14-3779 - Plaintiffs' Response To Stay Motion
Uploaded by
Equality Case Files14-3779 - Plaintiffs' Response To Stay Motion
Uploaded by
Equality Case FilesUnited States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit
Kyle Lawson, et al., )
)
Appellees, )
)
v. ) Nos. 14-3779, 14-3780
)
State of Missouri, )
)
Appellant. )
Appellees/Cross-Appellants’ Response
to State of Missouri’s Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance
On December 10, 2014, Appellees filed their motion to vacate stay or, in the
alternate, expedite. No party opposed the motion to vacate the stay, just as no party asked
for the stay in the district court. The motion remains pending.
In light of the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari to review cases similar to this
one, State of Missouri asks this Court to hold this appeal in abeyance until the Supreme
Court renders its judgment.
So long as the stay of the district court’s judgment remains in effect, Appellees
oppose any delay in this appeal. They and others continue to be harmed so long as
Missouri excludes them from eligibility for a marriage license because of their sex and
sexual orientation. A court may stay one case pending the resolution of another case
“only in rare circumstances.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936). While it
makes some sense to have briefing in this appeal commence after the Supreme Court
rules, doing so will delay the ultimate outcome of this appeal, and, as a result of the stay,
Appellate Case: 14-3779 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Entry ID: 4236144
lengthen the time before Appellees and other Missourians will enjoy the equal treatment
guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, this case should be placed on
an expedited schedule and supplemental briefs addressing the Supreme Court’s decision
allowed if that Court hands down its opinion before this Court decides this case.
On the other hand, should the pending motion to vacate the stay be granted, there
would be no harm from holding this case in abeyance. If the stay of the district court’s
judgment is vacated, then Appellees have no objection to holding this appeal in abeyance.
If this appeal is held in abeyance, then the parties should be directed to notify this Court
upon the Supreme Court’s handing down of its opinion so that a briefing schedule might
commence and any request for summary affirmation or reversal may be promptly filed.
For these reasons, Appellees oppose the motion to hold this case in abeyance
unless Appellees’ pending motion to vacate the stay of the district court’s judgment is
granted.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Anthony E. Rothert
ANTHONY E. ROTHERT
American Civil Liberties Union
of Missouri Foundation
454 Whittier Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63108
Phone – 314/652-3114
Fax – 314/652-3112
Attorneys for Appellees
Appellate Case: 14-3779 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Entry ID: 4236144
Certificate of Service
I certify that a copy of the forgoing was filed electronically with the Clerk and
delivered by operation of the CM/ECF system to the counsel of record on January 21,
2015.
/s/ Anthony E. Rothert
Appellate Case: 14-3779 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Entry ID: 4236144
