You are on page 1of 4


Kyle Lawson, et al.,

Robert Kelly,
___________________________________ )
State of Missouri,

No. 4:14-cv-00622-ODS

Come now Plaintiffs and move this Court for entry of an order lifting the stay of this
Court’s judgment. Defendant does not oppose this motion; Intervenor takes no position. In
support of this motion, Plaintiffs state:
1. On November 7, 2014, this Court entered final judgment in this case. (Doc. # 51).
This Court stayed the effects of its judgment pending the completion of appeals. Id.
2. On November 5, 2014, a Missouri state court entered a judgment that, like this
Court’s judgment, declared that section 451.022 of the Revised Missouri Statutes and
Article I, section 33 of the Missouri Constitution violate the Due Process Clause and
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. State of Missouri v.
Florida, No. 1422-CC09027, 2014 WL 5654040 (Mo. Cir. Nov. 5, 2014). Unlike this
Court, however, the state court did not stay its judgment. The State of Missouri
announced that it will not seek a stay.

Case 4:14-cv-00622-ODS Document 57 Filed 11/21/14 Page 1 of 4

3. In this case, the State based its defense of Missouri’s marriage bans on the need for
uniformity, but the current status quo, in which the decision in this case is stayed
while the decision in Florida is not stayed, undermines the interest in uniformity and
4. In addition, given that marriage licenses have been, and continue to be, issued in
Missouri because of the state court judgment, the criteria for the issuance of a stay
pending appeal cannot be satisfied because any ostensible harm to the State stemming
from the issuance of marriage licenses will continue to occur whether or not this
Court stays its own ruling. See, e.g., James River Flood Control Ass'n v. Watt, 680
F.2d 543, 544 (8th Cir. 1982) (requiring a showing of, inter alia., “irreparable injury
unless the stay is granted”).
5. Finally, the Supreme Court’s recent denial stays even where they have been requested
by the State suggests that stays pending appeal are no longer appropriate. See Wilson
v. Condon, 14A533, 2014 WL 6474220, *1 (U.S. Nov. 20, 2014) (denying stay of
judgment finding South Carolina’s marriage exclusion laws unconstitutional); Moser
v. Marie, 14A503, 2014 WL 5847590, at *1 (U.S. Nov. 12, 2014) (denying stay of
preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of Kansas’ marriage exclusion);
Parnell v. Hamby, 14A413, 2014 WL 5311581, *1 (U.S. Oct. 17, 2014) (denying stay
of district court decision declaring Alaska’s marriage exclusion unconstitutional);
Otter v. Latta, 14A374, 2014 WL 5094190 (U.S. Oct. 10, 2014) (denying application
for stay of Ninth Circuit’s judgment finding Idaho’s marriage exclusion laws

Case 4:14-cv-00622-ODS Document 57 Filed 11/21/14 Page 2 of 4

6. In light of the foregoing, taken together with this Court’s findings that Plaintiffs are
irreparably harmed by being denied the opportunity to marry and that the balance of
the hardships and public interest favor requiring Defendant to issue marriage license,
continuance of the stay of judgment is no longer equitable.
7. Undersigned counsel is authorized to advise this Court that Defendant does not
oppose this motion and that Intevenor takes no position.
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs request this Court enter an order lifting the stay of this Court’s
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Anthony E. Rothert
Anthony E. Rothert, #44827
Grant R. Doty, #60788
Andrew McNulty, #67138
ACLU of Missouri Foundation
454 Whittier Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63108
Gillian R. Wilcox, #61278
ACLU of Missouri Foundation
3601 Main Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64111

Case 4:14-cv-00622-ODS Document 57 Filed 11/21/14 Page 3 of 4

Certificate of Service
I certify that a copy of the forgoing was filed electronically on November 21, 2014, and
made available to counsel of record.
/s/ Anthony E. Rothert

Case 4:14-cv-00622-ODS Document 57 Filed 11/21/14 Page 4 of 4