Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
3:14-cv-00064 #132

3:14-cv-00064 #132

Ratings: (0)|Views: 83|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 132 - Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Proposed Permanent Injunction Amended Proposed Injunction attached
Doc 132 - Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Proposed Permanent Injunction Amended Proposed Injunction attached

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Jun 12, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


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





 et al.
,Plaintiffs,v. Case No. 14-C-00064-BBCSCOTT WALKER,
 et al.
On June 6, 2014, the Court issued an opinion and order declaring Article XIII, § 13 of theWisconsin Constitution and “[a]ny Wisconsin statutory provision, including those in WisconsinStatutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a ‘husband’ and a ‘wife’” unconstitutional under theDue Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United StatesConstitution.
ECF No. 118 at 87. The Court further instructed Plaintiffs to “submit a proposedinjunction that complies with the requirements in Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C) to ‘describe inreasonable detail … the act or acts restrained or required’” and to address specifically whatPlaintiffs “want
 named defendant to do or be enjoined from doing.”
. Plaintiffs submittedtheir proposed injunction on June 9, 2014. ECF No. 126, 126-1.State Defendants opposed the injunction in their brief, filed June 11, 2014. ECF No. 128.State Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction: (1) fails to comply with Rule
Defendants maintain, at 2-3, that “the laws at issue are not unconstitutional,” but thisissue has already been decided by the Court in Plaintiffs’ favor.
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 132 Filed: 06/12/14 Page 1 of 13
65(d)(1); (2) impermissibly requires Defendants to “obey the law:” and (3) “effectively requiresa rewrite of Wisconsin statutes.” State Defendants’ claims are without merit.
ARGUMENTI. Plaintiffs’ Injunction Is Consistent With Rule 65(d)(1).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1) states, in relevant part, that every order grantingan injunction must:(A) state the reasons why it issued;(B) state its terms specifically; and(C) describe in reasonable detail—and not by referring to thecomplaint or other document—the act or acts restrained or required.State Defendants argue that the proposed injunction does not comply with the specificityrequirements of Rule 65(d)(1). State Defendants are incorrect. Each paragraph of Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction specifically describes the act or acts restrained or required, as discussed inRule 65(d)(1)(C).
A. PlaintiffsInjunction Is Specific As To Parties.
State Defendants argue, at 7-8, that the injunction is not sufficiently precise because itextends to the parties’ “officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all those actingin concert with them.” This language is not only permissible, it is drawn directly from Rule65(d)(2), which indicates that an injunction binds “the parties’ officers, agents, servants,employees, and attorneys; and … other persons who are in active concert or participation” withthem and who “receive actual notice by personal service or otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2).Such language is intended to “ensure that defendants may not nullify a decree by carrying out prohibited acts through aiders and abettors, although they were not parties to the original proceedings” and to capture parties “in privity with an enjoined party.”
 Blockowicz v. Williams
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 132 Filed: 06/12/14 Page 2 of 13
630 F.3d 563, 567 (7th Cir. 2010). Indeed, under Rule 65(d) “officers, employees, and other agents of an enjoined party must obey the injunction—even though they are not named parties— when they act in their official capacities.”
 Nat’l Spiritual Assembly of Baha’is of U.S. Under  Hereditary Guardianship, Inc. v. Nat’l Spiritual Assembly of Baha’is of U.S., Inc.
, 628 F.3d 837,847-48 (7th Cir. 2010). As a result, the injunction would have the same scope of applicationregardless of the presence of the language State Defendants object to.State Defendants do not otherwise contest the specificity of Paragraphs 1 through 5 of theinjunction, concerning Defendants Christensen, Czarnezki, McDonell (¶¶ 1-2), and Anderson(¶¶ 3-5). These paragraphs enjoin the Defendants from enforcing Article XIII, § 13 and “anyWisconsin statutory provision limiting marriage to different-sex couples, including those in Wis.Stat. ch. 765, so as to deny same-sex couples the same rights to marry that are provided todifferent-sex couples,” language that tracks the Court’s opinion and order. ¶¶ 1 (Christensen,Czarnezki, and McDonell); 3 (Anderson). Paragraph 2 requires Christensen, Czarnezki, andMcDonell to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples that, but for their sex, satisfy all therequirements to marry under Wisconsin law. Paragraphs 4 and 5 require that DefendantAnderson accept for registration original marriage and divorce documents for same sex couplesunder Wis. Stat. § 69.03(5), and prescribe, furnish, and distribute under Wis. Stat. § 69.03(8),forms required for marriages under Wis. Stat. ch. 69 and Wis. Stat. § 765.20 that permit couplesof the same sex to marry on the same terms as couples of different sexes.
 None of theserequirements are vague or otherwise lacking in detail.
Plaintiffs are submitting simultaneously with this reply brief a revised proposed permanent injunction (attached hereto as Exhibit A) that directs Defendant Anderson to acceptand file birth certificates for children whose same-sex parents, like Plaintiffs Willes and Young,were lawfully married at the time of the child’s birth, so that both parents are listed on the birthcertificate, and to promulgate forms that permit same sex parents be so reflected on the forms,
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 132 Filed: 06/12/14 Page 3 of 13

You're Reading a Free Preview

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