Nos.

14-2386, 14-2387, 14-2388

In The United States Court of Appeals
For The Seventh Circuit


MARILYN RAE BASKIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.

GREG ZOELLER, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.

On Appeal From The United States District Court
For The Southern District of Indiana
Case Nos. 1:14-cv-00355-RLY-TAB,
1:14-cv-00404-RLY-TAB, 1:14-cv-00406-RLY-TAB
The Honorable Richard L. Young Presiding

APPELLEES RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS PETITION FOR INITIAL
HEARING EN BANC

ACLU OF INDIANA
Kenneth J. Falk
Gavin M. Rose
Kelly R. Eskew
1031 E. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46202
317-635-4059

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees Midori
Fujii, et al. (14-2387)

LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE &
EDUCATION FUND, INC.
Paul D. Castillo
3500 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 500
Dallas, TX 75219
214-219-8585


Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees
Marilyn Rae Baskin, et al. (14-2386)

AUSTIN & JONES, P.C., Of Counsel
Karen Celistino-Horseman
One N. Pennsylvania St., Ste. 220
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317-632-5633

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees Pamela
Lee, et al. (14-2388)






Additional Counsel Listed on
Signature Block
Case: 14-2386 Document: 50 Filed: 07/21/2014 Pages: 8

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................... ii
RESPONSE .................................................................................................................... 1


Case: 14-2386 Document: 50 Filed: 07/21/2014 Pages: 8

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bishop v. Smith,
F.3d, Nos. 14-5003 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014) ........................................................ 1
Bostic v. Rainey,
No. 14-1169, ECF No. 217 (4th Cir. May 13, 2014) .................................................. 1
De Leon v. Perry,
No. 14-50196 (5th Cir. 2014)...................................................................................... 1
DeBoer v. Snyder,
No. 14-1341, ECF No. 42 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 2014) .................................................... 1
Hollingsworth v. Perry,
U.S., 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013) ................................................................................... 1
Kitchen v. Herbert,
F.3d, No. 13-4178, 2014 WL 2868044 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014) ......................... 1
Perry v. Brown,
671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................... 1
United States v. Windsor,
U.S., 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) ................................................................................... 1
Windsor v. United States,
699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012)........................................................................................ 1
Wolf v. Walker,
No. 14-2526 (7th Cir. 2014)........................................................................................ 2

Case: 14-2386 Document: 50 Filed: 07/21/2014 Pages: 8

1

RESPONSE
Appellees in these consolidated appeals respond to the State Appellants
(States) Petition for Initial Hearing En Banc. They say the following:
1. At this point, four circuits have heard or are hearing appeals from decisions
invalidating same-sex marriage prohibitions and/or recognitions with three-judge
panels, and at least one sister circuit has rejected a motion similar to that filed by
the State here. See Bostic v. Rainey, No. 14-1169, ECF No. 217 (4th Cir. May 13,
2014) (noting oral argument having been held on that date before three Judges);
DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-1341, ECF No. 42 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 2014) (denying
petition for initial hearing en banc); De Leon v. Perry, No. 14-50196 (5th Cir. 2014)
(the case is still being briefed but there does not appear to be any motion on file for
en banc consideration); Bishop v. Smith, F.3d, Nos. 14-5003, 14-5006 (10th Cir.
July 18, 2014) (decision on the merits by three-Judge panel); Kitchen v. Herbert,
F.3d, No. 13-4178, 2014 WL 2868044 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014) (same). The
experience in the other circuits counters the notion that this issue should be
considered en banc by this Court.
2. Indeed, both United States v. Windsor, U.S., 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) and
Hollingsworth v. Perry, U.S., 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013), were decided prior to
Supreme Court review by three-judge panels without the benefit of en banc review.
See Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012), affd, 133 S. Ct. 2675
(2013); Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012), rehg en banc denied, 681 F.3d
1065 (9th Cir. 2012), vacated, 133 S.Ct. 2652 (2013).
Case: 14-2386 Document: 50 Filed: 07/21/2014 Pages: 8

2

3. The district courts judgments in these cases have been stayed, with the
exception of a single couple, causing continuous and irreparable harm to the
remaining appellees. En banc review may delay adjudication of the merits of this
case and cause further harm to the appellees. This is particularly true inasmuch as
the losing party in this appeal will undoubtedly seek further review in the United
States Supreme Court. En banc review may delay this further review.
4. To the extent that the State argues that en banc review is necessary because
of the pendency of a similar case, Wolf v. Walker, No. 14-2526 (7th Cir. 2014), this
Court has obviated those concerns by joining Wolf with this case in its Order of July
11, 2014 (ECF No. 27 in No. 14-2386).
5 The appellees certainly agree with the assertion of the State that the issue in
these consolidated cases is one of exceptional importance and that this is one of the
standards under Appellate Rule 35(a)(2), but do not agree that en banc review is
necessary.
WHEREFORE, the appellees file their response to the State Appellants
Petition for Initial Hearing En Banc.
Dated: July 21, 2014

/s/ Jordan M. Heinz
Jordan M. Heinz Barbara J. Baird
Brent P. Ray LAW OFFICE OF BARBARA J.
Dmitriy G. Tishyevich BAIRD
Melanie MacKay 445 North Pennsylvania St., Ste. 401
Scott Lerner Indianapolis, IN 46204
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 317-637-2345
300 N. LaSalle St.
Chicago, IL 60654
312-862-2000
Case: 14-2386 Document: 50 Filed: 07/21/2014 Pages: 8

3


Camilla B. Taylor Paul D. Castillo
LAMDA LEGAL DEFENSE & LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE &
EDUCATION FUND, INC. EDUCATION FUND, INC.
105 W. Adams, Ste. 2600 3500 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 500
Chicago, IL 60603 Dallas TX 75219
312-663-4413 214-219-8585

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees Marilyn Rae Baskin, et al.


/s/ Kenneth J. Falk
Kenneth J. Falk James Esseks
Gavin M. Rose Chase Strangio
Kelly R. Eskew AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
ACLU OF INDIANA FOUNDATION
1031 E. Washington St. 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
Indianapolis, IN 46202 New York, NY 10004
317-635-4059 212-549-2627

Sean Lemieux
LEMIEUX LAW
23 E. 39th St.
Indianapolis, IN 46205
317-985-5809

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees Midori Fujii, et al.


/s/ Karen Celistino-Horseman
Karen Celistino-Horseman William R. Groth
AUSTIN & JONES, P.C., Of Counsel FILLENWORTH DENNERLINE
One N. Pennsylvania St., Ste. 220 GROTH & TOWE, LLP
Indianapolis, IN 46204 429 E. Vermont St., Ste. 200
317-632-5633 Indianapolis, IN 46202
317-353-9363
Mark W. Sniderman
SNIDERMAN NGUYEN, LLP Kathleen M. Sweeney
47 S. Meridian St., Ste. 400 SWEENEY HAYES, LLC
Indianapolis, IN 46204 141 E. Washington St., Ste. 225
317-361-4700 Indianapolis, IN 46204
317-491-1050
Robert A. Katz
Indiana University
Case: 14-2386 Document: 50 Filed: 07/21/2014 Pages: 8

4

McKinney School of Law
530 W. New York St., Room 349
Indianapolis, IN 46202
317-278-4791

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees Pamela Lee, et al.

Case: 14-2386 Document: 50 Filed: 07/21/2014 Pages: 8

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 21, 2014, I caused a true and correct copy of the
foregoing APPELLEES RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS PETITION FOR INITIAL
HEARING EN BANC to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by using the CM/ECF
system. Those participants in the case that are registered CM/ECF users will
receive service by the CM/ECF system.

/s/ Jordan M. Heinz

Case: 14-2386 Document: 50 Filed: 07/21/2014 Pages: 8