AlaFileE-Notice

To: WILLIAMG.PARKERJR.
Wparker@ago.state.al.us
03-CV-2013-901470.00
Judge:HON.EUGENEW.REESE
NOTICEOFELECTRONICFILING
INTHECIRCUITCOURTOFMONTGOMERYCOUNTY,ALABAMA
ThefollowingmatterwasFILEDon5/29/201412:50:15PM
DR.DANIELBOYDETALV.JULIEPMAGEEETAL
03-CV-2013-901470.00
MOTIONTOSTAY
NoticeDate: 5/29/201412:50:15PM
[Filer:PARKERWILLIAMGLENNJR.]
TIFFANYB.MCCORD
CIRCUITCOURTCLERK
MONTGOMERYCOUNTY,ALABAMA
MONTGOMERY,AL36104
334-832-1260
251S.LAWRENCESTREET
D001 MAGEE JULIE P
D002 WHITE THOMAS L
/s/ WILLIAM G. PARKER JR.
Signature of Attorney or Party: Date: Check here if you have filed or are filing
contemoraneously with this motion an Affidavit of
Substantial Hardship or if you are filing on behalf of an
agency or department of the State, county, or municipal
government. (Pursuant to 6-5-1 Code of Alabama
(1975), governmental entities are exempt from
prepayment of filing fees)
Case No.
STATE OF ALABAMA
Unified Judicial System
03-MONTGOMERY
District Court Circuit Court
Revised 3/5/08
DR. DANIEL BOYD ET AL V. JULIE P MAGEE ET
AL
CIVIL MOTION COVER SHEET
Name of Filing Party:
Name, Address, and Telephone No. of Attorney or Party. If Not Represented.
Attorney Bar No.:
WILLIAM G. PARKER JR.
501 WASHINGTON AVE.
MONTGOMERY, AL 36130
PAR135
TYPE OF MOTION
Motions Requiring Fee Motions Not Requiring Fee
Default Judgment ($50.00)
Joinder in Other Party's Dispositive Motion (i.e.
Summary Judgment, Judgment on the Pleadings, or
other Dispositive Motion not pursuant to Rule 12(b))
($50.00)
Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56($50.00)
Renewed Dispositive Motion(Summary Judgment,
Judgment on the Pleadings, or other Dispositive
Motion not pursuant to Rule 12(b)) ($50.00)
Judgment on the Pleadings ($50.00)
Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative Summary
Judgment($50.00)
Other
Add Party
Amend
Change of Venue/Transfer
Compel
Consolidation
Continue
Deposition
Designate a Mediator
Judgment as a Matter of Law (during Trial)
Disburse Funds
Extension of Time
In Limine
Joinder
More Definite Statement
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)
New Trial
Objection of Exemptions Claimed
Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss
Preliminary Injunction
Protective Order
Quash
Release from Stay of Execution
Sanctions
Sever
Special Practice in Alabama
Stay
Strike
Supplement to Pending Motion
Vacate or Modify
Withdraw
Other
pursuant to Rule (Subject to Filing Fee)
pursuant to Rule ($50.00)
*This Cover Sheet must be completed and submitted to the Clerk of Court upon the filing of any motion. Each motion should contain a separate Cover Sheet.
**Motions titled 'Motion to Dismiss' that are not pursuant to Rule 12(b) and are in fact Motions for Summary Judgments are subject to filing fee.
*Motion fees are enumerated in 12-19-71(a). Fees
pursuant to Local Act are not included. Please contact the
Clerk of the Court regarding applicable local fees.
Local Court Costs $
D001 - MAGEE JULIE P
D002 - WHITE THOMAS L
5/29/2014 12:48:24 PM
CV201390147000
Pendente Lite
Oral Arguments Requested
Motion to Intervene ($297.00)
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
5/29/2014 12:49 PM
03-CV-2013-901470.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
TIFFANY B. MCCORD, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

DR. DANIEL BOYD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JULIE MAGEE, in her official capacity as
Commissioner of Revenue of the State of
Alabama, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.
03-CV-2013-901470.00
(Judge Reese)
STATE DEFENDANTS AND INTERVENOR-DEFENDANTS
JOINT MOTION TO STAY INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

The State-Official Defendants and the Intervenor-Defendant Parents jointly re-
quest the Court to stay its order dated May 28, 2014 enjoining enforcement of the Ala-
bama Accountability Act while they take an appeal. That order was wrongly issued, and
keeping it in force during the appeal process will prove inequitable, with respect both to
the parties in this case and the greater public interest. See Ruiz v. Estelle, 666 F.2d 854,
856 (5th Cir. 1982) (setting out criteria for stay pending appeal).
1. First, the Courts order was wrong. The defendants extensive briefing es-
tablishes this proposition as a general matter. But it is worth noting that the Courts order
did not address important arguments the State Defendants presented for dismissing the
plaintiffs principal claims. Counts I-V of the complaint each alleged violations of the
Alabama Constitutions provisions regarding legislative procedure. But our Supreme
Court has held that the Legislatures annual codification process cure[s] all [al-
leged] infirmities of legislative procedure. Densmore v. Jefferson Cnty., 813 So. 2d 844,
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
5/29/2014 12:49 PM
03-CV-2013-901470.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
TIFFANY B. MCCORD, CLERK
2
851 (Ala. 2001). The 2014 codification bill indisputably included the Accountability Act,
but again, the Courts order did not recognize its curative effect. See Ala. Act No. 2014-
346 (adopt[ing] and incorporat[ing] into the Code of Alabama the Accountability Act
and other general and permanent laws of the state enacted during the 2013 Regular Ses-
sion). At the very least, in light of these arguments and the totality of the parties brief-
ing, the defendants have established a strong likelihood of success on appeal. Ruiz, 666
F.2d at 856.
2. Second, the Courts order will cause irreparable injury if a stay is not
granted. Id. The Accountability Acts parent tax credit has enabled intervening parents
Tequila Rogers and Danyal and Mark Jones to send their children Christian Rogers and
Ragan Jones to new schools where the children are now thriving. See, e.g., Rogers Inter-
vention Aff. 10, 12; D. Jones Intervention Aff. 8, 11, 12, 14; M. Jones Interven-
tion Aff. 6, 8, 10-12. The same is true for scores of other Alabama parents who have
used the Acts tax credits or who have relied on the Acts scholarship program. See Ala.
Code 16-6D-8 & -9. Absent a stay, the injunction will upend the ability of these fami-
lies to plan for the 2014-15 school year. And it may well leave them with no choice but to
return their children to their previous, failing schools. On top of that, the injunction will
wrongly deprive the State of Alabama of its duly enacted law and cause untold adminis-
trative burdens for the state-official defendants should the Supreme Court ultimately va-
cate this Courts injunction. (Indeed, the Alabama Department of Revenue has already
received calls from scholarship granting organizations expressing uncertainty over how to
implement the Courts order.) Every day that students like Christian Rogers and Ragan
3
Jones are denied their best possible educational option, and every day that the State De-
fendants enforcement of the Act remains in limbo, constitutes the kind of irreparable
injury that justifies a stay.
3. Third, while the injunction irreparably harms families and the relevant state
officials, it will do so without any meaningful benefit to the plaintiffs. The defendants
thus far have not challenged the plaintiffs standing. But at the same time, it is highly im-
plausibleeven on the plaintiffs own view of the Accountability Acts operationthat
its enforcement has injured them in any direct, personal, or tangible way. There is no rec-
ord evidence, for example, that the Acts enforcement has resulted in widespread student
transfers out of Plaintiff Boyd or Plaintiff Gibsons school systems. And of course some
provisions of the Accountability Act, such as the school flexibility provisions, in fact
benefit the plaintiffs. (As a state senator, citizen, and taxpayer, Senator Ross has an even
more tenuous claim to injury.) For these reasons, granting a stay will not substantially
harm the plaintiffs and a stay should issue. Ruiz, 666 F.2d at 856.
4. Finally, granting a stay will serve the public interest. See id. The injury de-
scribed above to current and future beneficiaries of the Act is injury to the public interest.
And similarly, the above-described injury to the state-official defendants is, by definition,
injury to the State of Alabama and the public at large. Thus, deferring these injuries while
the appeal process plays out will, by definition, satisfy this final stay criterion.
* * *
4
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should stay its injunction dated May 28,
2014, while the State-Official Defendants and the Intervenor-Defendant Parents pursue
an appeal.
Respectfully submitted this 29th day of May, 2014
LUTHER STRANGE (STR003)
Attorney General

s/ William G. Parker, Jr.
James W. Davis (DAV103)
William G. Parker, Jr. (PAR135)
Assistant Attorneys General

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
501 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
(334) 242-7300
(334) 353-8440 (fax)
jimdavis@ago.state.al.us
wparker@ago.state.al.us

Attorneys for Julie Magee (in her of-
ficial capacity as Revenue Commis-
sioner) and Thomas L. White, Jr. (in
his official capacity as State Comp-
troller)
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE

s/ Robert W. Gall
Robert W. Gall (D.C. Bar No. 482476)*
Richard D. Komer (D.C. Bar No. 253146)*
901 North Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, Virigina 22203-1854
(703) 682-9320
(703) 628-9321 (fax)
bgall@ij.org; rkomer@ij.org

Arif Panju (Texas Bar No. 24070380)*
816 Congress Avenue, Suite 960
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 480-5936
(512) 480-5937
apanju@ij.org

BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP
Charles B. Paterson (ASB-1542-R73C)
1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 1500
Birmingham Alabama 35203-4642
(205) 226-8745
(866) 736-3857 (fax)
cpaterson@balch.com

W. Joseph McCorkle (MCC056)
105 Tallapoosa Street, Suite 200
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
(334) 269-3134
(866) 783-2741 (fax)

Attorneys for Intervenor Defendants Te-
quila Rogers and Danyal and Mark Jones

* Admitted pro hac vice
5
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on May 29, 2014, I filed the foregoing motion via the Courts
electronic filing system, which will provide an electronic copy to the following counsel:

Robert D. Segall
segall@copelandfranco.com

Charles Paterson
cpaterson@balch.com

James H. Anderson
janderson@jandp.com

W. Joseph McCorkle, Jr.
jmccorkle@balch.com



In addition, pursuant to an agreement of the parties, I served the foregoing brief via e-
mail on all counsel, which will ensure service on the following additional counsel of rec-
ord:
John M. West
jwest@bredhoff.com

Richard D. Komer
rkomer@ij.org

Ramya Ravindran
rravindran@bredhoff.com

Arif Panju
apanju@ij.org

Robert W. Gall
bgall@ij.org






s/ William G. Parker, Jr.
Counsel for the State Defendants