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
Geiger v. Kitzhaber: Ninth Circuit Grants Oregon Motion to Dismiss NOMs Appeal

Geiger v. Kitzhaber: Ninth Circuit Grants Oregon Motion to Dismiss NOMs Appeal

Ratings: (0)|Views: 22|Likes:
Published by Law Works LLC
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognizes that the National Organization for Marriage [Discrimination] has no standing and that its fundraising efforts are moot.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognizes that the National Organization for Marriage [Discrimination] has no standing and that its fundraising efforts are moot.

More info:

Published by: Law Works LLC on Aug 27, 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

12/23/2014

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUITDEANNA L. GEIGER; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellees, v.JOHN KITZHABER, in his officialcapacity as Governor of Oregon; et al., Defendants - Appellees, v. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE, INC., Proposed Intervenor, Movant - Appellant. No. 14-35427D.C. Nos. 6:13-cv-01834-MC6:13-cv-02256-MCDistrict of Oregon, EugeneORDER Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.This appeal arises from the district court’s denial of the NationalOrganization for Marriage, Inc.’s (“NOM”) motion to intervene in a consolidatedaction challenging the validity of Oregon’s state constitutional and statutory provisions limiting civil marriage to one man and one woman, and the districtcourt’s subsequent order granting summary judgment. The district court’ssummary judgment order enjoined the enforcement of Article 15, § 5A, of the
 AUG 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DA/MOATT
 
 
Constitution of Oregon; O.R.S. 106.010; O.R.S. 106.041(1); O.R.S. 106.150(1);and any other state or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance as the basis to denymarriage or the rights accompanying marriage to same-gender couples otherwisequalified to marry under Oregon law, or to deny recognition of a same-gender couple’s marriage leally performed in other jurisdictions and in all other respectsvalid under Oregon law.Before the court are two motions to dismiss filed by defendants-appellees(collectively “Oregon State Defendants”). On May 14, 2014, the district courtdenied NOM’s motion to intervene in the consolidated district court action. OnMay 16, 2014, NOM filed a notice of appeal from that denial. On May 19, 2014,the district court issued an opinion and an order granting summary judgment for  plaintiffs-appellees (collectively “Geiger”), and entered final judgment in favor of Geiger. On May 22, 2014, NOM filed an amended notice of appeal in the districtcourt, amending the appeal to include a protective notice of appeal of the districtcourt’s May 19, 2014 order and judgment. On the same date, NOM also filed inthe district court a separate protective notice of appeal of the May 19, 2014 order and judgment.On May 20, 2014, the Oregon State Defendants filed in this court a motionto dismiss as moot the appeal of the district court’s May 14, 2014 denial of NOM’s
DA/MOATT
2
 
 
motion to intervene. Geiger filed a joinder in the Oregon State Defendants’ May20, 2014 motion. On June 13, 2014, the Oregon State Defendants filed a motion todismiss the protective notice of appeal for lack of standing.  Neither Geiger nor the Oregon State Defendants filed a notice of appealfrom the district court’s May 19, 2014 final judgment. Therefore, even if NOMwere to prevail in its appeal of the district court’s denial of its motion to intervene, NOM must also demonstrate that it has Article III standing to challenge the final judgment.
See
 
 Diamond v. Charles
, 476 U.S. 54, 68 (1986) (intervenor’s right tocontinue a suit on appeal “in the absence of the party on whose side interventionwas permitted is contingent upon a showing by the intervenor that he fulfills therequirements of Article III”).  NOM asserts that it has Article III standing to appeal the district court’s judgment as a third party on behalf of several of its members, identified as Oregonmembers who provide wedding services, Oregon members who voted for Measure36, and at least one member who is an elected Oregon county clerk. We find that NOM’s Oregon wedding service provider members’ objection to facilitating same-gender marriage ceremonies is not sufficient to establish Article III standing.
See Hollingsworth v. Perry
, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013) (citing
 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)) (Article III standing “requires the litigant to
DA/MOATT
3
 

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)//-->