on marriage
equality that was included in our first supplemental notice, docket 45. We have included Bishop
v. Smith in this notice because it contains unique language that is absent from the opinion in
Kitchen v. Herbert.
In all, no fewer than forty-four federal court opinions post-Windsor, including from the
Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeals, have concluded that gay couples
are entitled to civil marriage rights under the United States Constitution.1 Three federal courts

Latta v. Otter, No. 12-17668, 2014 WL 4977682 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014); Baskin v. Bogan, 766
F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014); Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014); Bishop v. Smith, 760
F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014); Campaign for
Southern Equality v. Bryant, No. 3:14-CV-818-CWR-LRA, 2014 WL 6680570 (S.D. Miss. Nov.
25, 2014); Jernigan v. Crane, No. 4:13-CV-00410-KGB, 2014 WL 6685391 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 25,
2014); Rolando v. Fox, No. CV-14-40-GF-BMM, 2014 WL 6476196 (D. Mont. Nov. 19, 2014);
Condon v. Haley, No. CIV.A. 2:14-4010-RMG, 2014 WL 5897175 (D.S.C. Nov. 12, 2014);
Lawson v. Kelly, No. 14-0622-CV-W-ODS, 2014 WL 5810215 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 7, 2014);
McGee v. Cole, No. CIV.A. 3:13-24068, 2014 WL 5802665 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 7, 2014); Marie
v. Moser, No. 14-CV-02518-DDC/TJJ, 2014 WL 5598128 (D. Kan. Nov. 4, 2014); Connolly v.
Jeanes, No. 2:14-CV-00024 JWS, 2014 WL 5320642 (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2014); Guzzo v. Mead,
No. 14-CV-200-SWS, 2014 WL 5317797 (D. Wyo. Oct. 17, 2014); Majors v. Horne, No. 2:14CV-00518 JWS, 2014 WL 5286743 (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2014); Hamby v. Parnell, No. 3:14-CV00089-TMB, 2014 WL 5089399 (D. Alaska Oct. 12, 2014); Gen. Synod of the United Church of
Christ v. Resinger, 12 F. Supp. 3d 790 (W.D.N.C. 2014); Brenner v. Scott, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1278
(N.D. Fla. 2014); Bowling v. Pence, No. 1:14-CV-00405-RLY, 2014 WL 4104814 (S.D. Ind.
Aug. 19, 2014); Burns v. Hickenlooper, No. 14-CV-01817-RM-KLM, 2014 WL 3634834 (D.
Colo. July 23, 2014); Love v. Beshear, 989 F. Supp. 2d 536 (W.D. Ky. 2014); Baskin v. Bogan,
No: 1:14-CV-00355, 2014 WL 2884868 (S.D. Ind. June 25, 2014); Wolf v. Walker, 986 F. Supp.
2d 982 (W.D. Wis. 2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F. Supp. 2d 410 (M.D. Pa. 2014); Evans v.
Utah, No. 2:14CV55DAK, 2014 WL 2048343 (D. Utah May 19, 2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994
F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Or. 2014); Latta v. Otter, 19 F. Supp. 3d 1054 (D. Idaho 2014); Baskin v.
Bogan, 12 F. Supp. 3d 1144 (S.D. Ind. 2014); Henry v. Himes, 14 F. Supp. 3d 1036 (S.D. Ohio
2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Mich. 2014); Tanco v. Haslam, 7 F. Supp.
3d 759 (M.D. Tenn. 2014); De Leon v. Perry, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D. Tex. 2014); Lee v. Orr,
2

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/16/14 Page 3 of 17

have declined to hold state bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, DeBoer v. Snyder, No.
14-1341, 2014 WL 5748990 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014); Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, No. CIV.
14-1253 PG, 2014 WL 5361987 (D.P.R. Oct. 21, 2014); Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 2 F. Supp. 3d
910 (E.D. La. 2014), and two of these opinions concluded that Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810
(1972), restrains federal courts from finding a substantial federal question in challenges to state
laws banning same-sex marriage. DeBoer, 2014 WL 5748990, at *7; Conde-Vidal, 2014 WL
5361987, at *10.
The decisions below are listed in chronological order.
1.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals June 25, 2014 Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070.

Plaintiffs: Couples seeking to marry or have their marriages recognized in Oklahoma.

Procedural Posture: Affirming summary judgment in favor of same-sex couples.

Holding: In addition to her Baker argument, Smith also contends that children have an
interest in being raised by their biological parents. Assuming that serving this interest is
a compelling governmental goal, we nevertheless conclude that a prohibition on samesex marriage is not narrowly tailored to achieve that end. . . . Moreover, Oklahoma's ban
on same-sex marriage sweeps too broadly in that it denies a fundamental right to all
same-sex couples who seek to marry or to have their marriages recognized regardless of
their child-rearing ambitions. As with opposite-sex couples, members of same-sex
couples have a constitutional right to choose against procreation. But Oklahoma has

No. 13-CV-8719, 2014 WL 683680 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2014); Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d
456 (E.D. Va. 2014); Bourke v. Beshear, 966 F. Supp. 2d 542 (W.D. Ky. 2014); Bishop v. U.S.
ex rel. Holder, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (N.D. Okla. 2014); Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d
968 (S.D. Ohio 2013); Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Utah 2013); Gray v. Orr, 4
F. Supp. 3d 984 (N.D. Ill. 2013); Cooper-Harris v. United States, 965 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (C.D.
Cal. 2013); Cozen O'Connor, P.C. v. Tobits, No. 11-0045, 2013 WL 3878688 (E.D. Pa. July 29,
2013); Obergefell v. Kasich, No. 1:13-CV-501, 2013 WL 3814262 (S.D. Ohio July 22, 2013);
Bassett v. Snyder, 951 F. Supp. 2d 939 (E.D. Mich. 2013).
3

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/16/14 Page 4 of 17

barred all same-sex couples, regardless of whether they will adopt, bear, or otherwise
raise children, from the benefits of marriage while allowing all opposite-sex couples,
regardless of their child-rearing decisions, to marry. Such a regime falls well short of
establishing the most exact connection between justification and classification. . . . In
summary, none of the arguments presented by Smith that were unaddressed in Kitchen
persuade us to veer from our core holding that states may not, consistent with the United
States Constitution, prohibit same-sex marriages. Id. at 1080-82.

Status: Ruling is in force.

2. District of Colorado July 23, 2014 Burns v. Hickenlooper, No. 14-CV-01817-RMKLM, 2014 WL 3634834.

Plaintiffs: Six couples seeking to marry or have their marriages recognized in Colorado.

Procedural Posture: Preliminarily enjoining Colorado from enforcing a state law and state
constitutional amendment declaring that only a union between one man and one woman
may be recognized as a marriage in Colorado.

Holding: The Court agrees with the analysis in Kitchen and Bishop that marriage is a
fundamental right and that the Challenged Laws impermissibly infringe upon that right.
The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs will likely succeed in establishing that
Colorado's ban impermissibly violates Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Accordingly, this
factor favors granting an injunction. . . . Here, Plaintiffs' establishment of a violation of
their constitutional rightstheir fundamental right to marry and to have their marriages
recognizedsatisfies the irreparable harm factor. Id. at *2.

Status: Ruling is in force.

3. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals July 28, 2014 Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352.
4

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/16/14 Page 5 of 17

Plaintiffs: Couples seeking to marry or have their marriages recognized in Virginia.

Procedural Posture: Affirming summary judgment in favor of same-sex couples.

Holding: We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply

uncomfortable. However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying
same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws. Civil marriage is one of
the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare
their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy,
companionship, emotional support, and security. The choice of whether and whom to
marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual's life.
Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our
society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot
countenance. Id. at 384.

Status: Ruling is in force.

4. Southern District of Indiana August 19, 2014 Bowling v. Pence, No. 1:14-CV-00405RLY, 2014 WL 4104814.

Plaintiffs: Couples seeking to have their marriages recognized in Indiana.

Procedural Posture: Granting summary judgment in favor of same-sex couples.

Holding: The court adopts its reasoning in Baskin that Section 311111(b) violates
the Equal Protection Clause and incorporates such reasoning here. There is no rational
basis to single out one set of non-procreative couples for disparate treatment. Therefore,
as the court previously found, Section 311111(b) violates the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at *4.

Status: Ruling is in force.

5

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/16/14 Page 6 of 17

5. Northern District of Florida August 21, 2014 Brenner v. Scott, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1278.

Plaintiffs: Ten couples, a surviving spouse, and an organization asserting their rights or
the rights of their members to marry or have their marriages recognized in Florida.

Procedural Posture: Granting summary judgment in favor of same-sex couples.

Holding: This order holds that marriage is a fundamental right as that term is used in
cases arising under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses, that Florida's same-sex marriage provisions thus must be reviewed under strict
scrutiny, and that, when so reviewed, the provisions are unconstitutional. Id. at 1281-82.

Status: Ruling is stayed until January 5, 2015.

6. Eastern District of Louisiana September 3, 2014 Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 2 F. Supp. 3d

910.

Plaintiffs: Couples seeking to marry or have their marriages recognized in Louisiana.

Procedural Posture: Granting summary judgment in favor of state defendants.

Holding: The State of Louisiana has a legitimate interest under a rational basis
standard of review for addressing the meaning of marriage through the democratic
process. Id. at 913.

Status: Plaintiffs have appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

7. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals September 4, 2014 Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648.

Plaintiffs: Couples seeking to marry or have their marriages recognized in Indiana and
Wisconsin.

Procedural Posture: Granting summary judgment in favor of same-sex couples and

staying proposed injunctions pending appeal in subsequent determination.

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/16/14 Page 7 of 17

Holding:[M]ore than unsupported conjecture that same-sex marriage will harm

heterosexual marriage or children or any other valid and important interest of a state is
necessary to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. As we have been at
pains to explain, the grounds advanced by Indiana and Wisconsin for their
discriminatory policies are not only conjectural; they are totally implausible.

Status: Ruling is in force.

8. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals October 7, 2014 Latta v. Otter, No. 12-17668, 2014
WL 4977682.

Plaintiffs: Couples seeking to marry or have their marriages recognized in Idaho and
Nevada.

Procedural Posture: Affirming judgment of the district court in Latta v. Otter and
reversing the judgment of the district court in Sevcik v. Sandoval, in favor of same-sex
couples.

Holding: We hold that the Idaho and Nevada laws at issue violate the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they deny lesbians and gays who wish to
marry persons of the same sex a right they afford to individuals who wish to marry
persons of the opposite sex, and do not satisfy the heightened scrutiny standard we
adopted in SmithKline. Id. at *1.

Status: Ruling is in force.

9. Western District of North Carolina October 10, 2014 Gen. Synod of the United Church
of Christ v. Resinger, 12 F. Supp. 3d 790.

Plaintiffs: Couples seeking to marry or have their marriages recognized in North

Carolina.
7

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/16/14 Page 8 of 17

Procedural Posture: Granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of same-sex couples and
permanently enjoining North Carolina from enforcing a state law and state constitutional
amendment operating to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Holding: Specifically, the court finds Article XIV, Section 6 of the North Carolina
Constitution, North Carolina General Statute 511 et seq., and any other source of
state law that operates to deny same-sex couples the right to marry in the State of North
Carolina, prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages lawfully solemnized in other
States, Territories, or a District of the United States, or threatens clergy or other
officiants who solemnize the union of same-sex couples with civil or criminal penalties,
are, in accordance with Bostic, supra, unconstitutional as they violate the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Id. at 791.

Status: Ruling is in force.

10. District of Alaska October 12, 2014 Hamby v. Parnell, No. 3:14-CV-00089-TMB, 2014
WL 5089399.

Plaintiffs: Couples seeking to marry or have their marriages recognized in Alaska.

Procedural Posture: Granting summary judgment in favor of same-sex couples and

enjoining Alaska from enforcing state laws and a state constitutional amendment
operating to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Holding: The Court finds that Alaska's ban on same-sex marriage and refusal to
recognize same-sex marriages lawfully entered in other states is unconstitutional as a
deprivation of basic due process and equal protection principles under the Fourteenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Id. at *1.
8

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/16/14 Page 9 of 17

Status: Ruling is in force.

11. District of Wyoming October 17, 2014 Guzzo v. Mead, No. 14-CV-200-SWS, 2014 WL
5317797.

Plaintiffs: One couple seeking to marry in Wyoming, one couple seeking to have their
marriage recognized in Wyoming, and one organization asserting the rights of its
members to marry.

Procedural Posture: Granting preliminary injunction in favor of same-sex couples.

Holding: While the Tenth Circuit's decisions in Kitchen v. Herbert . . . and Bishop v.
Smith . . . may be publicly debated, one thing remains undebatable: [A] district court is
bound by decisions made by its circuit court. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit's decisions
in Kitchen and Bishop demand a determination in Plaintiffs' favor. Id. at *1.

Status: Ruling is in force.

12. District of Arizona October 17, 2014 Connolly v. Jeanes, No. 2:14-CV-00024 JWS,
2014 WL 5320642; Majors v. Horne, No. 2:14-CV-00518 JWS, 2014 WL 5286743.

Plaintiffs: Couples seeking to marry or have their marriages recognized in Arizona, and
an organization asserting the rights of its members to marry.

Procedural Posture: Granting summary judgment in favor of same-sex couples and

permanently enjoining Arizona from enforcing state laws and a state constitutional
amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Holding: When the pending motions were filed, their resolution would have required
this court to produce a lengthy and detailed opinion. However, in the interim, the Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that substantially identical provisions of
Nevada and Idaho law that prohibit same-sex marriages are invalid because they deny
9

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/16/14 Page 10 of 17

same-sex couples equal protection of the law, the right to which is guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States. This court is bound by the precedent set by the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. For that reason, the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration
that the challenged laws are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction prohibiting
their enforcement. Id. at *1.

Status: Ruling is in force.

13. District of Puerto Rico October 21, 2014 Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, No. CIV. 141253 PG, 2014 WL 5361987.

Plaintiffs: Five couples and an organization asserting their rights or the rights of their
members to marry or have their marriages recognized in Puerto Rico.

Procedural Posture: Granting motion to dismiss in favor of state defendants.

Holding: Baker, which necessarily decided that a state law defining marriage as a union
between a man and woman does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, remains good
law. Because no right to same gender marriage emanates from the Constitution, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should not be compelled to recognize such unions.
Instead, Puerto Rico, acting through its legislature, remains free to shape its own
marriage policy. In a system of limited constitutional self-government such as ours, this
is the prudent outcome. The people and their elected representatives should debate the
wisdom of redefining marriage. Judges should not. Id. at *10.

Status: Plaintiffs have appealed the ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

14. District of Kansas November 4, 2014 Marie v. Moser, No. 14-CV-02518-DDC/TJJ,

2014 WL 5598128.

Plaintiffs: Couples seeking to marry or have their marriages recognized in Kansas.

10

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/16/14 Page 11 of 17

Procedural Posture: Preliminarily enjoining Kansas from enforcing a state law and state
constitutional amendment operating to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Holding: Because Kansas' constitution and statutes indeed do what Kitchen forbids, the
Court concludes that Kansas' same-sex marriage ban violates the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution. Id. at *1.

Status: Ruling is in force.

15. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals November 6, 2014 DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-1341,
2014 WL 5748990.

Plaintiffs: Sixteen couples seeking to marry or have their marriages recognized in

Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Procedural Posture: Reversing the trial courts summary judgment and finding marriage
bans constitutional.

Holding: The Sixth Circuit held inter alia that Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972),
controls in cases where a plaintiff challenges a state law banning same-sex marriage on
constitutional grounds. DeBoer, 2014 WL 5748990, at *7. The court identified two
rational bases for state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage: exercising caution, id. at *11,
and incentivizing procreation, id. In addition, the court held that the Full Faith and
Credit Clause does not prevent a State from applying [legitimate public policy, i.e., laws
prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages] to couples who move from one State
to another. Id. at *24.

Status: Plaintiffs have petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

16. Western District of Missouri November 7, 2014 - Lawson v. Kelly, No. 14-0622-CV-WODS, 2014 WL 5810215.
11

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/16/14 Page 12 of 17

Plaintiffs: Two couples seeking to marry in Missouri.

Procedural Posture: Granting summary judgment in favor of same-sex couples and

permanently enjoining Missouri from enforcing a state law and state constitutional
amendment operating to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Holding: It is the Court's view that the provisions of this statute and this section of the
Missouri Constitution contravene the United States Constitution. Id. at *10.

Status: Ruling is stayed pending appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

17. Southern District of West Virginia November 7, 2014 McGee v. Cole, No. CIV.A.
3:13-24068, 2014 WL 5802665.

Plaintiffs: Couples and related parties seeking to marry or have their marriages
recognized in West Virginia.

Procedural Posture: Granting summary judgment in favor of same-sex couples.

Holding: The right to marry is a fundamental right, giving every individual the
opportunity to exercise choice in this important relationship. As such, the government
must not interfere in that choice unless it demonstrates compelling state interests and
carefully tailors its restrictions to protect those interests. While some may continue to
hold a religious or moral objection to same-sex marriage, governmental restrictions on
individual rights must be justified by more than simply strongly, or even widely, held
opinions or traditions. Use of government power to prohibit the exercise of the right to
marry fails to meet this test. Id. at *1.

Status: Ruling is in force.

18. District of South Carolina November 12, 2014 Condon v. Haley, No. CIV.A. 2:144010-RMG, 2014 WL 5897175.
12

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/16/14 Page 13 of 17

Plaintiffs: One couple seeking to marry in South Carolina.

Procedural Posture: Granting summary judgment in favor of same-sex couple and

permanently enjoining South Carolina from enforcing a state law and state constitutional
amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Holding: Based upon the foregoing, the Court hereby declares that S.C. Code Ann.
20110(B)(C), S.C. Code Ann. 20115 and S.C. Constitution Art XVII, 15, to the
extent they seek to prohibit the marriage of same sex couples who otherwise meet all
other legal requirements for marriage in South Carolina, unconstitutionally infringe on
the rights of Plaintiffs under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and are invalid as a matter of
law. Id. at *11.

Status: Ruling is in force.

19. District of South Carolina November 18, 2014 Bradacs v. Haley, No. 3:13-CV-02351JMC, 2014 WL 6473727.

Plaintiffs: Couple seeking to have their marriage recognized in South Carolina.

Procedural Posture: Granting summary judgment in favor of same-sex couples.

Holding: Because marriage is a fundamental right, South Carolina's marriage laws are
subject to strict scrutiny and survive only if they are narrowly tailored to a compelling
government interest . . . Based on the foregoing, the court finds that South Carolina's
marriage laws are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest as they
impermissibly infringe on Plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry. . . . [S]imilar to the
conclusion reached in its due process analysis, the court must find that Plaintiffs have
established the violation of their rights protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the
13

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/16/14 Page 14 of 17

Fourteenth Amendment and, as a result, they are entitled to summary judgment on their
equal protection claims. Id. at *12-13.

Status: Ruling is in force.

20. District of Montana November 19, 2014 Rolando v. Fox, No. CV-14-40-GF-BMM,
2014 WL 6476196.

Plaintiffs: Couples seeking to marry or have their marriages recognized in Montana.

Procedural Posture: Granting summary judgment in favor of same-sex couples and

preliminarily enjoining Montana from enforcing state laws and a state constitutional
amendment operating to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Holding: Montana's laws that ban same-sex marriage impose a disfavored legal status
on same-sex couples. The time has come for Montana to follow all the other states within
the Ninth Circuit and recognize that laws that ban same-sex marriage violate the
constitutional right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the laws. Id. at *8.

Status: Ruling is in force.

21. Eastern District of Arkansas November 25, 2014 Jernigan v. Crane, No. 4:13-CV00410-KGB, 2014 WL 6685391.

Plaintiffs: Couples seeking to marry or have their marriages recognized in Arkansas.

Procedural Posture: Granting summary judgment in favor of same-sex couples and

enjoining Arkansas from enforcing state laws and a state constitutional amendment
operating to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Holding: The Court declares that Arkansas's marriage laws . . . violate the Due Process
Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution by precluding same-sex couples from exercising their fundamental right to
14

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/16/14 Page 15 of 17

marry in Arkansas, by not recognizing valid same-sex marriages from other states, and
by discriminating on the basis of gender. Id. at *24.

Status: Ruling is stayed pending appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

22. Southern District of Mississippi November 25, 2014 Campaign for Southern Equality v.
Bryant, No. 3:14-CV-818-CWR-LRA, 2014 WL 6680570.

Plaintiffs: Two couples seeking to marry or have their marriage recognized in

Mississippi.

Procedural Posture: Preliminarily enjoining Mississippi from enforcing a state law and
state constitutional amendment declaring that only a union between a man and a woman
may be recognized as a marriage in Mississippi.

Holding: The court concludes that Mississippi's same-sex marriage ban deprives samesex couples and their children of equal dignity under the law. Gay and lesbian citizens
cannot be subjected to such second-class citizenship. Mississippi's same-sex marriage
ban violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Id. at *2.

Status: Ruling is stayed pending appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

December 16, 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
15

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/16/14 Page 16 of 17

david.dinielli@splcenter.org
sam.wolfe@splcenter.org
*Admitted pro hac vice
(Attorneys for Plaintiff)

16

Case 2:13-cv-00922-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/16/14 Page 17 of 17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 16th day of December, 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/ David C. Dinielli

17