UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No: 14-3779
Kyle Lawson, et al.
Appellees
v.
Robert T. Kelly, in his official capacity as Director of the Jackson County Department of
Recorder of Deeds
State of Missouri
Appellant

No: 14-3780
Kyle Lawson, et al.
Appellants
v.
Robert T. Kelly, in his official capacity as Director of the Jackson County Department of
Recorder of Deeds and State of Missouri
Appellees
________________________________________________________________________
Appeals from U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
(4:14-cv-00622-ODS)
________________________________________________________________________

Second Motion to Vacate Stay

Come now Appellees/Cross-Appellants, pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure 27, and move this Court for entry of an order vacating the district courts stay
of its November 7, 2014 judgment. In support, they state:

Appellate Case: 14-3779

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/09/2015 Entry ID: 4242668

1. On November 7, 2014, the district court entered judgment declaring

that section 451.022 of the Revised Missouri Statutes and Article I,
section 33 of the Missouri Constitution, and any other provision of
state law that precludes people from marrying solely because they are
of the same gender violates the Due Process Clause and the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment[.] Lawson v. Kelly,
No. 14-0622-CV-W-ODS, 2014 WL 5810215, at *10 (W.D. Mo. Nov.
7, 2014) (footnote omitted).
2. The district court sua sponte ordered that [t]he effects of the judgment
will be stayed until the judgment is final. Id.
3. On December 10, 2014, Appellees/Cross-Appellants filed in this Court
their motion to vacate stay or, in the alternate, expedite appeal, which
is incorporated herein by reference.
4. On December 20, 2014, Appellees/Cross-Appellants notified this Court
that the Supreme Court had denied the State of Floridas request for a
stay of a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of Floridas
exclusion of same-sex couples from eligibility for marriage licenses.
Armstrong v. Brenner, 135 S. Ct. 890 (2014) (mem.).
5. On December 24, 2014, Appellants/Cross-Appellees filed an
opposition that did not provide any statement in opposition to the
motion to vacate the stay.

Appellate Case: 14-3779

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/09/2015 Entry ID: 4242668

6. On January 16, 2015, the Supreme Court granted petitions for writ of
certiorari in four cases that raise the same issue presented in this case:
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license marriage
between two people of the same sex? See Obergefell v. Hodges, No.
14-556, 2015 WL 213646, at *1 (U.S. Jan. 16, 2015); Tanco v.
Haslam, No. 14-562, 2015 WL 213648, at *1 (U.S. Jan. 16, 2015);
DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-571, 2015 WL 213650, at *1 (U.S. Jan. 16,
2015); Bourke v. Beshear, No. 14-574, 2015 WL 213651, at *1 (U.S.
Jan. 16, 2015).
7. On January 22, 2015, this Court denied the motion to vacate the district
courts stay, but granted the alternate requested relief and expedited
this appeal.
8. On February 9, 2015, the Supreme Court denied a request to stay the
judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Alabama, which had, on January 23, 2015, held that Alabamas
exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violates the Fourteenth
Amendment. Strange v. Searcy, No. 14A840, 2015 WL 505563, at *1
(U.S. Feb. 9, 2015).
9. Since October, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently
denied motions to stay lower court decisions that struck down state
marriage bans as unconstitutional. The Supreme Courts order in
Strange indicates that the grant of review in Obergefell, et al. has not

Appellate Case: 14-3779

Page: 3

Date Filed: 02/09/2015 Entry ID: 4242668

changed the Courts conclusion that such stays are not necessary. To
the extent that this Courts denial of the motion to vacate was premised
on the Supreme Courts grant of review in Obergefell, et al., the
Supreme Courts subsequent refusal to grant a stay in the Alabama
case demonstrates that the continued stay of the final judgment
particularly where, as here, no stay has been requestedis no longer
appropriate.
10. For these reasons, as well as those set forth in Appellees/CrossAppellants December 10, 2014 motion, the district courts stay should
be vacated.
WHEREFORE Appellees/Cross-Appellants respectfully request that this Court issue an
order vacating the district courts stay of the November 7, 2014 judgment, and granting
such other and further relief as is just and proper under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Anthony E. Rothert
ANTHONY E. ROTHERT
American Civil Liberties Union
of Missouri Foundation
454 Whittier Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63108
Phone 314/652-3114
Fax 314/652-3112
Attorneys for Appellees/CrossAppellants

Appellate Case: 14-3779

Page: 4

Date Filed: 02/09/2015 Entry ID: 4242668

Certificate of Service
I certify that a copy of the forgoing was filed electronically with the Clerk and
delivered by operation of the CM/ECF system to the counsel of record on February 9,
2015.
/s/ Anthony E. Rothert

Appellate Case: 14-3779

Page: 5

Date Filed: 02/09/2015 Entry ID: 4242668