1:14-cv-00424 #58

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

1/55

Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 58 Filed 02/15/15 Page 1 of 5

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

2/55


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

3/55


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

4/55


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

5/55


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

6/55

!" $%& '()*&+& ,-(*$ -. /0/1/+/

"# $%&'( )*+*" (# &(,- +.+/+0+12.345 36)*3*7*" %89 +.+/+0+43*3:"6) +4*326 1;2?8(&=@-

+.+6 .- A368 B>C ?DD>E>%,E%$%E>'F %C GH9I( ?D 1&?J%'( D?&G(DD(&C?8 4?H8'F= +,%J%K%=;2/";* 0- 0+;*36= >8 B>C ?DD>E>%,E%$%E>'F %C GH9I( ?D 1&?J%'( D?&4B>,'?8 4?H8'F= +,%J%K%=

*2005 ;+8 B>C ?DD>E>%,E%$%E>'F %C GH9I( ?D 1&?J%'( D?&0%9>C?8 4?H8'F= +,%J%K%=)*"M"6 .- ;""L= >8 B>C ?DD>E>%,E%$%E>'F %C GH9I( ?D 1&?J%'( D?&0?8'I?K(&F 4?H8'F= +,%J%K%= %89G7L8 B>C ?&B(& ?DD>E>%, E%$%E>'F %C %8+,%J%K% GH9I( ?D 1&?J%'(=

;(C$?89(8'C-

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSST

,/'& "-2 3333333333

&+&*4&",5 )&$!$!-" .-* 6*!$ -. +/"7/+('

+89:;< 72 '98=;>† U,%- /%& 6?- VWVOVXYKC'%@(&Z.4-?&IE?H&'Z.4-?&I

%?>89@? 42 +@:;9† U,%- /%& 6?- VVYQ[\OBK>B('Z.4-?&I

*?A;> B2 48CC8D † U,%- /%& 6?- Y]V][V

&I%88%KZ.4-?&I! "#$%&' ) *+,-$! 1-2- /2^ []VWW]2&,%89?= U. RY\[]PVWW]_\VV`QWOPOWWQ_]VW`\W[PVWWV U+^†0?'>?8 D?& %9K>CC>?8

!"# %&' ()'* $(89>8I

/2 &>@E F?:CG9?C _+)/PY[W]PaR\+` (&>EZ%(&>Eb?B8C'?8-E?K)H>'( OVWOYVV 4?&$?&%'( L&>@(/>&K>8IB%K= +. R[Y]Y_YV[`]V\P\\XR_YV[`]V\P\\X] U+^

'8DH;I F2 +E0H>; _04.PV[Q`C%KZ'B(%9?$'>?8D>&K-E?K*B( +9?$'>?8 .%c U>&K12 /?# YRXQ0?8'I?K(&F= +. RQOVY_RR]`QOYPR]VQ

+''?&8(FC D?& 1('>'>?8(&

E-Filed02/11/2015 @ 12:13:56 PM

Honorable Julia Jordan Weller

Clerk Of The Court

Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 58-1 Filed 02/15/15 Page 1 of 50

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

7/55

Y

$/10& -. ,-"$&"$'

*+/." 2U 426*"6*) ----------------------------------------- Y

*+/." 2U +7*a2;3*3") -------------------------------------- ]

)*+*"0"6* 2U U+4*) ---------------------------------------- W

)*+*"0"6* 2U 3))7") -------------------------------------- OO

)*+*"0"6* da5 d;3* )a27.L 3))7" -------------------------- OO

3- *a" d;3*) )a27.L 3))7" /"4+7)" *a" +.+/+0+426)*3*7*326 +6L )*+*7*") 1;2a3/3* 1;2/+*" G7L(D >C %$$&?$&>%'( '? E?KK%89;(C$?89(8' $&?J%'( bH9I(C '? $(&D?&K 'B(>&K>8>C'(&>%, 9H'F 8?' '? >CCH( K%&&>%I( ,>E(8C(C'? C%K(PC(# E?H$,(C- ------------------------------ OX

O- 1('>'>?8(& B%C % E,(%& ,(I%, &>IB' '?K%89%KHC &(,>(D- ------------------------------- OX

Y- ;(C$?89(8'C &(DHC( '? $(&D?&K %8 >K$(&%'>@(9H'F- ------------------------------------------ YY

R- 1('>'>?8(& B%C 8? ?'B(& &(K(9F- ---------------- YY

]- This Court’s jurisdiction is properly>8@?f(9- --------------------------------------- YY

33- *a" d;3*) )a27.L 3))7" /"4+7)" *a" 4a3"U G7)*34"2U *a" )71;"0" 427;* 2U +.+/+0+ 2;L";"L +..1;2/+*" G7L

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

8/55

R

4";*3U34+*" 2U )";M34" ----------------------------------- YW

+**+4a0"6*)

0(K?&%89HK 2$>8>?8 %89 2&9(&= +*&"', (0 +-"&12*=

6?- OgO]PYV\P4J>' 4

2&9(&= +*&"', (0 +-"&12*=6?- OgO]PYV\P4

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

9/55

]

$/10& -. /($%-*!$!&'

,/'&'

345*".##5/ 6"!07 81'0 (0 6&"')&=Q\Y U-R9 X[\= XWOPWY _,O'B 4>&- YVOY` ------------------ O[

+9*"&5& :*// (0 ;.*1/

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

10/55

[

HI !&"-* +-&-* *I "*40 E&9*/=WOO )?- Y9 X[Y _+,%- OXX\` ----------------------------- O[

64&// (0 @)"9)12%&9 +#0 M0M0=XV[ )?-Y9 W\X _+,%- YVV]` ------------------------------ OX

6"&%&9 (0 34&?&9& +-&-* H9!4#,**/ 3//N1=XXO )?- Y9 WOV _+,%- 4>@- +$$- YVVW` ------------------- OY

:#9&1 (0 +-&-* *I "*40 +9)-%=\X )?- Y9 O\] _OX[Q` ----------------------------------- YO

G*15")'O (0 +-&-* *I "*40 +%#*9&O*" =[] )?- Y9 ]]Y _OX[O` ----------------------------------- YO

P* B#A"1*&A =#0 #J 6&0 (0 KP0M0@0=O[V U-Y9 OVOY _['B 4>&- OX][` -------------------------- O[

Q&"-)1 (0 L)4O/=]XV 7-)- W[[ _OX\X` ------------------------------------ O]

Q'C#.*44 (0 +-&-*=\ )?- Y9 [QX _OX]Y` ------------------------------------ O[

Q#"")/#1 (0 Q#"")/=O]O )?- Y9 OQX _OXQY` ---------------------------------- YO

D"*J*""*5 M)/O QA-0 81/0 =#0 (0 M,&1=[\X )?- Y9 OQ[ _+,%- OXXO` ----------------------------- OX

B&,4#" (0 +-A"2*44=[[R 7-)- \\V _YVV\` ------------------------------------ O]

,-"'$!$($!-"/0 )*-J!'!-"'

+&'- 3= h RQ-VR= +,%- 4?8C'- OXVO ------------------- W=OY=O]

+&'- 333= h ]R= +,%- 4?8C'- OXVO ---------------------- OQ=OW

+&'- M= h OOY= +,%- 4?8C'- OXVO -------------------------- O[

+&'- M3= h ORX= +,%- 4?8C'- OXVO ---------------------- OY=OQ


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

11/55

Q

+&'- M3= h O]V= +,%- 4?8C'- OXVO ---------------------- YY=YR

+&'- M3= h O]]= +,%- 4?8C'- OXVO 2222222222222222222222222OY

'$/$($&'

h OYPYPW= +,%- 4?9( OXW[ --------------------------------- YR

h RVPOPX= +,%- 4?9( OXW[ ------------------------------ OO=OW

h RVPOPOX= +,%- 4?9( OXW[ --------------------------- W=OY=O]

*(0&'

U(9- ;- 4>@- 1- Q[ --------------------------------------- O[


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

12/55

W

'$/$&+&"$ -. ./,$'

4?K(C 8?c 1('>'>?8(&= )'%'( ?D +,%J%K%= ?8 'B( &(,%'>?8

?D +.+/+0+ 12.345 36)*3*7*" %89 +.+/+0+ 43*3:"6) +4*326

1;2?8C 'B>C 4?H&' D?& % c&>' ?D K%89%KHC '?

(%EB ;(C$?89(8'= %89 CB?cC 'B( D?,,?c>8I >8 CH$$?&' ?D 'B>C

$('>'>?8g

O-

28 G%8H%&F YR= YVO[= >8 +*&"', (0 +-"&12*= 6?- OgO]P

YV\P4'(9

)'%'(C L>C'&>E' 4?H&' D?& 'B( )?H'B(&8 L>C'&>E' ?D +,%J%K%=

(8b?>8(9 'B( +,%J%K% +''?&8(F 8I

Alabama’s )%8E'>'F ?D 0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8'= +&'- 3= h RQ-VR=

+,%- 4?8C'- OXVO _'B( “0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8'”`= %89 'B( +,%J%K%

0%&&>%I( 1&?'(E'>?8 +E'= h RVPOPOX= +,%- 4?9( OXW[ _'B(

“0%&&>%I( +E'”`- GH9I( %I(

+K(89K(8' %89 'B( 0%&&>%I( +E'= '? 'B( (#'(8' 'B(F $&?B>J>'

'B( &(E?I8>'>?8 ?D C%K(PC(# K%&&>%I(C= %&( H8E?8C'>'H'>?8%,

H89(& 'B( U?H&'((8'B +K(89K(8' '? 'B( 78>'(9 )'%'(C

4?8C'>'H'>?8- + E?$F ?D Judge Granade’s ruling (hereinafter

&(D(&&(9 '? %C 'B( “+*&"', 38bH8E'>?8”` >C %''%EB(9 B(&('? %C

"#B>J>' +-

Y- 28 G%8H%&F YQ= YVO[= >8 +-"&./*" (0 +-"&12*= 6?-

OgO]P4MP ]Y]P48%&>,F (8b?>8(9 'B(


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

13/55

\

+,%J%K% +''?&8(F 8I 'B( 0%&&>%I(

+K(89K(8' %89 'B( 0%&&>%I( +E' ?8 'B( C%K( I&?H89C %C >8

+*&"', - + E?$F ?D 'B( &H,>8I _B(&(>8%D'(& &(D(&&(9 '? %C 'B(

“+-"&./*" 38bH8E'>?8”` >C %''%EB(9 B(&('? %C "#B>J>' /-

R- GH9I( , U(J&H%&F X= YVO[-

]- 28 U(J&H%&F \= YVO[= 4B>(D GHC'>E( ;?F )- 0??&( ?D

'B( )H$&(K( 4?H&' ?D +,%J%K% (8'(&(9 %8 %9K>8>C'&%'>@( ?&9(&

&H,>8I 'B%' 8(>'B(& 'B( +*&"', 8?& 'B( +-"&./*" 38bH8E'>?8 >C

J>89>8I ?8 %8F +,%J%K% $&?J%'( bH9I(= %89 $&?B>J>'>8I %8F

$&?J%'( bH9I( D&?K >CCH>8I ?& &(E?I8>i>8I % K%&&>%I( ,>E(8C(

cB>EB @>?,%'(C 'B( 0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8' ?& 'B( 0%&&>%I( +E'- +

copy of Chief Justice Moore’s administrative order

_B(&(>8%D'(& &(D(&&(9 '? %C 'B( “+9K>8>C'&%'>@( 2&9(&”` >C

%''%EB(9 B(&('? %C "#B>J>' 4-

[-

;(C$?89(8' +.+6 .- A36< >C % GH9I( ?D 1&?J%'( D?&

G(DD(&C?8 4?H8'F= +,%J%K% cB? ?8 U(J&H%&F X= YVO[= J(I%8

>CCH>8I K%&&>%I( ,>E(8C(C '? C%K(PC(# E?H$,(C >8 @>?,%'>?8 ?D

'B( 0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8'= 'B( 0%&&>%I( +E'= %89 'B(

+9K>8>C'&%'>@( 2&9(&-

Q- ;(C$?89(8' ;2/";* 0- 0+;*36 >C % GH9I( ?D 1&?J%'(

D?& 4B>,'?8 4?H8'F= +,%J%K% cB? ?8 U(J&H%&F X= YVO[= J(I%8


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

14/55

X


'B( 0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8'= 'B( 0%&&>%I( +E'= %89 'B(

+9K>8>C'&%'>@( 2&9(&-

W- ;(C$?89(8' *2005 ;+C % GH9I( ?D 1&?J%'( D?&

0%9>C?8 4?H8'F= +,%J%K% cB? ?8 U(J&H%&F X= YVO[= J(I%8 >CCH>8I

K%&&>%I( ,>E(8C(C '? C%K(PC(# E?H$,(C >8 @>?,%'>?8 ?D 'B(

0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8'= 'B( 0%&&>%I( +E'= %89 'B( +9K>8>C'&%'>@(

2&9(&-

\- ;(C$?89(8' )*"M"6 .- ;""L >C % GH9I( ?D 1&?J%'( D?&

0?8'I?K(&F 4?H8'F= +,%J%K% cB? ?8 U(J&H%&F X= YVO[= J(I%8


'B( 0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8'= 'B( 0%&&>%I( +E'= %89 'B(

+9K>8>C'&%'>@( 2&9(&-

X-

"%EB ?D ;(C$?89(8'C G7LC % GH9I( ?D

1&?J%'( >8 +,%J%K% cB? K%F >CCH(= ?& K%F B%@( >CCH(9= K%&&>%I(

,>E(8C(C '? C%K(PC(# E?H$,(C >8 +,%J%K% %C % &(CH,' ?D 'B(

+*&"', ?& +-"&./*" 38bH8E'>?8= >8 @>?,%'>?8 ?D 'B( 0%&&>%I(

+K(89K(8'= 'B( 0%&&>%I( +E'= %89 'B( +9K>8>C'&%'>@( 2&9(&-

OV-

;(,%'?& +.+/+0+ 12.345 36)*3*7*" (“API”) is a

[VO_E`_R` 8?8P$%&'>C%8= 8?8P$&?D>' &(C(%&EB %89 (9HE%'>?8

?&I%8>i%'>?8 c>'B 'B?HC%89C ?D E?8C'>'H(8'C 'B&?HIB?H'

+,%J%K%= 9(9>E%'(9 '? >8D,H(8E>8I $HJ,>E $?,>EF >8 'B(


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

15/55

OV

>8'(&(C' ?D 'B( $&(C(&@%'>?8 ?D D&(( K%&f('C= &H,( ?D ,%c=

,>K>'(9 I?@(&8K(8'= %89 C'&?8I D%K>,>(C= cB>EB %&(

>89>C$(8C%J,( '? % $&?C$(&?HC C?E>('F- +13 %EB>(@(C 'B(C(

?Jb(E'>@(C 'B&?HIB >8P9($'B &(C(%&EB %89 $?,>EF %8%,FC>C

E?KKH8>E%'(9 'B&?HIB $HJ,>CB(9 c&>'>8IC %89 C'H9>(C cB>EB %&(

E>&EH,%'(9 %89 E>'(9 'B&?HIB?H' 'B( C'%'( %89 8%'>?8- 2@(&

'B( F(%&C= +13 B%C $HJ,>CB(9 % 8HKJ(& ?D C'H9>(C CB?c>8I 'B(

I&(%' J(8(D>'C '? D%K>,>(C ?D K%&&>%I( J('c((8 ?8( K%8 %89

?8( c?K%8 %89 'B( 9('&>K(8'C %CC?E>%'(9 c>'B 9>@?&E(=

E?B%J>'%'>?8= %89 C%K(PC(# H8>?8C= $%&'>EH,%&,F cB(8 EB>,9&(8

%&( >8@?,@(9- +13 B%C E?8C>C'(8',F E%H'>?8(9 %I%>8C' 'B(

I&%9H%, CB>D' '?c%&9 C%8E'>?8>8I C%K(PC(# K%&&>%I( ?8 'B>C

J%C>C- +13 c%C % ,(%9>8I $&?$?8(8' ?D J?'B 'B( 0%&&>%I( +E'=

$%CC(9 >8 OXX\= %89 'B( 0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8'= cB>EB c%C %$$&?@(9

JF \Oj ?D +,%J%K% @?'(&C >8 YVVQ-

OO-

;(,%'?& +.+/+0+ 43*3:"6) +4*326 1;2C % 8?8P$&?D>' [VO_E`_]` ?&I%8>i%'>?8 c>'B 'B?HC%89C ?D

E?8C'>'H(8'C 'B&?HIB?H' +,%J%K%= cB>EB (#>C'C '? $&?K?'( $&?P

,>D(= $&?PD%K>,F %89 $&?PK?&%, >CCH(C >8 'B(- 38 %99>'>?8 '?

,?JJF>8I 'B( +,%J%K% .(I>C,%'H&( ?8 J(B%,D ?D EBH&EB(C %89

>89>@>9H%,C cB? 9(C>&( % D%K>,FPD&>(89,F (8@>&?8K(8' >8

+,%J%K%= +.4+1 $&?@>9(C % E?KKH8>E%'>?8 ,>8f J('c((8 +,%J%K%


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

16/55

OO

,(I>C,%'?&C %89 'B(>& E?8C'>'H(8'C- +D'(& $%CC%I( ?D 'B(

0%&&>%I( +E'= +.4+1 @>I?&?HC,F $&?K?'(9 $%CC%I( ?D 'B(

0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8' '? J?'B ,(I>C,%'?&C %89 E>'>i(8C= K%f>8I

+.4+1 >8C'&HK(8'%, >8 'B( &(CH,'>8I \Oj @?'( %$$&?@>8I 'B(

0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8' >8 YVVQ-

'$/$&+&"$ -. !''(&'

1('>'>?8(&= JF 'B( ;(,%'?&C= C((fC % c&>' ?D K%89%KHC

9>&(E'(9 '? (%EB ;(C$?89(8' bH9I( ?D $&?J%'(= E?KK%89>8I (%EB

bH9I( 8?' '? >CCH( K%&&>%I( ,>E(8C(C '? C%K(PC(# E?H$,(C %89

8?' '? &(E?I8>i( %8F K%&&>%I( ,>E(8C(C >CCH(9 '? C%K(PC(#

E?H$,(C-

'$/$&+&"$ -. 6%5 6*!$' '%-(07 !''(&

!2

$%& 6*!$' '%-(07 !''(& 1&,/('& $%& /0/1/+/ ,-"'$!$($!-" /"7 '$/$($&' )*-%!1!$ )*-1/$& F(74&' .*-+ !''(!"4 +/**!/4& 0!,&"'&' $- '/+&K'&L ,-()0&'2

/2 /I8M8D8 N>?M89; OHPA;G P? C?9 :8=; P@GE>;9@?C9? @GGH; D8>>@8A; I@E;CG;G 9? G8D;KG;Q E?HNI;G2

*B( 4?9( ?D +,%J%K% E?8D(&C %H'B?&>'F '? >CCH( K%&&>%I(

,>E(8C(C ?8,F '? “'B( bH9I(C ?D $&?J%'( ?D 'B( C(@(&%,

E?H8'>(C-” h RVPOPX= +,%- 4?9( OXW[- 38 (#(&E>C>8I 'B>C

%H'B?&>'F= % $&?J%'( bH9I( >C (#$&(CC,F $&?B>J>'(9 JF 'B(

0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8' %89 'B( 0%&&>%I( +E' D&?K >CCH>8I % ,>E(8C(


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

17/55

OY

“'? $%&'>(C ?D 'B( C%K( C(#-” +&'- O= h RQ-VR_9`= +,%- 4?8C'-

OXVOk h RVPOPOX_9`= +,%- 4?9( OXW[-

dB(&( 'B( ?$(&%'>@( C'%'H'( H8(eH>@?E%,,F 9>&(E'C % C'%'(

official’s performance, that performance is ministerial. +**

6"&%&9 (0 34&?&9& +-&-* H9!4#,**/ 3//N1= XXO )?- Y9 WOV= WO\

_+,%- 4>@- +$$- YVVW`-

+,%J%K% ,%c B%C 9(D>8(9 9>CE&('>?8%&F %E'C%C 'B?C( %E'C %C '? cB>EB 'B(&( >C 8? %&"5&15 J&/- "A4* %C '? E?H&C( ?D E?89HE' 'B%'

?8( KHC' ?& KHC' 8?' '%f( %89 'B?C(&(eH>&>8I (#(&E>C( >8 bH9IK(8' %89 EB?>E(%89 >8@?,@>8I cB%' >C bHC' %89 $&?$(& H89(&'B( E>&EHKC'%8E(C- 38 E?8'&%C'= ?DD>E>%,%E'>?8= 'B( &(CH,' ?D $(&D?&K>8I % E(&'%>8%89 C$(E>D>E 9H'F %&>C>8I D&?K D>#(9 %899(C>I8%'(9 D%E'C= >C % K>8>C'(&>%, %E'-

850 _>8'(&8%, eH?'%'>?8C %89 E>'%'>?8C ?K>''(9` _(K$B%C>C >8

?&>I>8%,`- +,'B?HIB $&?J%'( bH9I(C %&( K(KJ(&C ?D 'B(

bH9>E>%, J&%8EB ?D +,%J%K% I?@(&8K(8'= +&'- M3= hh ORX= O]]=

+,%- 4?8C'- OXVO= 'B>C 4?H&' ,?8I %I? &(E?I8>i(9 'B%' “R9S:;

@GGH8CE; ?T 8 D8>>@8A; I@E;CG; MU 8 OHPA; ?T N>?M89; @G 8

D@C@G9;>@8I 8CP C?9 8 OHP@E@8I 8E92” 3/%4*, (0 +-&-*= OVX

+,%- ]\= ]X= OX )?- XOW= XO\ _O\XQ` _(K$B%C>C %99(9`- *BHC=

%8 +,%J%K% $&?J%'( bH9I( B%C 8? 9>CE&('>?8 '? >CCH( % K%&&>%I(

,>E(8C( '? % C%K(PC(# E?H$,( >8 H''(& 9>C&(I%&9 ?D 'B( (#$&(CC

$&?B>J>'>?8C ?D 'B( 0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8' %89 'B( 0%&&>%I( +E'-


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

18/55

OR

12 ";@9:;> 9:; -./012 C?> 9:; -30/45.0 !COHCE9@?C>;VH@>;G /I8M8D8 N>?M89; OHPA;G 9? @GGH;

D8>>@8A; I@E;CG;G 9? G8D;KG;Q E?HNI;G2

*B( 9H'F ?D +,%J%K% $&?J%'( bH9I(C 8?' '? >CCH( K%&&>%I(

,>E(8C(C '? C%K(PC(# E?H$,(C c%C >8 8? c%F %,'(&(9 JF 'B(

+*&"', ?& 'B( +-"&./*" 38bH8E'>?8 J(E%HC( 8(>'B(& >C J>89>8I

?8 %8F +,%J%K% $&?J%'( bH9I(= (>'B(& ?8 >'C D%E( ?& JF

?$(&%'>?8 ?D ,%c-

+C %8 >8>'>%, K%''(&= 8(>'B(& 38bH8E'>?8 >C J>89>8I ?8

%8F +,%J%K% $&?J%'( bH9I( J(E%HC( 8? $&?J%'( bH9I( >C % $%&'F

>8 (>'B(& E%C(- *B( ?8,F 9(D(89%8' (8b?>8(9 >8 J?'B +*&"',

%89 +-"&./*" >C 'B( +,%J%K% +''?&8(F ?8 $&?@>9(C= >8 $(&'>8(8' $%&'g

l*mB( E?H&' B(&(JF 2;L";) 'B%' 'B( +,%J%K%+''?&8(F C $&?B>J>'(9 D&?K(8D?&E>8I 'B( +,%J%K% ,%cC cB>EB $&?B>J>'C%K(PC(# K%&&>%I(- *B>C >8bH8E'>?8 J>89C'B( 9(D(89%8' %89 %,, B>C ?DD>E(&C= %I(8'C=C(&@%8'C %89 (K$,?F((C= %89 ?'B(&C >8%E'>@( E?8E(&' ?& $%&'>E>$%'>?8 c>'B %8F?D 'B(K= cB? c?H,9 C((f '? (8D?&E( 'B(K%&&>%I( ,%cC ?D +,%J%K% cB>EB $&?B>J>'

C%K(PC(# K%&&>%I(-

_+-"&./*" 38b- _"#- /` %' ]-`

)>K>,%&,F= 'B( +*&"', 38bH8E'>?8 $&?@>9(C= >8 $(&'>8(8'$%&'g


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

19/55

O]

D(9(&%, E?H&' 9>9 8?' %EeH>&( bH&>C9>E'>?8 ?@(& %8F $&?J%'(

bH9I( D?& $H&$?C(C ?D ?&9(&>8I >8bH8E'>@( &(,>(D- +** B&,4#"

(0 +-A"2*44= [[R 7-)- \\V= \\] _YVV\` _“‘It is a principle of

I(8(&%, %$$,>E%'>?8 >8 +8I,?–+K(&>E%8 bH&>C$&H9(8E( 'B%' ?8(

>C 8?' J?H89 JF % bH9IK(8' )1 !*"/#1&9 >8 % ,>'>I%'>?8 >8

cB>EB B( >C 8?' 9(C>I8%'(9 %C % $%&'F ?& '? cB>EB B( B%C 8?'

been made a party by service of process.’”`k Q&"-)1 (0 L)4O/=

]XV 7-)- W[[= WQY _OX\X` _“+ bH9IK(8' ?& 9(E&(( %K?8I $%&'>(C

'? % ,%cCH>' &(C?,@(C >CCH(C %C %K?8I 'B(K= JH' >' 9?(C 8?'

E?8E,H9( 'B( &>IB'C ?D C'&%8I(&C '? 'B?C( $&?E((9>8IC-”`- +8

>8bH8E'>?8 %I%>8C' % C>8I,( C'%'( ?DD>E>%, CH(9 >8 B>C

?DD>E>%, E%$%E>'F 9?(C 8?' (8b?>8 %,, C'%'( ?DD>E>%,C- C#.

E#1*/ F =#07 81'0 (0 G&,*= Y[Q U-R9 OY[O= OY[[ 8-R _OO'B 4>&-

YVVO`-

3* 3) U7;*a"; 2;L";"L 'B%' +.+- 426)*-+;*- 3= h RQ-VR _YVVQ` %89 +.+- 42L" OXW[h RVPOPOX %&( H8E?8C'>'H'>?8%, J(E%HC('B(F @>?,%'( 'B(F LH( 1&?E(CC 4,%HC( %89'B( "eH%, 1&?'(E'>?8 4,%HC( ?D 'B(

U?H&'((8'B +K(89K(8'-

3* 3) U7;*a"; 2;L";"L 'B%' 'B(9(D(89%8' l+,%J%K% +''?&8(F C(8b?>8(9 D&?K (8D?&E>8I 'B?C( ,%cC-

_+*&"', 38b- _"#- +` %' OV-`


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

20/55

O[

6?& 9?(C (>'B(& 38bH8E'>?8 (#'(89 '? %8F +,%J%K% $&?J%'(

bH9I( JF ?$(&%'>?8 ?D ,%c- 789(& U(9(&%, ;H,( ?D 4>@>,

1&?E(9H&( Q[= >8 %99>'>?8 '? $%&'>(C= %8 >8bH8E'>?8 J>89C 'B(

$%&'>(Cn ?DD>E(&C= %I(8'C= C(&@%8'C= (K$,?F((C= %89

%''?&8(FC= %89 ?'B(& $(&C?8C %E'>8I >8 E?8E(&' ?&

$%&'>E>$%'>?8 c>'B 'B( $%&'>(C c>'B &(I%&9 '? $&?$(&'F 'B%'

>C 'B( CHJb(E' ?D 'B( >8bH8E'>?8- +** 345*".##5/ 6"!07 81'0

(0 6&"')&= Q\Y U-R9 X[\= XWOPWY _,O'B 4>&- YVOY`k P* B#A"1*&A

=#0 #J 6&0 (0 KP0M0@0= O[V U-Y9 OVOY= OVOR _['B 4>&- OX][`k

U(9- ;- 4>@- 1- Q[_9`_Y`- 38 'B( >CCH%8E( ?D K%&&>%I(

,>E(8C(C= B?c(@(&= %8 +,%J%K% $&?J%'( bH9I( >C >8 8? c%F %8

%I(8' ?& $(&C?8 %E'>8I >8 E?8E(&' c>'B 'B( +''?&8(F f( 'B(

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

21/55

OQ

4?8'&%&>,F= $&?J%'( bH9I(C %&( K(KJ(&C ?D 'B( bH9>E>%,

J&%8EBg

"#E($' %C ?'B(&c>C( $&?@>9(9 JF 'B>C

4?8C'>'H'>?8= 'B( bH9>E>%, $?c(& ?D 'B(C'%'( CB%,, J( @(C'(9 (#E,HC>@(,F >8 %H8>D>(9 bH9>E>%, CFC'(K cB>EB CB%,,E?8C>C' ?D % CH$&(K( E?H&'= % E?H&' ?DE&>K>8%, %$$(%,C= % E?H&' ?D E>@>, %$$(%,C=% '&>%, E?H&' ?D I(8(&%, bH&>C9>E'>?8 f8?c8%C 'B( E>&EH>' E?H&'= % '&>%, E?H&' ?D,>K>'(9 bH&>C9>E'>?8 f8?c8 %C 'B( 9>C'&>E'E?H&'= % $&?J%'( E?H&' %89 CHEB KH8>E>$%,E?H&'C %C K%F J( $&?@>9(9 JF ,%c-

+&'- M3= h ORX_%`= +,%- 4?8C'- OXVO-

+,%J%K% ?JC(&@(C C'&>E' C($%&%'>?8 ?D $?c(&C J('c((8 'B(

J&%8EB(C ?D I?@(&8K(8'- “*B( $?c(&C ?D 'B( I?@(&8K(8' ?D 'B(

)'%'( ?D +,%J%K% CB%,, J( 9>@>9(9 >8'? 'B&(( 9>C'>8E'

9($%&'K(8'C= (%EB ?D cB>EB CB%,, J( E?8D>9(9 '? % C($%&%'(

J?9F ?D K%I>C'&%EF= '? c>'g *B?C( cB>EB %&( ,(I>C,%'>@(= '?

?8(k 'B?C( cB>EB %&( (#(EH'>@(= '? %8?'B(&k %89 'B?C( cB>EB

%&( bH9>E>%,= '? %8?'B(&-” +&'- 333= h ]Y= +,%- 4?8C'- OXVO-

38 'B( I?@(&8K(8' ?D 'B>C C'%'(= (#E($' >8'B( >8C'%8E(C >8 'B>C 4?8C'>'H'>?8B(&(>8%D'(& (#$&(CC,F 9>&(E'(9 ?&$(&K>''(9= 'B( ,(I>C,%'>@( 9($%&'K(8'

CB%,, C;=;> (#(&E>C( 'B( (#(EH'>@( %89bH9>E>%, $?c(&C= ?& (>'B(& ?D 'B(Kk 'B((#(EH'>@( CB%,, C;=;> (#(&E>C( 'B(,(I>C,%'>@( %89 bH9>E>%, $?c(&C= ?& (>'B(&?D 'B(Kk 'B( bH9>E>%, CB%,, C;=;> (#(&E>C('B( ,(I>C,%'>@( %89 (#(EH'>@( $?c(&C= ?&(>'B(& ?D 'B(Kk '? 'B( (89 'B%' >' K%F J(% I?@(&8K(8' ?D ,%cC %89 8?' ?D K(8-


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

22/55

OW

+&'- 333= h ]R= +,%- 4?8C'- OXVO _(K$B%C>C %99(9`-

+C % K%''(& ?D +,%J%K% E?8C'>'H'>?8%, ,%c= 'B(&(D?&(=

$&?J%'( bH9I(C %&( 8?' %I(8'C ?D 'B( +''?&8(F E>%,

CB%,, 8(@(& (#(&E>C( 'B( --- (#(EH'>@( $?c(&C-” 850 *B(

+''?&8(F C J?H89 JF 'B( E?8C'>'H'>?8%, E?KK%89= “'B(

(#(EH'>@( CB%,, 8(@(& (#(&E>C( 'B( - - - bH9>E>%, $?c(&C-”

850

6?& E%8 % $&?J%'( bH9I( J( 9((K(9 % $(&C?8 >8 %E'>@(

E?8E(&' c>'B 'B( +''?&8(F 8 'B( >CCH%8E( ?D K%&&>%I(

,>E(8C(C- +,%J%K% ,%c I>@(C 8? %H'B?&>'F '? 'B( +''?&8(F

C %H'B?&>'F >C

(#E,HC>@(,F &(C(&@(9 '? $&?J%'( bH9I(C- +** h RVPOPX= +,%-

4?9( OXW[- +C >89($(89(8' E?8C'>'H'>?8%, ?DD>E(&C ?D 'B(

bH9>E>%, J&%8EB ?D I?@(&8K(8' cB? %&( 9>&(E',F (,(E'(9 JF 'B(

$(?$,( %89 CB>(,9(9 D&?K (#(EH'>@( >8D,H(8E( JF 'B( +,%J%K%

4?8C'>'H'>?8= 'B( bH9I(C ?D $&?J%'( %&( 8(>'B(& J(B?,9(8 '?

'B( +''?&8(F 8 'B( (#(EH'>?8 ?D 'B(>& 9H'>(C-

GH9I( C $?>8' >8 B(& 2&9(& 9(8F>8I 'B( +*&"', plaintiffs’ motion

'? B?,9 GH9I( ?D 1&?J%'( L?8 L%@>C >8 E?8'(K$' D?& @>?,%'>8I


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

23/55

O\

'B( +*&"', 38bH8E'>?8- _+ E?$F ?D 'B( 2&9(& >C %''%EB(9 B(&('?

%C "#B>J>' L-` *B( $,%>8'>DDC J(D?&( GH9I( K(9

'B%' GH9I( L%@>C @>?,%'(9 'B( +*&"', 38bH8E'>?8 JF 8?' ?$(8>8I

'B( K%&&>%I( ,>E(8C( 9>@>C>?8 ?D 'B( 0?J>,( 4?H8'F 1&?J%'(

4?H&' ?8 U(J&H%&F X= YVO[- _2&9- _"#- L` %' O-` 38 9(8F>8I

'B( K?'>?8= GH9I( C c%C

8?' % $%&'F '? 'B( E%C(=Y %89 c%C 8?' ?&9(&(9 '? 9? %8F'B>8I

JF 'B( +*&"', 38bH8E'>?8- *BHC= GH9I( 8'>DDC B%@( ?DD(&(9 8? %H'B?&>'F JF cB>EB 'B>C E?H&' E%8

B?,9 L%@>C >8 E?8'(K$' ?& ?&9(& %8F ?D 'B( &(,>(D C?HIB' JF

1,%>8'>DDC-” _2&9- _"#- L` %' R-`

+C CB?c8 %J?@(= +,%J%K% $&?J%'( bH9I(C %&( 8?' J?H89 JF

Judge Granade’s legal conclusions in (>'B(& 'B( +*&"', ?& 'B(

+-"&./*" 38bH8E'>?8-R *BHC= 8(>'B(& 38bH8E'>?8 $&?@>9(C %8F

Y GH9I( L%@>C c%C %8 ?&>I>8%, $%&'F '? 'B( E%C(= JH' c%C9>CK>CC(9 JF C'>$H,%'>?8 ?D 'B( $%&'>(C- _2&9- _"#- L` %' Y8-O-`

R No Alabama court is bound by a federal district court’s

&H,>8I 'B%' %8 +,%J%K% C'%'H'( >C H8E?8C'>'H'>?8%,- +**7*0207 C#* (0 D",#" = R]] U-R9 OY\Y= OY\Q _OO'B 4>&- YVVR` _“*B(?8,F D(9(&%, E?H&' cB?C( 9(E>C>?8C J>89 C'%'( E?H&'C >C 'B(78>'(9 )'%'(C )H$&(K( 4?H&'”`k @A)/- (0 B)9* C#9&)1 =#"!0=XYQ )?- Y9 YXV= YXW _+,%- YVV[` _“78>'(9 )'%'(C 9>C'&>E' E?H&'E%C(C - - - E%8 C(&@( ?8,F %C $(&CH%C>@( %H'B?&>'F-”`k 'J0 C#42*1'#"!7 81'0 (0 B&,4#" = Y\ )?- R9 WRW= W]\ _+,%- YVVX`


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

24/55

OX

,(I%, J%C>C D?& % $&?J%'( bH9I( '? 9>C&(I%&9 'B( E,(%&

$&?B>J>'>?8C %I%>8C' >CCH>8I K%&&>%I( ,>E(8C(C '? C%K(PC(#

E?H$,(C >8 'B( 0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8' %89 'B( 0%&&>%I( +E'-

,2 +8CP8DHG >;I@;T @G 8NN>?N>@89; 9? E?DD8CP*;GN?CP;C9 N>?M89; OHPA;G 9? N;>T?>D 9:;@>

D@C@G9;>@8I PH9U C?9 9? @GGH; D8>>@8A; I@E;CG;G9? G8D;KG;Q E?HNI;G2

67 8.3939:;.0 /= 09>&(9 (,(K(8'C D?& K%89%KHC &(,>(D %&( %C D?,,?cCg

O` % E,(%& ,(I%, &>IB' >8 'B( $('>'>?8(&'? 'B( ?&9(& C?HIB'k Y` %8 >K$(&%'>@( 9H'FH$?8 'B( &(C$?89(8' '? $(&D?&K=%EE?K$%8>(9 JF % &(DHC%, '? 9? C?k R` 'B(,%Ef ?D %8?'B(& %9(eH%'( &(K(9Fk %89 ]`$&?$(&,F >8@?f(9 bH&>C9>E'>?8 ?D 'B(E?H&'-

_8?'>8I “78>'(9 )'%'(C 9>C'&>E' E?H&' 9(E>C>?8C %&( 8?'E?8'&?,,>8I %H'B?&>'F >8 'B>C 4?H&'”`k HI !&"-* :&4*= Q )?-R9 ][Y= ]QY _+,%- YVV\`= %C K?9>D>(9 ?8 9(8>%, ?D &(BnI _2E'-OV= YVV\` _“ldm( %&( 8?' J?H89 JF 'B( 9(E>C>?8C ?D 'B(",(@(8'B 4>&EH>'-”`k HI !&"-* E#%1/#1= XXR )?- Y9 \W[= \\Q_+,%- YVV\` _“*B>C 4?H&' >C 8?' J?H89 JF 9(E>C>?8C ?D 'B(78>'(9 )'%'(C 4?H&'C ?D +$$(%,C ?& 'B( 78>'(9 )'%'(C L>C'&>E'4?H&'C-”`k 64&// (0 @)"9)12%&9 +#0 M0M0= XV[ )?-Y9 W\X= WX]_+,%- YVV]` _“.(I%, $&>8E>$,(C %89 B?,9>8IC D&?K >8D(&>?&

D(9(&%, E?H&'C B%@( 8? E?8'&?,,>8I (DD(E' B(&( - - - -”`k+9*"&5& :*// (0 ;.*1/C 4?H&' >C 8?' J?H89 JF 9(E>C>?8C ?D,?c(& D(9(&%, E?H&'C-”`k D"*J*""*5 M)/O QA-0 81/0 =#0 (0 M,&1=[\X )?- Y9 OQ[= OQW 8-Y _+,%- OXXO` _“L(E>C>?8C ?D D(9(&%,E?H&'C ?'B(& 'B%8 'B( 78>'(9 )'%'(C )H$&(K( 4?H&'= 'B?HIB$(&CH%C>@(= %&( 8?' J>89>8I %H'B?&>'F ?8 'B>C 4?H&'-”`-


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

25/55

YV

HI !&"-* E)9 L&4-*" M*/#A"'*/7 81'0= XO )?- R9 [V= [Y _+,%-

YVOY` _>8'(&8%, eH?'%'>?8C %89 E>'%'>?8C ?K>''(9`- 1('>'>?8(&

C%'>CD>(C 'B( D>&C' (,(K(8' J(E%HC( 1('>'>?8(& B%C % E,(%&

,(I%, &>IB' '? K%89%KHC &(,>(D E?KK%89>8I ;(C$?89(8' $&?J%'(

bH9I(C '? $(&D?&K 'B(>& K>8>C'(&>%, 9H'>(C H89(& 'B( 0%&&>%I(

+K(89K(8' %89 'B( 0%&&>%I( +E'-

*B>C 4?H&' $&(@>?HC,F B%C B(,9 K%89%KHC &(,>(D >C

%$$&?$&>%'( '? &(eH>&( K>8>C'(&>%, %E'>?8 JF C'%'( ?DD>E>%,C=

>8E,H9>8I bH9I(C ?D $&?J%'(- +**7 *0207 HI !&"-* E)9 L&4-*"

M*/#A"'*/7 81'0= XO )?- R9 %' [R _>CCH>8I c&>' E?KK%89>8I

$&?J%'( bH9I( '? $(&D?&K K>8>C'(&>%, DH8E'>?8 ?D >K$?C>8I

&(E?&9%'>?8 '%# ?8 K?&'I%I(`- +C CB?c8 %J?@(= 'B( >CCH%8E( ?D

K%&&>%I( ,>E(8C(C JF $&?J%'( bH9I(C >C % K>8>C'(&>%,

DH8E'>?8- _+** /A!"& h 3-+-` *BHC= K%89%KHC &(,>(D >C E,(%&,F

%$$&?$&>%'( '? E?KK%89 $&?J%'( bH9I(C '? E?K$,F c>'B 'B(

(#$&(CC $&?B>J>'>?8C %I%>8C' >CCH>8I K%&&>%I( ,>E(8C(C '?

C%K(PC(# E?H$,(C H89(& 'B( 0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8' %89 'B(

0%&&>%I( +E'-

UH&'B(&K?&(= 'B( ;(,%'?&C B%@( C'%89>8I '? C((f K%89%KHC

&(,>(D >8 'B( 8%K( ?D 'B( )'%'( H89(& c(,,PC('',(9 +,%J%K%

,%cg


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

26/55

YO

3' >C 8?c 'B( C('',(9 &H,( >8 +,%J%K% 'B%'% K%89%KHC $&?E((9>8I '? E?K$(, % $HJ,>E?DD>E(& '? $(&D?&K % ,(I%, 9H'F >8 cB>EB'B( $HJ,>E B%C %8 >8'(&(C'= %C9>C'>8IH>CB(9 D&?K %8 ?DD>E>%, 9H'F

%DD(E'>8I % $&>@%'( >8'(&(C' K(&(,F= >C$&?$(&,F J&?HIB' >8 'B( 8%K( ?D 'B( )'%'(?8 'B( &(,%'>?8 ?D ?8( ?& K?&( $(&C?8C>8'(&(C'(9 >8 'B( $(&D?&K%8E( ?D CHEB 9H'F'? 'B( $HJ,>E - - - -

G*15")'O (0 +-&-* *I "*40 +%#*9&O*" = Y[Q +,%- YVQ= YOR= []

)?- Y9 ]]Y= ]]W _OX[O`k /** &4/# Q#"")/#1 (0 Q#"")/= YWR +,%-

RXV= RXY= O]O )?- Y9 OQX= OWV _OXQY` _C%K(`k:#9&1 (0 +-&-*

*I "*40 +9)-%= YQ[ +,%- OW= OX= \X )?- Y9 O\]= O\Q _OX[Q`

_C%K(`-

The Alabama public has an interest in probate judges’

D%>'BDH, $(&D?&K%8E( ?D 'B(>& 9H'>(C H89(& 'B( 0%&&>%I(

+K(89K(8' %89 'B( 0%&&>%I( +E'= %89 ;(,%'?&C E?K$&>C( $(&C?8C

likewise interested in probate judges’ performance, both as

E>'>i(8C >8 I(8(&%,= %89 %C $(&C?8C c>'B C$(E>%, >8'(&(C'C >8

'B( (8%E'K(8' ?D J?'B 'B( 0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8' %89 'B( 0%&&>%I(

+E'- _+** /A!"& )'%'(K(8' ?D U%E'C= ¶¶ OVPOO-`

+EE?&9>8I,F= 1('>'>?8(&= 'B&?HIB 'B( ;(,%'?&C= B%C %

E,(%& ,(I%, &>IB' 'o Respondents’ performance, and therefore

C%'>CD>(C 'B( D>&C' K%89%KHC &(eH>&(K(8'-


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

27/55

YY

C7 %.5D:;@.;35 0.BA5. 3: D.0B:0? /;

9?D.0/39E. @A327

+C CB?c8 %J?@(= 'B( 9H'F ?D (%EB ;(C$?89(8' $&?J%'( bH9I(

8?' '? >CCH( K%&&>%I( ,>E(8C(C '? C%K(PC(# E?H$,(C >C

H8(eH>@?E%, H89(& J?'B 'B( 0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8' %89 'B(

0%&&>%I( +E'- _+** /A!"& h 3-+-`- +C %,C? CB?c8 %J?@(= (%EB

;(C$?89(8' $&?J%'( bH9I( B%C E,(%&,F 9>C&(I%&9(9 'B>C

>K$(&%'>@( 9H'F- _+** /A!"& )'%'(K(8' ?D U%E'C= oo [PX-` *BHC=

'B( C(E?89 K%89%KHC &(eH>&(K(8' >C K('-

F7

8.3939:;.0 ?8

?D 'B(>& $HJ,>E 9H'F= J(E%HC( 'B( $HJ,>E E%88?' J( % $%&'F '?

% K%&&>%I( ,>E(8C( $&?E((9>8I J(D?&( %8F ;(C$?89(8' %89 >C

8?' otherwise able to appeal Respondents’ >,,(I%, >CCH%8E( ?D

,>E(8C(C- *BHC= 'B>C E%C( 9?(C 8?' ?DD(89 'B( &H,( 'B%'

K%89%KHC c>,, 8?' ,>( %C % CHJC'>'H'( D?& %$$(%,- +**

2*1*"&44, HI !&"-* +!*&"/= QYO )?- Y9 OY[[= OY[Q _+,%- OXXR`-

G7 This Court’s jurisdiction is properly

9;E:H.@7

*B>C 4?H&' B%C J?'B E?8C'>'H'>?8%, %89 C'%'H'?&F

%H'B?&>'F '? >CCH( ?&>I>8%, c&>'C “%C K%F J( 8(E(CC%&F '?

I>@( >' I(8(&%, CH$(&@>C>?8 %89 E?8'&?, ?D E?H&'C ?D >8D(&>?&


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

28/55

YR

bH&>C9>E'>?8.” Art. VI, § 140(b), Ala. Const. 1901; § 12PYP

W_R`= +,%- 4?9( OXW[- The necessity for invoking this Court’s

bH&>C9>E'>?8 >8 'B>C E%C( %&>C(C D&?K 'B( C'%'(c>9( 8%'H&( ?D

'B( &(,>(D &(eH(C'(9- +C 4B>(D GHC'>E( 0??&( D?H89 >8 B>C

+9K>8>C'&%'>@( 2&9(&g

C?K( 1&?J%'( GH9I(C B%@( (#$&(CC(9 %8>8'(8'>?8 '? E(%C( >CCH>8I %,, K%&&>%I(,>E(8C(C= ?'B(&C %8 >8'(8'>?8 '? >CCH( ?8,FK%&&>%I( ,>E(8C(C 'B%' E?8D?&K '? +,%J%K%,%c= %89 F(' ?'B(&C %8 >8'(8'>?8 '? >CCH(

K%&&>%I( ,>E(8C(C 'B%' @>?,%'( +,%J%K%,%c= 'BHC E&(%'>8I E?8DHC>?8 %89 9>C%&&%F>8 'B( %9K>8>C'&%'>?8 ?D 'B( ,%c - - - -

_+9K>8- 2&9- _"#- 4` %' Y-`

*BHC= cB>,( &(,>(D %I%>8C' %8F ?8( ;(C$?89(8' $&?J%'(

bH9I( K>IB' %&IH%J,F J( ?J'%>8(9 >8 %8 >8D(&>?& E?H&'=

>KK(9>%'( %89 H&I(8' &(,>(D %I%>8C' %,, ;(C$?89(8'C= %89

Cc>D',F E?&&(E'>8I 'B( C'%'(c>9( “confusion and disarray”

E%HC(9 JF $&?J%'( bH9I(C >CCH>8I >,,(I%, ,>E(8C(C= &(eH>&(C

the “full relief and . . . complete justice” that only this

4?H&' E%8 $&?@>9(- HI !&"-* 34&?&9& B*I-)4* D"#5A'-/ =#"!0=

W )?- Y9 RVR= RVQ _OX]Y`- *? J( CH&(= 'B( C'%'(c>9( >8bH&F '?

the public caused by infidelity to Alabama’s m%&&>%I( ,%cC

K%f(C this case “?D K?&( 'B%8 ?&9>8%&F K%I8>'H9( %89

>K$?&'%8E(,” such that 8? >8D(&>?& E?H&' “$?CC(CC(C 'B(


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

29/55

Y]

%H'B?&>'F '? %DD?&9 '? 'B( $('>'>?8(& &(,>(D %C %K$,( %C 'B>C

E?H&' E?H,9 I&%8'.” 850= W )?- Y9 %' RV[PRVQ-

0?&(?@(&= 'B>C 1('>'>?8 K(&>'C E?8C>9(&%'>?8 8?' ?8,F JF

'B>C 4?H&'= JH' JF 'B( (8'>&( $%8(, ?D 'B>C 4?H&'’s Justices

J(E%HC( ?D 'B( E&>'>E%, >K$?&'%8E( ?D 'B( >CCH(C >8@?,@(9 %89

'B( H&I(8EF ?D $&(@(8'>8I E?8'>8H(9 ?$(8 @>?,%'>?8C ?D 'B(

0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8' %89 0%&&>%I( +E'-

!!2 $%& 6*!$' '%-(07 !''(& 1&,/('& $%& ,%!&. F('$!,& -. $%&

'()*&+& ,-(*$ -. /0/1/+/ -*7&*&7 /00 )*-1/$& F(74&' "-$$- !''(& 0!,&"'&' $- '/+&K'&L ,-()0&'2

38 %99>'>?8 '? 'B( &(%C?8C CB?c8 >8 )(E'>?8 3 %J?@(=

Chief Justice Moore’s Administrative Order provides a

C($%&%'( J%C>C D?& K%89%KHC &(,>(D J(E%HC( >' 9>&(E',F

$&?B>J>'C %,, +,%J%K% $&?J%'( bH9I(C D&?K >CCH>8I K%&&>%I(

,>E(8C(C '? C%K(PC(# E?H$,(C >8 @>?,%'>?8 ?D 'B( 0%&&>%I(

+K(89K(8' %89 'B( 0%&&>%I( +E'- _+9K>8- 2&9- _"#- 4` %' [-`

*B( +9K>8>C'&%'>@( 2&9(& >C J>89>8I ?8 %,, $&?J%'( bH9I(C D?&

'B( &(%C?8C C'%'(9 >8 'B( ?&9(&- GHC' %C K%89%KHC >C

appropriate for this Court to command a lower court’s

compliance this Court’s mandate, /**7 *0207 HI !&"-* 81/0 =#0

#J K0 390= [YR )?- Y9 OVQ]= OVQ\PQX _+,%- OX\\`= >' >C

appropriate for this Court to command probate judges’

E?K$,>%8E( c>'B 'B( +9K>8>C'&%'>@( 2&9(&-


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

30/55

Y[

,-",0('!-"

*B( 0%&&>%I( +K(89K(8'= 'B( 0%&&>%I( +E'= %89 'B(

+9K>8>C'&%'>@( 2&9(& E?H,9 8?' J( K?&( E,(%&g +,%J%K% $&?J%'(

bH9I(C %&( $&?B>J>'(9 D&?K >CCH>8I K%&&>%I( ,>E(8C(C '? C%K(P

C(# E?H$,(C- 3' >C (eH%,,F E,(%& 'B%' 8(>'B(& 'B( +*&"', 8?&

'B( +-"&./*" 38bH8E'>?8= 8?& %8F ?'B(& %H'B?&>'F E?K$(,C ?&

authorizes probate judges to disregard Alabama’s marriage

,%cC- 6?8('B(,(CC= C?K( $&?J%'( bH9I(C B%@( 9?8( bHC' 'B%'=

E&(%'>8I E?8DHC>?8 %89 9>C%&&%F >8 'B( >CCH%8E( ?D K%&&>%I(

,>E(8C(C >8 'B( C'%'(- *B>C 4?H&' CB?H,9 &(K?@( 'B( E?8DHC>?8

%89 9>C%&&%F JF I>@>8I +,%J%K% $&?J%'( bH9I(C % E,(%& bH9>E>%,

$&?8?H8E(K(8' 'B%' +,%J%K% ,%c $&?B>J>'C 'B( >CCH%8E( ?D

K%&&>%I( ,>E(8C(C '? C%K(PC(# E?H$,(C-

da";"U2;"= 'B( $&(K>C(C E?8C>9(&(9= 1('>'>?8(& $&%FC

'B%' 'B( 4?H&' I&%8' 'B>C $('>'>?8 *I !&"-*= ?8 %8 (K(&I(8EF


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

31/55

YQ

J%C>C= >CCH( 'B( c&>'C ?D K%89%KHC $&%F(9 D?& B(&(>8= %89

?&9(& 'B%' %8 %8Cc(& '? 'B( $('>'>?8 J( CHJC(eH(8',F D>,(9 JF

;(C$?89(8'C-

;(C$(E'DH,,F )HJK>''(9=

+89:;< 72 '98=;>† U,%- /%& 6?- VWVOVXYKC'%@(&Z.4-?&IE?H&'Z.4-?&I

%?>89@? 42 +@:;9†

U,%- /%& 6?- VVYQ[\OBK>B('Z.4-?&I*?A;> B2 48CC8D † U,%- /%& 6?- Y]V][V&I%88%KZ.4-?&I! "#$%&' ) *+,-$! 1-2- /2^ []VWW]2&,%89?= U. RY\[]PVWW]_\VV` QWOPOWWQ_]VW` \W[PVWWV U+^

†0?'>?8 D?& %9K>CC>?8 !"# %&' ()'* $(89>8I

CT +- "&>E G?B8C'?8 /2 &>@E F?:CG9?C _+)/PY[W]PaR\+` (&>EZ%(&>Eb?B8C'?8-E?K)H>'( OVWOYVV 4?&$?&%'( L&>@(

/>&K>8IB%K= +. R[Y]Y_YV[`]V\P\\XR_YV[`]V\P\\X] U+^

'8DH;I F2 +E0H>; _04.PV[Q`C%KZ'B(%9?$'>?8D>&K-E?K*B( +9?$'>?8 .%c U>&K12 /?# YRXQ0?8'I?K(&F= +. RQOVY_RR]`QOYPR]VQ

+''?&8(FC D?& 1('>'>?8(&


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

32/55

YW

,&*$!.!,/$& -. '&*J!,&

3 E(&'>DF 'B%' 3 B%@( 'B>C OO'B 9%F ?D U(J&H%&F= YVO[=C(&@(9 E?$>(C ?D 'B>C $('>'>?8 ?8 'B( ;(C$?89(8'C %89 'B(+,%J%K% +''?&8(F , %89 U(9"# C'%89%&9

?@(&8>IB' C(&@>E(= %C D?,,?cCg

*B( a?8?&%J,( +,%8 .- A>8IGH9I( ?D 1&?J%'(= G(DD(&C?8 4?H8'FWOQ 6?&'B ;>EB%&9 +&&>8I'?8 G&- /,@9-/>&K>8IB%K= +. R[YVRf>8I%ZbEE%,-?&I

*B( a?8?&%J,( ;?J(&' 0- 0%&'>8GH9I( ?D 1&?J%'(= 4B>,'?8 4?H8'F[VV Y89 +@(8H( 6?&'B4,%8'?8= +. R[V][$&?J%'(ZEB>,'?8E?H8'F-?&I

*B( a?8?&%J,( *?KKF ;%I,%89GH9I( ?D 1&?J%'(= 0%9>C?8 4?H8'FOVV 6?&'B )>9( )eH%&(= ;K- OVOaH8'C@>,,(= +. R[\VO$B%8C?8ZE?-K%9>C?8-%,-HC

*B( a?8?&%J,( )'(@(8 .- ;((9

GH9I( ?D 1&?J%'(= 0?8'I?K(&F 4?H8'F0?8'I?K(&F 4?H8'F 4?H&'B?HC( +88(# 3= *B>&9 U,??&OVV )?H'B .%c&(8E( )'&(('0?8'I?K(&F= +. RQOV]$&?J%'(ZKEP%,%-?&I

.H'B(& )'&%8I(+''?&8(F 8I'?8 +@(8H(0?8'I?K(&F= +. RQORVPVO[Y

CKE,H&(Z%I?-C'%'(-%,-HC

CT +- "&>E G?B8C'?8+- "&>E G?B8C'?8+''?&8(F D?& 1('>'>?8(&


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

33/55

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CARI D. SEARCY and KIMBERLY

MCKEAND, individually and as

parent and next friend of K.S., a

minor,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0208-CG-N

LUTHER STRANGE, in his capacity

as Attorney General for the State of

Alabama,

Defendant.

MEMORANUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case challenges the constitutionality of the State of Alabama’s “Alabama

Sanctity of Marriage Amendment” and the “Alabama Marriage Protection Act.” It is

before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment (Docs. 21, 22, 47 & 48).

For the reasons explained below, the Court finds the challenged laws to be

unconstitutional on Equal Protection and Due Process Grounds.

I. Facts

This case is brought by a same-sex couple, Cari Searcy and Kimberly

McKeand, who were legally married in California under that state’s laws. The

Plaintiffs want Searcy to be able to adopt McKeand’s 8-year-old biological son, K.S.,

under a provision of Alabama’s adoption code that allows a person to adopt her

“spouse’s child.” A LA . CODE § 26-10A-27. Searcy filed a petition in the Probate Court

of Mobile County seeking to adopt K.S. on December 29, 2011, but that petition was

denied based on the “Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment” and the “Alabama

!"#$ &'&()*+),,-,.)!/)0 12*34$56 78 9:;$< ,&=-8=&7 >"?$ & 2@ &,

EXHIBIT A


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

34/55

2

Marriage Protection Act.” (Doc. 22-6). The Alabama Sanctity of Marriage

Amendment to the Alabama Constitution provides the following:

(a) This amendment shall be known and may be cited as the Sanctity

of Marriage Amendment.

(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a

woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in

encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in

order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of

society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of

the same sex is invalid in this state.

(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a

woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is

present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which

is recognized by the state as a civil contract.

(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to

parties of the same sex.

(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of

parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred

as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a

marriage license was issued.

(f) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any common law

marriage of parties of the same sex.

(g) A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex

in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered

and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this

state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other

union replicating marriage.

A LA . CONST. A RT. I, § 36.03 (2006).

The Alabama Marriage Protection Act provides:

(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Alabama

Marriage Protection Act.”

(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a

woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in

encouraging, supporting, and protecting the unique relationship in

!"#$ &'&()*+),,-,.)!/)0 12*34$56 78 9:;$< ,&=-8=&7 >"?$ - 2@ &,Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 58-1 Filed 02/15/15 Page 29 of 50

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

35/55

3

order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of

society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of

the same sex is invalid in this state.

(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a

woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is

present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which

is recognized by the state as a civil contract.

(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to

parties of the same sex.

(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of

parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred

as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a

marriage license was issued.

A LA . CODE § 30-1-19. Because Alabama does not recognize Plaintiffs’ marriage,

Searcy does not qualify as a “spouse” for adoption purposes. Searcy appealed the

denial of her adoption petition and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the

decision of the probate court. (Doc. 22-7).

II. Discussion

There is no dispute that the court has jurisdiction over the issues raised

herein, which are clearly constitutional federal claims. This court has jurisdiction

over constitutional challenges to state laws because such challenges are federal

questions. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant “shows that there is no

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P 56(a). Because the parties do not dispute the pertinent

facts or that they present purely legal issues, the court turns to the merits.

Plaintiffs contend that the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama

Marriage Protection Act violate the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit clause and

!"#$ &'&()*+),,-,.)!/)0 12*34$56 78 9:;$< ,&=-8=&7 >"?$ 8 2@ &,Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 58-1 Filed 02/15/15 Page 30 of 50

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

36/55

4

the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Alabama’s Attorney General, Luther Strange, contends that Baker v. Nelson, 409

U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972), is controlling in this case. In Baker, the

United States Supreme Court summarily dismissed “for want of substantial federal

question” an appeal from the Minnesota Supreme Court, which upheld a ban on

same-sex marriage. Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn.1971),

appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972). The Minnesota

Supreme Court held that a state statute defining marriage as a union between

persons of the opposite sex did not violate the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution. Baker, 191 N.W.2d at 185–86.

However, Supreme Court decisions since Baker reflect significant “doctrinal

developments” concerning the constitutionality of prohibiting same-sex

relationships. See Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193, 1204–05 (10th Cir. 2014). As

the Tenth Circuit noted in Kitchen, “[t]wo landmark decisions by the Supreme

Court”, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003),

and United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 186 L.Ed.2d 808 (2013), “have

undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker is insubstantial.” 755

F.3d at 1205. Lawrence held that the government could not lawfully “demean

[homosexuals'] existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual

conduct a crime.” Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 574, 123 S.Ct. 2472. In Windsor, the

Supreme Court struck down the federal definition of marriage as being between a

man and a woman because, when applied to legally married same-sex couples, it

“demean[ed] the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.”

!"#$ &'&()*+),,-,.)!/)0 12*34$56 78 9:;$< ,&=-8=&7 >"?$ ( 2@ &,Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 58-1 Filed 02/15/15 Page 31 of 50

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

37/55

5

Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2694. In doing so, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of

the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which expressly held that

Baker did not foreclose review of the federal marriage definition. Windsor v. United

States, 699 F.3d 169, 178–80 (2d Cir.2012) (“Even if Baker might have had

resonance ... in 1971, it does not today.”).

Although the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet determined the

issue, several federal courts of appeals that have considered Baker's impact in the

wake of Lawrence and Windsor have concluded that Baker does not bar a federal

court from considering the constitutionality of a state's ban on same-sex marriage.

See, e.g., Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2014); Kitchen, 755 F.3d 1193

(10th Cir.2014); Latta v. Otter, 771 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 2014); Baskin v. Bogan, 766

F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014); Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014). Numerous

lower federal courts also have questioned whether Baker serves as binding precedent

following the Supreme Court's decision in Windsor. This Court has the benefit of

reviewing the decisions of all of these other courts. “[A] significant majority of courts

have found that Baker is no longer controlling in light of the doctrinal developments

of the last 40 years.” Jernigan v. Crane, 2014 WL 6685391, *13 (E.D. Ark. 2014)

(citing Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard, 2014 WL 6386903, at *6–7 n. 5 (D.S.D. Nov.14,

2014) (collecting cases that have called Baker into doubt)). The Court notes that the

Sixth Circuit recently concluded that Baker is still binding precedent in DeBoer v.

Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014), but finds the reasoning of the Fourth, Seventh,

Ninth, and Tenth Circuits to be more persuasive on the question and concludes that

!"#$ &'&()*+),,-,.)!/)0 12*34$56 78 9:;$< ,&=-8=&7 >"?$ 7 2@ &,Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 58-1 Filed 02/15/15 Page 32 of 50

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

38/55

6

Baker does not preclude consideration of the questions presented herein.1 Thus, the

Court first addresses the merits of Plaintiffs’ Due Process and Equal Protection

claims, as those claims provide the most appropriate analytical framework. And if

equal protection analysis decides this case, there is no need to address the Full Faith

and Credit claim.

Rational basis review applies to an equal protection analysis unless Alabama’s

laws affect a suspect class of individuals or significantly interfere with a

fundamental right. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 388, 98S.Ct. 673, 54 L.Ed.2d

618 (1978). Although a strong argument can be made that classification based on

sexual orientation is suspect, Eleventh Circuit precedence holds that such

classification is not suspect. Lofton v. Secretary of Dep’t. of Children and Family

Services, 358 F.3d 804, 818 (11th Cir. 2004)/ The post-Windsor landscape may

ultimately change the view expressed in Lofton, however no clear majority of

Justices in Windsor stated that sexual orientation was a suspect category.

Laws that implicate fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny and will

survive constitutional analysis only if narrowly tailored to a compelling government

interest. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301–02, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993).

Careful review of the parties’ briefs and the substantial case law on the subject

persuades the Court that the institution of marriage itself is a fundamental right

1 This court also notes that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the DeBoercase, Bourke v. Bashear , __ S.Ct.__, 2015 WL 213651 (U.S. January 16, 2015),

limiting review to these two questions: 1) Does the 14th Amendment require a state

to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? and 2) Does the 14th

Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same

sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state? The

questions raised in this lawsuit will thus be definitively decided by the end of the

current Supreme Court term, regardless of today’s holding by this court.

!"#$ &'&()*+),,-,.)!/)0 12*34$56 78 9:;$< ,&=-8=&7 >"?$ A 2@ &,Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 58-1 Filed 02/15/15 Page 33 of 50

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

39/55

7

protected by the Constitution, and that the State must therefore convince the Court

that its laws restricting the fundamental right to marry serve a compelling state

interest.

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal

rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” and women. Loving

v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 11, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967). Numerous cases

have recognized marriage as a fundamental right, describing it as a right of liberty,

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923), of privacy,

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965),

and of association, M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116, 117 S.Ct. 555, 136 L.Ed.2d

473 (1996). “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a

person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are

central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Planned Parenthood

of SE Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992).

“Under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, interference with

a fundamental right warrants the application of strict scrutiny.” Bostic v. Schaefer,

760 F.3d 352, 375(4th Cir. 2014). Strict scrutiny “entail[s] a most searching

examination” and requires “the most exact connection between justification and

classification.” Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 270, 123 S.Ct. 2411, 156 L.Ed.2d 257

(2003) (internal quotations omitted). Under this standard, the defendant “cannot

rest upon a generalized assertion as to the classification's relevance to its goals.”

Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 500, 109 S.Ct. 706, 102 L.Ed.2d 854

(1989). “The purpose of the narrow tailoring requirement is to ensure that the

!"#$ &'&()*+),,-,.)!/)0 12*34$56 78 9:;$< ,&=-8=&7 >"?$ B 2@ &,Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 58-1 Filed 02/15/15 Page 34 of 50

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

40/55

8

means chosen fit the compelling goal so closely that there is little or no possibility

that the motive for the classification was illegitimate.” Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S.

306, 333, 123 S.Ct. 2325, 156 L.Ed.2d 304 (2003).

Defendant contends that Alabama has a legitimate interest in protecting the

ties between children and their biological parents and other biological kin.2

However, the Court finds that the laws in question are not narrowly tailored to fulfill

the reported interest. The Attorney General does not explain how allowing or

recognizing same-sex marriage between two consenting adults will prevent

heterosexual parents or other biological kin from caring for their biological children.

He proffers no justification for why it is that the provisions in question single out

same-sex couples and prohibit them, and them alone, from marrying in order to meet

that goal. Alabama does not exclude from marriage any other couples who are either

unwilling or unable to biologically procreate. There is no law prohibiting infertile

couples, elderly couples, or couples who do not wish to procreate from marrying. Nor

does the state prohibit recognition of marriages between such couples from other

states. The Attorney General fails to demonstrate any rational, much less

2 Although Defendant seems to hang his hat on the biological parent-child bond

argument, Defendant hints that this is one of many state interests justifying the

laws in question and some of his arguments could be construed to assert additional

state interests that have commonly been proffered in similar cases. The court finds

that these other interests also do not constitute compelling state interests. See

Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014) (finding that the following interestsneither individually nor collectively constitute a compelling state interest for

recognizing same-sex marriages: (1) the State’s federalism-based interest in

maintaining control over the definition of marriage within its borders, (2) the history

and tradition of opposite-sex marriage, (3) protecting the institution of marriage, (4)

encouraging responsible procreation, and (5) promoting the optimal childrearing

environment.).

!"#$ &'&()*+),,-,.)!/)0 12*34$56 78 9:;$< ,&=-8=&7 >"?$ . 2@ &,Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 58-1 Filed 02/15/15 Page 35 of 50

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

41/55

9

compelling, link between its prohibition and non-recognition of same-sex marriage

and its goal of having more children raised in the biological family structure the

state wishes to promote. There has been no evidence presented that these marriage

laws have any effect on the choices of couples to have or raise children, whether they

are same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples. In sum, the laws in question are an

irrational way of promoting biological relationships in Alabama. Kitchen, 755 F.3d

at 1222 (“As between non-procreative opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples, we

can discern no meaningful distinction with respect to appellants’ interest in fostering

biological reproduction within marriages.”).

If anything, Alabama’s prohibition of same-sex marriage detracts from its goal

of promoting optimal environments for children. Those children currently being

raised by same-sex parents in Alabama are just as worthy of protection and

recognition by the State as are the children being raised by opposite-sex parents.

Yet Alabama’s Sanctity laws harms the children of same-sex couples for the same

reasons that the Supreme Court found that the Defense of Marriage Act harmed the

children of same-sex couples. Such a law “humiliates [ ] thousands of children now

being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult

for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its

concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Windsor,

133 S.Ct. at 2694. Alabama’s prohibition and non-recognition of same-sex marriage

“also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples.” id. at 2695, because it

denies the families of these children a panoply of benefits that the State and the

federal government offer to families who are legally wed. Additionally, these laws

!"#$ &'&()*+),,-,.)!/)0 12*34$56 78 9:;$< ,&=-8=&7 >"?$ C 2@ &,Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 58-1 Filed 02/15/15 Page 36 of 50

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

42/55

10

further injures those children of all couples who are themselves gay or lesbian, and

who will grow up knowing that Alabama does not believe they are as capable of

creating a family as their heterosexual friends.

For all of these reasons, the court finds that Alabama’s marriage laws violate

the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

to the United States Constitution.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc.

21), is GRANTED and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docs. 47), is

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that A LA . CONST. A RT. I, § 36.03 (2006) and

A LA . CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are unconstitutional because they violate they Due Process

Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is enjoined from enforcing

those laws.

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

!"#$ &'&()*+),,-,.)!/)0 12*34$56 78 9:;$< ,&=-8=&7 >"?$ &, 2@ &,Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 58-1 Filed 02/15/15 Page 37 of 50

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

43/55



SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES N. STRAWSER and JOHN

E. HUMPHREY,

)

))

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0424-CG-C

)

LUTHER STRANGE, in his official

capacity as Attorney General for

the State of Alabama,

)

)

)

)

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary and

permanent injunction. (Doc. 15). An evidentiary hearing was held and sworn

testimony was offered by Plaintiffs in support of their motion on December 18, 2014.

For the reasons stated below, the court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to

preliminary injunctive relief.

The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction “is within the sound

discretion of the district court...” Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir.

2002). This court may grant a preliminary injunction only if the plaintiff

demonstrates each of the following prerequisites: (1) a substantial likelihood of

success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat irreparable injury will occur absent

issuance of the injunction; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the potential damage

the required injunction may cause the non-moving parties; and (4) the injunction

would not be adverse to the public interest. Id., 287 F.3d at 1329; see also

McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d. 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998). “In this

!"#$ &'&()*+),,(-()!.)! /0*12$34 -5 678$9 ,&:-;:&< =">$ & 0? (

EXHIBIT B


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

44/55

2

Circuit, ‘[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be

granted unless the movant clearly established the “burden of persuasion” ‘ as to the

four requisites.” McDonald’s Corp., 147 F.3d at 1306; All Care Nursing Service, Inc.

v. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989)(a

preliminary injunction is issued only when “drastic relief” is necessary.

This case is brought by a same-sex couple, James Strawser and John

Humphrey, who have been denied the right to a legal marriage under the laws of

Alabama. The couple resides in Mobile, Alabama and participated in a church

sanctioned marriage ceremony in Alabama. Strawser and Humphrey applied for a

marriage license in Mobile County, Alabama, but were denied.

Strawser testified that he has health issues that will require surgery that

will put his life at great risk. Strawser’s mother also has health issues and requires

assistance. Prior to previous surgeries, Strawser had given Humphrey a medical

power of attorney, but was told by the hospital where he was receiving medical

treatment that they would not honor the document because Humphrey was not a

family member or spouse. Additionally, Strawser is very concerned that Humphrey

be permitted to assist Strawser’s mother in all of her affairs if Strawser does not

survive surgery.

Plaintiffs contend that Alabama’s marriage laws violate their rights to Due

Process, Equal Protection and the free exercise of religion. This court has

determined in another case, Searcy v. Strange, SDAL Civil Action No. 14-00208-CG-

N, that Alabama’s laws prohibiting and refusing to recognize same-sex marriage

violate the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

!"#$ &'&()*+),,(-()!.)! /0*12$34 -5 678$9 ,&:-;:&< =">$ - 0? (Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 58-1 Filed 02/15/15 Page 39 of 50

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

45/55

3

Amendment to the United States. In Searcy, this court found that the Sanctity of

Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act restrict the

Plaintiffs’ fundamental marriage right and do not serve a compelling state interest.

The Attorney General of Alabama has asserted the same grounds and arguments in

defense of this case as he did in the Searcy case. Although the Plaintiffs in this case

seek to marry in Alabama, rather than have their marriage in another state

recognized, the court adopts the reasoning expressed in the Searcy case and finds

that Alabama’s laws violate the Plaintiffs’ rights for the same reasons. Alabama’s

marriage laws violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process Clause and Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

by prohibiting same-sex marriage. Said laws are unconstitutional.

As such, Plaintiffs have met the preliminary injunction factors. Plaintiffs’

inability to exercise their fundamental right to marry has caused them irreparable

harm which outweighs any injury to defendant. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347,

373, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (holding that deprivation of constitutional

rights “unquestionably constitutes irreparable harm.”). Moreover, Strawser’s

inability to have Humphrey make medical decisions for him and visit him in the

hospital as a spouse present a substantial threat of irreparable injury.

Additionally, “it is always in the public interest to protect constitutional rights.”

Phelps–Roper v. Nixon, 545 F.3d 685, 690 (8th Cir. 2008). Therefore, the Plaintiffs

have met their burden for issuance of a preliminary injunction against the

enforcement of state marriage laws prohibiting same-sex marriage.

!"#$ &'&()*+),,(-()!.)! /0*12$34 -5 678$9 ,&:-;:&< =">$ @ 0? (Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 58-1 Filed 02/15/15 Page 40 of 50

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

46/55

4

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that the Alabama Attorney General

is prohibited from enforcing the Alabama laws which prohibit same-sex marriage.

This injunction binds the defendant and all his officers, agents, servants and

employees, and others in active concert or participation with any of them, who

would seek to enforce the marriage laws of Alabama which prohibit same-sex

marriage.

Defendant stated at the hearing that if the court were to grant Plaintiffs’

motion, Defendant requests a stay of the injunction pending an appeal. As it did in

the Searcy case, the Court hereby STAYS execution of this injunction for fourteen

days to allow the defendant to seek a further stay pending appeal in the Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals. If no action is taken by the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals to extend or lift the stay within that time period, this stay will be lifted on

February 9, 2015.

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of January, 2015.



!"#$ &'&()*+),,(-()!.)! /0*12$34 -5 678$9 ,&:-;:&< =">$ ( 0? (Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 58-1 Filed 02/15/15 Page 41 of 50

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

47/55

STATE OF ALABAMA -- JUDICIAL SYSTEM

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER OF THE

CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VI, Section 149, of theConstitution of Alabama, the Chief Justice of the SupremeCourt of Alabama is the administrative head of thejudicial system; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to § 12-2-30(b)(7), Ala. Code1975, the Chief Justice is authorized and empowered to"take affirmative and appropriate action to correct oralleviate any condition or situation adversely affectingthe administration of justice within the state"; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to § 12-2-30(b)(8), Ala. Code1975, the Chief Justice is authorized and empowered to"take any such other, further or additional action as maybe necessary for the orderly administration of justicewithin the state, whether or not enumerated in thissection or elsewhere"; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VI, Section 139(a), ofthe Constitution of Alabama, the Probate Judges ofAlabama are part of Alabama's Unified Judicial System;

and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XVI, Section 279, ofthe Constitution of Alabama, the Probate Judges ofAlabama are bound by oath to "support the Constitution ofthe United States, and the Constitution of the State ofAlabama"; and

WHEREAS, as explained in my Letter and Memorandum tothe Alabama Probate Judges, dated February 3, 2015, andincorporated fully herein by reference, the Probate

Judges of Alabama are not bound by the orders of January23, 2015 and January 28, 2015 in the case of Searcy v.Strange (No. 1:14-208-CG-N) (S.D. Ala.) or by the orderof January 26, 2015 in Strawser v. Strange (No. 1:14-CV-424-CG-C) (S.D. Ala.); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, the aforementioned orders bind only the

EXHIBIT


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

48/55

Alabama Attorney General and do not bind the ProbateJudges of Alabama who, as members of the judicial branch,neither act as agents or employees of the AttorneyGeneral nor in concert or participation with him; and

WHEREAS, the Attorney General possesses no authorityunder Alabama law to issue marriage licenses, andtherefore, under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S.123 (2008), lacks a sufficient connection to theadministration of those laws; and

WHEREAS, the Eleventh Amendment of the United StatesConstitution prohibits the Attorney General, as adefendant in a legal action, from standing as a surrogatefor all state officials; and

WHEREAS, the separation of powers provisions of theAlabama Constitution, Art. III, §§ 42 and 43, Ala. Const.1901, do not permit the Attorney General, a member of theexecutive branch, to control the duties andresponsibilities of Alabama Probate Judges; and

WHEREAS, the Probate Judges of Alabama fall underthe direct supervision and authority of the Chief Justiceof the Supreme Court as the Administrative Head of theJudicial Branch; and

WHEREAS, the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Alabama has not issued an orderdirected to the Probate Judges of Alabama to issuemarriage licenses that violate Alabama law; and

WHEREAS, the opinions of the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District of Alabama do not bindthe state courts of Alabama but only serve as persuasiveauthority; and

WHEREAS, some Probate Judges have expressed an

intention to cease issuing all marriage licenses, othersan intention to issue only marriage licenses that conformto Alabama law, and yet others an intention to issuemarriage licenses that violate Alabama law, thus creatingconfusion and disarray in the administration of the law;and

2


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

49/55

WHEREAS, the Alabama Department of Public Health hasredrafted marriage license forms in contradiction to thepublic statements of Governor Bentley to uphold theAlabama Constitution, and has sent such forms to allAlabama Probate Judges, creating further inconsistency in

the administration of justice; and

WHEREAS, cases are currently pending before TheUnited States District Court for the Middle District ofAlabama and the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Alabama that could result in ordersthat conflict with those in Searcy and Strawser, thuscreating confusion and uncertainty that would adverselyaffect the administration of justice within Alabama; and

WHEREAS, if Probate Judges in Alabama either issue

marriage licenses that are prohibited by Alabama law orrecognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions thatare not legal under Alabama law, the pending cases in thefederal district courts in Alabama outside of theSouthern District could be mooted, thus undermining thecapacity of those courts to act independently of theSouthern District and creating further confusion anduncertainty as to the administration of justice withinthis State; and

WHEREAS Article I, Section 36.03, of the

Constitution of Alabama, entitled "Sanctity of marriage,"states:

(a) This amendment shall be known and may becited as the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.

(b) Marriage is inherently a uniquerelationship between a man and a woman. As amatter of public policy, this state has aspecial interest in encouraging, supporting,and protecting this unique relationship in

order to promote, among other goals, thestability and welfare of society and itschildren. A marriage contracted betweenindividuals of the same sex is invalid in thisstate.

3


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

50/55

(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnizedbetween a man and a woman, which, when thelegal capacity and consent of both parties ispresent, establishes their relationship ashusband and wife, and which is recognized by

the state as a civil contract.

(d) No marriage license shall be issued in theState of Alabama to parties of the same sex.

(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize asvalid any marriage of parties of the same sexthat occurred or was alleged to have occurredas a result of the law of any jurisdictionregardless of whether a marriage license wasissued.

(f) The State of Alabama shall not recognize asvalid any common law marriage of parties of thesame sex.

(g) A union replicating marriage of or betweenpersons of the same sex in the State of Alabamaor in any other jurisdiction shall beconsidered and treated in all respects ashaving no legal force or effect in this stateand shall not be recognized by this state as a

marriage or other union replicating marriage.

and

WHEREAS § 30-1-9, Ala. Code 1975, entitled"Marriage, recognition thereof, between persons of thesame sex prohibited," states:

(a) This section shall be known and may becited as the “Alabama Marriage Protection Act.”

(b) Marriage is inherently a uniquerelationship between a man and a woman. As amatter of public policy, this state has aspecial interest in encouraging, supporting,and protecting the unique relationship in orderto promote, among other goals, the stability

4


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

51/55

and welfare of society and its children. Amarriage contracted between individuals of thesame sex is invalid in this state.

(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized

between a man and a woman, which, when thelegal capacity and consent of both parties ispresent, establishes their relationship ashusband and wife, and which is recognized bythe state as a civil contract.

(d) No marriage license shall be issued in theState of Alabama to parties of the same sex.

(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize asvalid any marriage of parties of the same sex

that occurred or was alleged to have occurredas a result of the law of any jurisdictionregardless of whether a marriage license wasissued.

and

WHEREAS, neither the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates nor the Supreme Court of Alabama has ruled on theconstitutionality of either the Sanctity of MarriageAmendment or the Marriage Protection Act:

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT:

To ensure the orderly administration of justicewithin the State of Alabama, to alleviate a situationadversely affecting the administration of justice withinthe State, and to harmonize the administration of justicebetween the Alabama judicial branch and the federalcourts in Alabama:

Effective immediately, no Probate Judge of the State

of Alabama nor any agent or employee of any AlabamaProbate Judge shall issue or recognize a marriage license

that is inconsistent with Article 1, Section 36.03, of

the Alabama Constitution or § 30-1-19, Ala. Code 1975.

Should any Probate Judge of this state fail to

5


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

52/55

follow the Constitution and statutes of Alabama asstated, it would be the responsibility of the ChiefExecutive Officer of the State of Alabama, GovernorRobert Bentley, in whom the Constitution vests "thesupreme executive power of this state," Art. V, § 113,

Ala. Const. 1901, to ensure the execution of the law."The Governor shall take care that the laws be faithfullyexecuted." Art. V, § 120, Ala. Const. 1901. "'If thegovernor's "supreme executive power" means anything, itmeans that when the governor makes a determination thatthe laws are not being faithfully executed, he can actusing the legal means that are at his disposal.'" Tysonv. Jones, 60 So. 3d 831, 850 (Ala. 2010) (quoting Rileyv. Cornerstone, 57 So. 3d 704, 733 (Ala. 2010)).

DONE on this 8th day of February, 2015.

________________________Roy S. MooreChief Justice

6


8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

53/55

1



SOUTHERN DIVISION

CARI D. SEARCY and KIMBERLY

MCKEAND, individually and asparent and next friend of K.S., a

minor,

)

))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0208-CG-N

LUTHER STRANGE, in his capacity

as Attorney General for the State of

Alabama,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ motion for contempt and request

for immediate relief. (Doc. 71). Plaintiffs report that “the Honorable Don Davis has

failed to comply with this Court’s January 23, 2015 Order.” According to the

motion:

On this date, at 10:10 a.m. CST, Honorable Don Davis, Probate Judge

in Mobile County, Alabama, had not opened the marriage license

division of the Mobile County Probate Court. The Honorable Don

Davis has not given a reason why the marriage license division is

closed on this particular day, and he has not stated as to when the

office will reopen.

(Doc. 71, p. 1-2). Plaintiffs request that this court hold Davis in contempt, to order

law enforcement to open the marriage license division of Mobile County Probate

Court, and to impose sanctions.

After reviewing the Plaintiffs’ motion, the court finds that Plaintiffs have not

shown that Davis has failed to comply with this court’s order. On January 23, 2015,

!"#$ &'&()*+),,-,.)!/)0 12*34$56 7- 89:$; ,-

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

54/55

2

this court declared that A LA . CONST. A RT. I, § 36.03 (2006) and A LA . CODE 1975 § 30-

1-19 are unconstitutional and enjoined defendant Luther Strange, in his capacity as

Attorney General for the State of Alabama, from enforcing those laws. (Doc. 54).

Upon motion by the Plaintiffs, this court further clarified the January 23, 2015

order stating that:

… [A] clerk who chooses not to follow the ruling should take note: the

governing statutes and rules of procedure allow individuals to

intervene as plaintiffs in pending actions, allow certification of plaintiff

and defendant classes, allow issuance of successive preliminary

injunctions, and allow successful plaintiffs to recover costs and

attorney’s fees. … The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does

not require the Clerk to issue licenses to other applicants. But as set

out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction,

the Constitution requires the Clerk to issue such licenses. As in any

other instance involving parties not now before the court, the Clerk’s

obligation to follow the law arises from sources other than the

preliminary injunction.

(Doc. 65, p. 3 quoting Brenner v. Scott, 2015 WL 44260 at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan 1,

2015)). Probate Judge Don Davis is not a party in this case1 and the Order of

January 23, 2015, did not directly order Davis to do anything. Judge Davis’s

obligation to follow the Constitution does not arise from this court’s Order. The

Clarification Order noted that actions against Judge Davis or others who fail to

follow the Constitution could be initiated by persons who are harmed by their

failure to follow the law. However, no such action is before the Court at this time.

Plaintiffs have also offered no affidavit or other evidence to show that they

have been prevented from applying for the adoption or that their adoption

application was wrongfully denied after this court’s January 23, 2015, Order.

1 Judge Davis was originally named as a defendant, but by stipulation of the parties

(Doc. 29) was dismissed from the case.

!"#$ &'&()*+),,-,.)!/)0 12*34$56 7- 89:$; ,-

8/9/2019 1:14-cv-00424 #58

55/55

Nothing in Plaintiffs’ motion would compel this court to order law enforcement to

open the marriage license division of Mobile County Probate Court or impose

sanctions. Plaintiffs have offered no authority by which this court can hold Davis in

contempt or order any of the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’

motion for contempt and immediate relief (Doc. 71), is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of February, 2015.



!"#$ &'&()*+),,-,.)!/)0 12*34$56 7- 89:$; ,-

1:14-cv-00424 #58

Documents