Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 91
 
 
No. A13-1173 
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
  _______________________________
N
 ATIONAL
O
RGANIZATION FOR
M
 ARRIAGE
,
 
I
NC
., on behalf of its Oregon members,
 Applicant
, v. D
EANNA
L.
 
G
EIGER
,
 
J
 ANINE
M.
 
N
ELSON
,
 
R
OBERT
D
UEHMIG
,
 
W
ILLIAM
G
RIESAR
,
 
P
 AUL
R
UMMELL
,
 
B
ENJAMIN
W
EST
,
 
L
ISA
C
HICKADONZ
,
 
C
HRISTINE
T
 ANNER
, and B
 ASIC
R
IGHTS
E
DUCATION
F
UND
,
Respondents (Plaintiffs)
, and J
OHN
ITZHABER
, in his official capacity as Governor of Oregon; E
LLEN
R
OSENBLUM
, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Oregon; J
ENNIFER
W
OODWARD
, in her official capacity as State Registrar, Center for Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority, and R
 ANDY
W
 ALRUFF
, in his official capacity as Multnomah County Assessor,
Respondents (Defendants).
 
 _______________________________ Response In Opposition to Application to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal  _______________________________ DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE ANTHONY KENNEDY,  ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES  AND CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT  _______________________________
Steven R. Shapiro
Counsel of Record
James D. Esseks Rose A. Saxe  Amanda C. Goad  A 
MERICAN
C
IVIL
L
IBERTIES
U
NION
F
OUNDATION
 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 212.549.2611 sshapiro@aclu.org Thomas R. Johnson * Misha Isaak * P
ERKINS
C
OIE
 LLP
 1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor Portland, OR 97209 Jennifer Middleton * J
OHNSON
J
OHNSON
&
 
S
CHALLER
PC
 975 Oak Street, Suite 1050 Eugene, OR 97401 Kevin Díaz  ACLU
 
F
OUNDATION OF
O
REGON
I
NC
.
 P.O. Box 40585 Portland, OR 97240 Lea Ann Easton D
ORSAY
&
 
E
 ASTON
LLP
 1 SW Columbia Street Suite 440 Portland, OR 97204 Lake James H. Perriguey L
 AW
W
ORKS
 
LLC
 1906 SW Madison Street Portland, OR 97205 * Cooperating attorneys on behalf of the ACLU Foundation of Oregon, Inc.
 Attorneys for Respondents (Plaintiffs)
 
 
 
- i -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1  ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................. 3 I.
NOM’s Application
Should Be Denied Because There Is No Reasonable Likelihood This Court Will Overturn the District
Court’s Rulings
 ........................................................................................ 3  A.
NOM’s Motion to Intervene Was Untimely
 ................................. 4 B. NOM Failed to Demonstrate a Significantly Protectable Interest in This Case .................................................................. 11 C.
The District Court Correctly Rejected NOM’s Arguments
for Discretionary Intervention ................................................... 15 D.
This Court Is Not Likely to Overturn the District Court’s
Merits Ruling Because NOM Lacks Standing to Appeal .......... 17 E. NOM Cannot Show a Reasonable Likelihood of Success on the Merits If This Court Were to Review the Judgment .......... 19 F. This Case Does Not Appropriately Present the Issues that NOM Seeks To Litigate .............................................................. 21 II. The Equities Weigh Heavily Against Issuance of a Stay .................... 23  A. NOM Will Not Suffer Irreparable Injury Absent a Stay .......... 23 B. The Harm a Stay Would Cause Plaintiffs Far Outweighs  Any Purported Harm to NOM .................................................... 24 C. This Case Differs Significantly from Other Recent Cases in Which Stays Have Been Issued ............................................. 26 III.
NOM’s Application I
s Procedurally Deficient, As It Never Properly Moved Below for the Relief It Now Requests of This Court ...................................................................................................... 27 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 29  APPENDIX A Transcript of Hearing on Motion to Intervene (May 14, 2014) ............................. 1
 
 
- ii -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES
 
 Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods
, 572 F.2d 657 (9th Cir. 1978) .......................................... 6
 Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. Of Gambell
, 480 U.S. 531(1987) .......................................... 24
 Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona
, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) .................................. 16
 Baker v. Nelson
, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) .......................................................................... 22
 Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
, 331 U.S. 519 (1947) ......... 15
Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning 
, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) .................... 22
Clapper v. Amnesty International, USA
, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) ............................... 19
 Deaver v. United States
, 483 U.S. 1301 (1987) ............................................................. 3
 DeBoer v. Snyder
, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Mich. 2014) ......................................... 20
 Diamond v. Charles
, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) ............................................................... 12, 17
 Donaldson v. United States
, 400 U.S. 517 (1971),
 superseded by statute on other  grounds as noted in Tiffany Fine Arts v. United States
, 469 U.S. 310 (1985) ....... 11
 Donnelly v. Glickman
, 159 F.3d 405 (9th Cir. 1998) ...................................... 11, 12, 13
Evans v. Utah
, No. 2:14-CV-55-DAK, 2014 WL 2048343 (D. Utah May 19, 2014) ... 26
Gregory-Portland Independent Sch. Dist. v. United States
, 448 U.S. 1342 (1980) ..... 3
Hall v. Florida
, No. 12-10882, 2014 WL 2178332 (May 27, 2014) ............................ 21
Heckler v. Redbud Hospital Dist.
, 473 U.S. 1308 (1985) .............................................. 3
Herbert v. Kitchen
, 134 S. Ct. 893 (Jan. 6, 2014) .......................................................... 3
Hicks v. Miranda
, 422 U.S. 332 (1972) ................................................................. 26, 27
Hollingsworth v. Perry
, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (U.S. 2013) ..........................................
 passim
 
Howard v. Child Welfare Agency Review Bd
., No. 1999-9881, 2004 WL 3154530 (Ark. Cir. Ct. Dec. 29, 2004)
aff’d sub nom. Dep’t of Human Servs. & Child
Welfare Agency Review Bd. v. Howard
, 367 Ark. 55, 238 S.W.3d 1 (2006) ............ 21
In re Adoption of Doe
, 2008 WL 5006172 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Nov. 25, 2008) ............... 20, 21
Landis v. N. Am. Co.
, 299 U.S. 248 (1936) ................................................................. 22
Latta v. Otter,
No. 14-35420 (9th Cir.) .................................................................. 26, 27
LULAC v. Wilson
, 131 F.3d 1297 (9th Cir. 1997) ......................................................... 9
McDonald v. Means
, 300 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................... 15
Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v. New York
, 413 U.S. 345 (1973) ........................................................................................ 4, 6, 7, 9

Вознаградите свое любопытство

Все, что вы хотели прочитать.
Когда угодно. Где угодно. На любом устройстве.
Без обязательств. Отменить можно в любой момент.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505