Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
13-4178 #8498

13-4178 #8498

Ratings: (0)|Views: 27 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
[10168498] Plaintiffs' Citation of Supplemental Authority: Henry v.
Himes and Baskin v. Bogan
[10168498] Plaintiffs' Citation of Supplemental Authority: Henry v.
Himes and Baskin v. Bogan

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Apr 25, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

04/30/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
T 801.359.9000 : F 801.359.9011 : www.mgpclaw.com 170 South Main Street, Suite 850, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
 
April 21, 2014
Via Electronic Filing
Clerk of the Court United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Byron White U.S. Courthouse 1823 Stout Street Denver, CO 80257
Re:
 Kitchen, et. al. v. Herbert, et. al.
, No. 13-4178
 
Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) Citation of Supplemental Authority
 
To the Clerk of the Court
:
After oral argument in this appeal, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction in
 Henry v.  Himes,
No. 1:14-cv-129 (S.D. Ohio April 14, 2014). Additionally, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued a temporary restraining order in
 Baskin v. Bogan,
No. 1:14-cv-00355-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind. April 18, 2014). Copies of these decisions are attached and cited herein as “
 Henry
” and
 Baskin
,” respectively. In
 Henry
, the court held that Ohio’s laws prohibiting recognition of the marriages of same-sex couples who married in other states violate the Equal Protection Clause under the rational basis standard because the record was “devoid of any legitimate justification for the State’s ongoing arbitrary discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,”
 Henry
at 1, an argument made on pages 63-86 of Plaintiffs’-Appellees’ Brief (“Brief”). In
 Baskin,
the court concluded that the plaintiffs had shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits because “there will likely be insufficient evidence of a legitimate state interest to justify the singling out of same-sex
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019237444 Date Filed: 04/21/2014 Page: 1
Docket Reference Number: [10168498]
 
 
Clerk of the Court U
NITED
S
TATES
C
OURT OF
A
PPEALS
 F
OR THE
T
ENTH
C
IRCUIT
 April 21, 2014 Page 2 married couples for non-recognition.”
 Baskin
 at 8; Brief at 63-86. Further pertinent conclusions of these courts appear below. 1-
 
“[T]he right to marriage is a fundamental right that is denied to same-sex couples in Ohio by the marriage recognition bans.”
 Henry
at 19; Brief at 28-39.
 
2-
 
“Defendants also violate the married Plaintiffs’ right to remain married by enforcing the marriage bans.”
 Henry
at 19; Brief at 87-95.
 
3-
 
“[C]lassifications based on sexual orientation must pass muster under heightened scrutiny to survive constitutional challenge.”
 Henry
at 32, Brief at 48-55.
 
4-
 
“[T]he U.S. Supreme Court in
Windsor 
 . . . rejected a purported government interest in establishing a preference for or encouraging parenting by heterosexual couples as a justification for denying marital rights to same-sex couples and their families.”
 Henry
at 35; Brief at 74-81.
 
5-
 
“‘[T]he principal effect’ of Indiana’s statute ‘is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal.’”
 Baskin
at 8 (quoting
United States v. Windsor,
133 S. Ct. 2675, 2694 (2013)); Brief at 39-48.
 
Respectfully submitted
,
 /s/ Peggy Tomsic PAT/eg Enclosures
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019237444 Date Filed: 04/21/2014 Page: 2
 
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION MARILYN RAE BASKIN and ESTHER FULLER; BONNIE EVERLY and LINDA JUDKINS; DAWN LYNN CARVER and PAMELA RUTH ELEASE EANES; HENRY GREENE and GLENN FUNKHOUSER, individually and as  parents and next friends of C.A.G.; and AMY SANDLER and NIKOLE QUASNEY, Plaintiffs, vs. PENNY BOGAN, in her official capacity as BOONE COUNTY CLERK; KAREN M. MARTIN, in her official capacity as PORTER COUNTY CLERK; MICHAEL A. BROWN, in his official capacity as LAKE COUNTY CLERK; PEGGY BEAVER, in her official capacity as HAMILTON COUNTY CLERK; WILLIAM C. VANNESS, in his official capacity as the COMMISSIONER, INDIANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; and GREG ZOELLER, in his official capacity as INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendants. )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 1:14-cv-00355-RLY-TAB
ENTRY ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiffs, Amy Sandler and Nikole (“Niki”) Quasney, ask this court to grant a temporary restraining order requiring the state of Indiana to recognize their out-of-state
Case 1:14-cv-00355-RLY-TAB Document 51 Filed 04/18/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 524
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019237444 Date Filed: 04/21/2014 Page: 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

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