Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
14-1167 #12

14-1167 #12

Ratings: (0)|Views: 76|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 12 - Parties' proposed expedited schedule
Doc 12 - Parties' proposed expedited schedule

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Feb 28, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/01/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Record Nos. 14-1167 (L), 14-1169, 14-1173  _________________________________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
 __________ TIMOTHY B. BOSTIC; TONY C. LONDON; CAROL SCHALL; and MARY TOWNLEY,
Plaintiffs – Appellees,
v. GEORGE E. SCHAEFER, III, in his official capacity as the Clerk of Court for Norfolk Circuit Court; and JANET M. RAINEY, in her official capacity as State Registrar of Vital Records,
 Defendants – Appellants,
MICHÈLE McQUIGG, in her official capacity as the Clerk of Court for Prince William County Circuit Court,
 Intervenor – Appellant.
  ________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk Division)  _________________
CONSENT MOTION TO APPROVE THE PARTIES’ PROPOSED EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND TO SET CASE ON THE MAY 13-15, 2014 ARGUMENT CALENDAR
The Attorney General of Virginia, on behalf of Appellant Janet M. Rainey, in her official capacity as the State Registrar of Vital Records for the
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/27/2014 Pg: 1 of 13
 
2 Commonwealth of Virginia, moves this Court, under Local Rules 12(c) and 28(a), to approve the parties’ proposed expedited briefing schedule and to set this matter for oral argument during the May 13-15, 2014 Argument Session. All parties further move this Court for leave to file separate briefs pursuant to Local Rules 28(a) and 28(d).
Counsel for all parties join in this request.
This consent motion should be granted for the following reasons:
BACKGROUND
1.
 
These consolidated appeals arise from the February 24, 2014 final  judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the Hon. Arenda L. Wright Allen presiding, declaring that “Virginia’s marriage laws are facially unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to the extent they deny the rights of marriage to same-sex couples or recognition of lawful marriages between same-sex couples that are validly entered into in other  jurisdictions.” (No. 2:13-cv-00395-ALWA (ECF# 139 ¶ 1).) A copy of the Judgment is attached as Exhibit 1. A copy of the District Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of February 14, 2014, on which the Judgment is based, is attached as Exhibit 2. (No. 2:13-cv-00395-ALWA (ECF# 136).) 2.
 
The District Court enjoined the defendants and the intervenor “from enforcing: Article I, § 15-A, of the Constitution of Virginia; Virginia Code § 20-
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/27/2014 Pg: 2 of 13
 
3 45.2; Virginia Code § 20-45.3; and any other Virginia law if and to the extent that it denies to same-sex couples the rights and privileges of marriage that are afforded to opposite-sex couples.” (Ex. 1, ¶ 2.) The Court stayed the effect of the judgment and the injunction “pending final disposition by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit of the forthcoming appeal.” (
 Id.
 ¶ 3.) 3.
 
The alignment of the parties on appeal is affected by a change in legal  position by the Commonwealth of Virginia in the District Court. The Attorney General of Virginia, Mark R. Herring, following his inauguration on January 11, 2014, notified the District Court in connection with the then-pending cross-motions for summary judgment that he was changing the Commonwealth’s legal position with regard to the constitutionality of Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage. (ECF# 96, 96-1.) The Attorney General advised the District Court that Defendant Rainey:
 
would no longer defend the constitutionality of Virginia’s same-sex-marriage ban;
 
would argue that the ban violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
 
would continue to enforce the ban until there could be a definitive ruling by the judicial branch; and
 
would “work to ensure that both sides of the issue are responsibly and vigorously briefed and argued before the courts to facilitate a decision on the merits, consistent with the rule of law.” (ECF# 96; ECF# 96-1 at 3 of 25.)
Appeal: 14-1167 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/27/2014 Pg: 3 of 13

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->