CV-14-427

IN T H E ARKANSAS SUPREME C O U R T
M. K E N D A L L W R I G H T , et al
VS.

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES

Case No. CV-14-427

NATHANIEL SMITH, MD, MPH, et al

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

P L A I N T I F F S - A P P E L L E E S ' MOTION FOR T H E

I M M E D I A T E L I F T I N G O F STAY
Comes K e n d a l l W r i g h t , et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees herein, and respectfully
s u b m i t t h e i r M o t i o n f o r the I m m e d i a t e L i f t i n g o f S t a y a n d state:
1.

T h a t o n M a y 15, 2 0 1 4 this appeal w a s lodged i n the A r k a n s a s

Supreme C o u r t and o n M o t i o n o f A p p e l l a n t s , this C o u r t issued a stay o f the l o w e r

court r u l i n g o n M a y 16, 2 0 1 4 .

I t has been over N i n e t e e n ( 1 9 ) M o n t h s since

Plaintiffs-Appellees originally filed their complaint seeking a n end t o the

irreparable harms suffered b y t h e m due t o the denial o f their constitutional rights.
2.

T h i s w a s the first such case f i l e d i n a n y c o u r t i n the U n i t e d States

f o l l o w i n g t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n United States v. Windsor,

1 3 3 S . C t . 2 6 7 5 ( 2 0 1 3 ) . A t t h a t t i m e o n l y 13 s t a t e s p e r m i t t e d s a m e - s e x m a r r i a g e
and the r e c o g n i t i o n thereof. S i n c e that t i m e 2 4 m o r e states a n d the D i s t r i c t o f
C o l u m b i a h a v e b e e n added, p l a c i n g A r k a n s a s i n the m i n o r i t y w i t h 1 2 o t h e r states
w h o continue t o deny these citizens their constitutional rights.

Pg- 1

3.

I n light o f the current p o s i t i o n and decisions o f and by the U n i t e d States

Supreme Court, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this C o u r t reconsider the

n e c e s s i t y o f i t s s t a y a n d i m m e d i a t e l y o r d e r t h a t s a i d s t a y be v a c a t e d .
4.

F o l l o w i n g t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h i s C o u r t ' s s t a y , o n O c t o b e r 6, 2 0 1 4 t h e

U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t d e n i e d c e r t i o r a r i i n s e v e r a l cases, s i m i l a r t o t h e o n e
at bar, f r o m t h e F o u r t h , S e v e n t h a n d T e n t h C i r c u i t s , e a c h o f w h i c h h a d f o u n d s t a t e
laws and/or constitutional a m e n d m e n t s banning the performance o f and/or
recognition o f same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional.

A s a result, all existing

stays w e r e dissolved. T h u s same-sex marriages became legal i n U t a h , O k l a h o m a

a n d m a n y o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . ( S e e Herbert v. Kitchen, 1 3 5 S . C t . 3 9 6 ( 2 0 1 4 ) ;
Smith v.Bishop, 1 3 5 S . C t . 2 7 1 ( 2 0 1 4 ) ; Rainey v. Bostic, 1 3 5 S . C t . 2 8 6 ( 2 0 1 4 ) .
5.

O n D e c e m b e r 20, 2 0 1 4 , the Supreme C o u r t o f the U n i t e d States denied

the State o f F l o r i d a ' s request f o r a stay o f an i n j u n c t i o n thereby r e q u i r i n g the

e n f o r c e m e n t o f s a m e - s e x m a r r i a g e s w h i l e t h e m a t t e r is o n a p p e a l . ( S e e Armstrong
V. Brenner, 1 3 5 S . C t . 8 9 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) .
6.

I n January 2015 the U n i t e d States Supreme C o u r t granted petitions for

w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i i n f o u r cases w i t h i d e n t i c a l i s s u e s t o t h o s e o f t h e case a t bar. O r a l

a r g u m e n t s a r e s c h e d u l e d f o r A p r i l 2 0 1 5 a n d a d e c i s i o n is e x p e c t e d i n J u n e 2 0 1 5 .
S e e DeBoer v. Snyder, N o . 1 4 - 5 7 1 , 2 0 1 5 W L 2 1 3 6 5 0 ( U . S . J a n . 1 6 , 2 0 1 5 ) ; Bourke
V. Beshear, N o . 1 4 - 5 7 1 , 2 0 1 5 W L 2 1 3 6 5 1 ( ( U . S . J a n . 1 6 , 2 0 1 5 ) ; Obergefell v.
pg- 2

Hodges, N o . 1 4 - 5 5 6 , 2 0 1 5 W L 2 1 3 6 4 6 ( U . S . J a n . 1 6 , 2 0 1 5 ) ; Tanco v. Haslam,

N o . 14-562, 2015 W L 2 1 3 6 4 8 ( U . S . Jan. 16, 2 0 1 5 ) .
7.

N o w w i t h a final decision b y the U n i t e d States S u p r e m e C o u r t a

certainty, that C o u r t has t a k e n the u n p r e c e d e n t e d step o f p e r m i t t i n g a p r e v i e w o f

t h e i r f i n a l decision. O n F e b r u a r y 9, 2 0 1 5 the U n i t e d States S u p r e m e C o u r t denied a
request b y the State o f A l a b a m a t o stay the decision o f the U n i t e d States D i s t r i c t
Court for the Southern District o f A l a b a m a w h i c h held Alabama's ban and n o n r e c o g n i t i o n o f s a m e sex marriages t o be i n v i o l a t i o n o f the 1 4 * a m e n d m e n t t o the
U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . Strange v. Searcy, N o . 1 4 A 8 4 0 , 2 0 1 5 W L 5 0 5 5 6 3
( U . S . F e b . 9, 2 0 1 5 ) . I n h i s dissent. Justice C l a r e n c e T h o m a s stated:
" W h e n c o u r t s d e c l a r e d state l a w s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d
e n j o i n state o f f i c i a l s f r o m e n f o r c i n g t h e m , o u r o r d i n a r y
p r a c t i c e is t o s u s p e n d t h o s e i n j u n c t i o n s f r o m t a k i n g
e f f e c t p e n d i n g a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w . S e e , e.g., Herbert v .
Kitchen, 5 7 1 U . S .
( 2 0 1 4 ) .... A l t h o u g h a s t a y i s
n o t a matter o f right, this practice reflects the particularly
s t r o n g s h o w i n g t h a t S t a t e s are o f t e n a b l e t o m a k e i n f a v o r
o f such a stay. B e c a u s e States are r e q u i r e d t o c o m p l y
w i t h the C o n s t i t u t i o n , a n d indeed take care t o do so w h e n
t h e y e n a c t t h e i r l a w s , i t i s a r a r e case i n w h i c h a S t a t e w i l l
be unable t o m a k e a t least s o m e s h o w i n g o f a l i k e l i h o o d
o f success o n the m e r i t s . "
Strange at 1-2 ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) .
J u s t i c e T h o m a s w e n t o n t o s t a t e : " T h i s a c q u i e s c e n c e m a y w e l l be s e e n a s a s i g n a l
o f the C o u r t ' s i n t e n d e d r e s o l u t i o n o f that q u e s t i o n . " / t / at 3.
pg- 3

8.

T h e g r a n t o f c e r t i o r a r i i n DeBoer, et al, d i d n o t a l t e r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

S u p r e m e C o u r t ' s p o s i t i o n that stays are n o t necessary. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ' s

p o s t - c e r t i o r a r i d e n i a l o f a s t a y i n Strange n e c e s s i t a t e s t h a t t h e s t a y i n t h e case a t b a r
should be i m m e d i a t e l y vacated.
9.

A party seeking the e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e l i e f o f a stay m u s t satisfy a f o u r - p r o n g

test, w h i c h r e q u i r e s , a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , a s t r o n g s h o w i n g t h a t t h e s t a y a p p l i c a n t i s
likely t o succeed o n the merits and a s h o w i n g that the applicant w i l l be irreparably
h a r m e d . See e.g.. City of Fort Smith v. Carter, 3 6 4 A r k . 1 0 0 , 1 0 7 , 2 1 6 S . W . 3 d
5 9 4 , 5 9 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ; Nken v. Holder, 5 5 6 U . S . 4 1 8 , 4 3 4 ( 2 0 0 9 ) . N o n e o f t h e
r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a c o n t i n u i n g s t a y p e n d i n g a p p e a l a r e p r e s e n t i n t h i s case.
10.

T h e U n i t e d States S u p r e m e C o u r t , as stated above, has s t r o n g l y indicated

t h a t i t w i l l find l a w s a n d s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a m e n d m e n t s , s u c h as t h o s e o f t h e S t a t e
o f Arkansas, t o be i n violation o f the Fourteenth A m e n d m e n t t o the Constitution
o f the U n i t e d States. T h e D e f e n d a n t s can m a k e n o s h o w i n g o f a n y l i k e l i h o o d o f
s u c c e s s o n t h e m e r i t s a s r e q u i r e d b y City of Fort Smith a n d Nken .
11. Further, Defendants cannot s h o w that the other factors f a v o r i n g a
c o n t i n u e d s t a y a r e s a t i s f i e d i n t h i s case. D e f e n d a n t s w o u l d s u f f e r n o h a r m
w h a t s o e v e r i f P l a i n t i f f s a n d other s a m e - s e x couples are p e r m i t t e d t o m a r r y o r h a v e
their existing marriages recognized w h i l e the appeal process continues. Plaintiffs

Pg-4

and their children suffer serious irreparable h a r m each and every day that this stay
r e m a i n s i n effect. I n a d d i t i o n t o suffering f i n a n c i a l losses and d e m e a n i n g
treatment, the security p r o v i d e d by marriage i n the event o f death, illness,
i n c a p a c i t y , e t c . i s d e n i e d t o P l a i n t i f f s i n , as t h e l o w e r C o u r t h a s f o u n d , v i o l a t i o n o f
t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l rights. T h e h a r m t o P l a i n t i f f s is real, i m m e d i a t e and s h o u l d n o t
continue.
12. T h e o n l y " H a r m " alleged b y the State i n its M o t i o n f o r E m e r g e n c y
S t a y f i l e d i n t h i s c o u r t o n M a y 1 5 , 2 0 1 4 w a s state s o v e r e i g n t y a n d a n a l l e g e d
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e / f i n a n c i a l b u r d e n . D e n y i n g a s t a y d o e s r e q u i r e t h a t t h e state i n v e s t
resources i n issuing marriage licenses and allocating the attendant benefits o f
marriage to same-sex couples.
13. A n y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e burdens are overstated: procedures f o r i s s u i n g
licenses a n d d i s t r i b u t i n g benefits t o m a r r i e d couples are already i n place; the o n l y
real difference is t h a t m o r e people w o u l d be e l i g i b l e f o r t h e m . T h e increased
v o l u m e w o u l d be s m a l l .
14. T h e E q u a l P r o t e c t i o n and D u e Process Clauses o f A r t i c l e 2 o f the
Arkansas Constitution provide for m o r e stringent protection o f those rights than
does the U n i t e d States C o n s t i t u t i o n . T h e effect o f a decision b y this court i n
overturning the l o w e r court's decision w o u l d result i n a judicial reduction o f equal

pg. 5

protection and due process rights, non-recognition o f legal marriages performed i n

the m a j o r i t y o f the U n i t e d States a n d the p e r m i t t e d c o n t i n u a t i o n o f the a n i m u s o f
the " m a j o r i t y " against a defenseless m i n o r i t y .
1 5 . I n l i g h t o f t h i s C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n s i n Jegley v. Picado, 3 4 9 A r k . 6 0 0 , 8 0
S . W . 3 d 3 3 2 ( 2 0 0 2 ) a n d Arkansas Dep't of Human Services v. Cole, 2 0 1 1 A r k . 1 4 5 ,
3 8 0 S . W . 3 d 4 2 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) this scenario is v e r y u n l i k e l y .
16. A s the H o n . C h r i s P i a z z a e l o q u e n t l y stated i n h i s M a y 15, 2 0 1 4 d e n i a l
o f D e f e n d a n t s - A p p e l l a n t s ' M o t i o n f o r a stay p e n d i n g appeal:
" D e f e n d a n t s h a v e asked that this C o u r t stay
a n y r u l i n g adverse t o its p o s i t i o n . T h i s C o u r t ,
h o w e v e r , cannot i n good conscience grant such
a request. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n s are r o u t i n e l y
r e c o g n i z e d as t r i g g e r i n g irreparable h a r m unless
t h e y a r e p r o m p t l y r e m e d i e d . See, e.g., Elrod v.
Burns, 4 2 7 U . S . 3 4 7 , 3 7 3 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ( l o s s o f
constitutional "freedoms, for even m i n i m a l periods
o f time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable
injury"). U n d e r the circumstances presented here,
granting a stay o f the Plaintiffs' rights imposes
irreparable harm.
T h e r e is n o evidence that Defendants, that State
o r its citizens w e r e h a r m e d b y the entry o f the C o u r t ' s
original order or that they w i l l be harmed by the
clarifications contained w i t h i n the F i n a l Order and
R u l e 54 (b) certification. H o w e v e r , the same cannot
be said o f the Plaintiffs and others s a m e - s e x couples
w h o have not been afforded the same measure o f
h u m a n d i g n i t y , r e s p e c t a n d r e c o g n i t i o n b y t h i s state
as t h e i r s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d , o p p o s i t e - s e x c o u n t e r p a r t s .
A stay w o u l d operate to further damage A r k a n s a s
pg- 6

f a m i l i e s a n d d e p r i v e d t h e m o f e q u a l access t o t h e r i g h t s
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h m a r r i a g e s t a t u s i n t h i s state. W e i g h i n g
a l l f a c t o r s a p p l i c a b l e t o a n a l y z i n g w h e t h e r a s t a y s h o u l d be
granted, D e f e n d a n t s ' M o t i o n f o r I m m e d i a t e S t a y is
DENIED."
("Order D e n y i n g Defendants' M o t i o n For Immediate Stay"
p a g e s 1-2).

CONCLUSION
F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d set a s i d e i t s S t a y e n t e r e d o n M a y
16, 2 0 1 4 . A c o n t i n u a t i o n o f the stay o n l y perpetuates the o n g o i n g , and irreparable
dignitary, legal, financial and practical harms suffered by the Plaintiffs-Appellees
t h a t c a n n o t be r e d r e s s e d b y m o n e y d a m a g e s o r s u b s e q u e n t c o u r t o r d e r i n c l u d i n g , b u t
certainly not limited to:
a. T h e r i g h t t o m a k e h e a l t h d e c i s i o n s f o r t h e o t h e r s p o u s e ;
b. T h e r i g h t t o support;
c. T h e r i g h t t o e q u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p r o p e r t y o b t a i n e d d u r i n g m a r r i a g e ;
d. T h e r i g h t t o c l a i m a n e l e c t i v e s h a r e o f a s p o u s e s e s t a t e ;
e. T h e r i g h t t o s h a r e i n e m p l o y m e n t b e n e f i t s ;
f. A l l r i g h t s o f b o t h p a r e n t s r e g a r d i n g

children b o m during

the

relationship; and
g. T h e r i g h t t o c l a i m a deceased spouses b o d y
T h i s C o u r t should not a l l o w any unnecessary continuation o f the deprivation o f
pg-1

Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. T h e ruling o f the H o n . Chris Piazza and his denial
o f a stay pending appeal w a s based u p o n a t h o u g h t f u l and carefully reasoned
a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e p r e c e d e n t s t h a t c o n t r o l t h i s case a n d i t i s l i k e l y t o b e a f f i r m e d o n
appeal. T h e r e l e v a n t factors are o v e r w h e l m i n g l y t i l t e d i n f a v o r o f l i f t i n g t h e stay.
P l a i n t i f f s - A p p e l l e e s therefore respectfully ask this C o u r t t o exercise its discretion
a n d lift the current stay.

Respectfully submitted,

Cheryl
fc^a^les
A B A # 87109
P.O. B o x 1504
Searcy, A R 72145
(501)912-3890
Fax: (501)362-2128
Email: ckmaples@aol.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
T h e u n d e r s i g n e d c o u n s e l h e r e b y states that a true a n d correct c o p y o f the f o r e g o i n g
d o c u m e n t w a s served u p o n the f o l l o w i n g counsel v i a e m a i l o n F e b r u a r y 17, 2 0 1 5 :
C o l i n R . Jorgensen, # 2 0 0 4 0 7 8
Assistant Attorney General
Email: colin.iorgensen@arkansasag.gov
Attorney for State Defendants-Appellants
pg-8

Michael R. Rainwater, #79234

Jason E . O w e n s , #2003003
R A I N W A T E R , H O L T & S E X T O N , P.A.
Email: owens@rainfirm.com
Attorneys for Defendants Cheryl Evans, in her official capacity as White County
Clerk, William "Larry " Clarke, in his official capacity as Lonoke County Clerk,
Debbie Hartman, in her official capacity as Conway County Clerk, and Becky
Lewallen, in her official capacity as Washington County Clerk.
David M a c k Fugua, # 80048
Fugua & Campbell, P. A .
Email: dfuqua@fc-lawyers.com
Attorney for Separate Defendants Doug Curtis in his official capacity as Saline
County Clerk and Larry Crane, in his official capacity as Pulaski County Clerk

pg.9

C E R T I F I C A T E OF C O M P L I A N C E
I hereby certify that I have served o n opposing counsel and unredacted and,
i f required, a redacted P D F d o c u m e n t that complies w i t h the R u l e s o f the Supreme
C o u r t and the C o u r t o f A p p e a l s . T h e P D F d o c u m e n t s are identical t o the
c o r r e s p o n d i n g p a r t s o f t h e p a p e r d o c u m e n t s f r o m w h i c h t h e y w e r e c r e a t e d as f i l e d
w i t h the court. T o the best o f m y k n o w l e d g e , i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d b e l i e f f o r m e d after
scanning the P D F documents for viruses w i t h an antivirus program, the P D F
d o c u m e n t s are free o f c o m p u t e r viruses. A c o p y o f this certificate has been
s u b m i t t e d w i t h the paper copies filed w i t h the court and has been served o n a l l
opposing parties.

pg. 1 0