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
13A1173 Nom Reply

13A1173 Nom Reply

Ratings: (0)|Views: 267|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
NOM v. Geiger and Kitzhaber, et al. (Oregon Marriage case) NOM's Reply in support of stay.
NOM v. Geiger and Kitzhaber, et al. (Oregon Marriage case) NOM's Reply in support of stay.

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Jun 03, 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

06/03/2014

pdf

text

original

 
i
 
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
 ALDRUFF
,
 
in his official capacity as Multnomah County Assessor,
Respondents (Defendants)
.  _________________
Reply in Support of 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  _________________
Roger K. Harris John C. Eastman H
 ARRIS
B
ERNE
C
HRISTENSEN
LLP
Counsel of Record
5000 SW Meadows Road, Suite 400 C
ENTER
F
OR
C
ONSTITUTIONAL
J
URISPRUDENCE
 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 c/o Chapman University Fowler School of Law (503) 968-1475 One University Dr. (503) 968-2003 Fax Orange, CA 92866 roger@hbclawyers.com (877) 855-3330; (714) 844-4817 Fax  jeastman@chapman.edu
Counsel for Applicant National Organization for Marriage, Inc.
 
ii
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... iii
 
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
 
I.
 
None of the Procedural or Jurisdictional Issues Asserted by Respondents Bar
NOM’s Application for a Stay from this Court.
 .......................................... 3
 
 A.
 
Rule 23.3 Does Not Pose A Procedural Bar Because NOM Sought a Stay From Both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit, the Latter
Explicitly Requesting a Stay of the District Court’s “Proceedings” and,  Alternatively, of Its “Judgment.”
 ..................................................................... 3
 
B.
 
NOM’s Ninth Circuit Appeal of the In
tervention Denial is Not Moot, Because NOM Has Filed a Protective Notice of Appeal of the Underlying Merits Judgment. ......................................................................... 7
 
C.
 
NOM’s members do have Article III standing to appeal from the
District
Court’s Judgment.
............................................................................. 11
 
II.
 
Respondents’ Arguments that NOM is Unlikely to Succeed, Either in
Getting this Court to Grant a Writ of Certiorari or Ultimately on the Merits of the Substantive Challenge, All But Overlook That This Court Has Already Issued a Stay of the Parallel Utah Case. .................................... 13
 
 A.
 
There is more than a “reasonable probability” that this Court will soon
grant certiorari on the constitutional issues presented by this case. .......... 13
 
B.
 
There is a “fair prospect,” albeit by no means a certainty, that this
Court will reverse the merits judgment below. ............................................. 16
 
C.
 
This Court has already settled the “likelihood of irreparable harm”
inquiry... .......................................................................................................... 17
 
III.
 
Respondents’ Arguments that NOM is Unlikely to Succeed
on its Motion to Intervene Also Fall Short. ............................................................................ 19
 
 A.
 
The Ninth Circuit is likely to hold that NOM’s motion to intervene
was timely. ...................................................................................................... 21
 
B.
 
NOM’s members not only have protectable interests warranting
intervention of right, but those interests meet the requirements for  Article III standing. ........................................................................................ 28
 
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 31
 
 
iii
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases
 
 Acree v. Republic of Iraq
, 370 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2004),
abrogated on other grounds by, Republic of Iraq v.  Beaty
, 556 U.S. 848 (2009) ......................................................................................... 8
 Alameda Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Oakland
, 95 F.3d 1406 (9th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................... 12
 Baker v. Nelson
, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) .................................................................................................. 16
 Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. Doe
, 526 U.S. 1142 (1999) ................................................................................................ 14
 Brennan v. Silvergate Dist. Lodge No. 50, Internat. Assn. of Machinists
, 503 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1974) ................................................................................ 9, 10
 Bryant v. Yellen
, 447 U.S. 352 (1980) .................................................................................................... 7
Clapper v. Amnesty International, USA
, 133 S. Ct. 1138, ........................................................................................................ 19
Clarke v. Baptist Mem’l Healthcare Corp.
, 264 F.R.D. 375, 380 (W.D. Tenn. 2009),
aff’d
, 427 F. App’x 431 (6th Cir. 2011)
 ... 27
FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Investors Mortgage Ins. Co.
, 498 U.S. 269 (1991) .................................................................................................... 4
Heckler v. Turner
, 468 U.S. 1305 (1984) .................................................................................................. 5
Herbert v. Kitchen
, 134 S. Ct. 893 (Jan. 6, 2014) ................................................................................ 2, 16
Hicks v. Miranda
, 422 U.S. 332 (1972) .................................................................................................. 16
Hoevenaar v. Lazaroff 
, 545 U.S. 1101 (2005) ................................................................................................ 14
Hollingsworth v. Perry
, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013) .................................................................................. 11, 13, 15
 Keney v. New York
, 388 U.S. 440 (1967) .................................................................................................. 14
 Kootenai Tribe v. Veneman
, 313 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................... 8

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)//-->