Heather Gardner AK Bar #0111079 Caitlin Shortell AK Bar #0405027 Allison Mendel AK Bar #8310136

Counsel for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

MATTHEW HAMBY and CHRISTOPHER

SHELDEN, a married couple, CHRISTINA )

LABORDE and SUSAN TOW, a married )

couple, SEAN EGAN and DAVID

)

ROBINSON, a married couple, TRACEY

WIESE and KATRINA CORTEZ, a married

couple, and COURTNEY LAMB and

STEPHANIE PEARSON, unmarried

persons,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SEAN C. PARNELL, in his official capacity as Governor of Alaska, MICHAEL GERAGHTY, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Alaska, WILLIAM J. STREUR, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the State of Alaska, Department of Health and Social Services, and PHILLIP MITCHELL, in his official capacity as State Registrar and Licensing Officer, Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics,

Defenda

nts.

Case No. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, through undersigned counsel, hereby complain and allege as follows:

-1-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 1 of 36

1. This is an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02

for declaratory a nd i njunctive reli ef against the G overnor of t he S tate of Alaska, Sean

Parnell; the Attorney General of the St

ate of Alaska, Michael Geraghty; the

Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services; William J.

Streur; and the State Registrar, Bureau of Vital Statistics, Phillip Mitchell.

2. This is also an action to restore to the Alaska Constituti on the principles of

due process, fairness, and equality, and to rest ore and affirm the civil liberties, individual

rights, and personal dignities otherwise guara nteed by the Alaska Constitution to each

and all of its citizens.

3. Plaintiffs bring this action to cha llenge the constitutionality of Article 1,

Section 25 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, whic h excludes same-sex couples

from m arriage and prevents the State of Alaska from recogni zing vali d sam e-sex

marriages entered into elsewhere. Plaintiffs ask this court to declare that the referenced

section of the Alaska Constitutio n and related Alaska Statutes as described below violate

the equal protection a nd due pr ocess rights of Plaintiffs guaranteed by the United States

Constitution and to enter an injunction 1) barr ing Defendants from enforcing Alaska Stat.

§§ 25.05.011-.013 and other statutes violating Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection and due

process, 2) requiring Defenda nts to aut horize and issue marriage licenses to unmarried

Plaintiffs and all thos e similarly situated and 3) to extend legal recognition under state

-2-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 2 of 36

law to the existing marriages of Plaintiffs lawfully marri ed elsewhere and all those similarly situated.
II. JURISDICTION 4. The U.S. District Court for the Distri ct of Alaska has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U. S.C. §1331 and §1343 because it raises a federal question under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 5. At all times relevant, all Plaintiffs named were and are residents of Alaska, within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. 6. At all tim es relevant, Defenda nts we re Alaska residents perform ing t heir official dut ies under c olor of state law as elec ted or appoi nted officials of the State of Alaska. 7. Venue is appropriate in the District of Alaska under 28 U.S.C. §1391( b) because the Defendants perform their official duties, including those complained of herein, within the District’s geographical boundaries. 8. This court has authority to ente r a declar atory judgment and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Ru les 57 and 65 of the Federal Ru les of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §§2201 -02. 9. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S. C. §1983, 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1343 for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants, and for attorney’s
-3-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 3 of 36

fees pursua nt to 42 U .S.C. § 19 88. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek: a) a declaration that Alaska laws prohibiting same sex couples from marrying and proh ibiting recognition of lawful out of state m arriages of sam e sex couples viola te the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the F ourteenth Amendment to the Unite d States Constitution; and b) a permanent inj unction (i) preventing Defendants, in their official capacities from denying the unm arried Plaintiffs and others similarly situated the right to marry and (ii) directing Defendants to authorize legal state recognition of the marriages of the married Plaintiffs and others similarly situated that were validly entered into outside Alaska.
III. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs 9. Plaintiffs MATTHEW HAMBY and CHRISTOPHER SHELDEN ar e residents of the State of Alaska . C hristopher is a 20 year employee of the State of Alaska. Matthew has worked as a pharmacist for Providence Health in A nchorage for 15 years. After several years together, they marr ied in Canada in 2008. In Dece mber 2013, they renewed their vows in Utah , with Matthew’s mother in a ttendance. Despite the fact that they have been legally married for six years, they remain legal strangers to each other in the eyes of the State of Alaska, which do es not recognize their m arriage. They have experienced difficulties obtaining benefits, such as health insurance, extended by the State of Alaska to other married couples as a routine matter.
-4-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 4 of 36

10. Plaintiffs SUSAN TOW and C HRISTINA LABORDE are residents of the

State of Al aska. Sus an is a retired veteran of the U.S. Air F orce, having served her

country with distinction for 22 years before retiring in 2012 . She is also the mother of

two sons, ages 20 and 17. Christina is a former state and fe deral em ployee who now

works in the private sector in Anchorage. Since 2005, Christina a nd Susan have raised

their sons to young a dulthood as co-parents. Christina cared for th eir sons as a single

parent while Susan was deployed in 2008-09. They own a home in Anchorage together.

They entered into a civil uni on in Hawaii in February 2012 and were married in

Maryland on Jul y 27, 2013. Despite raising a family, buyi ng a house, supporting each

other and their family through Susan’s

military deployment, and reaching life’s

milestones together as a family unit, they are legal strangers to each other in their home

state. Alaska does not recognize their m arriage. The sa me-sex marriage ban com plicates

the process by which Christine could adopt the children.

11. Plaintiffs STEPHANIE PEARSON and C OURTNEY LAMB are residents

of Alaska. Courtney grew up partly in Alaska as an Air Forc e depe ndent, and m oved

back to Al aska in 2003 beca use she consi ders Alaska hom e. Stepha nie has lived i n

Alaska for seven year s. The couple lives in Anchorage and wishes to m arry in Alaska

because both feel that Alaska is their home a nd that they should be ab le to marry in their

home state. But they are unable to marry in the State of Al aska, because Alaska will not

-5-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 5 of 36

issue a m arriage license to a sam e sex coupl e, crim inalizes the act of solem nizing a marriage without a marriage li cense, and will not recognize th eir marriage if they marry elsewhere.
12. Plaintiffs SEAN EGAN and DAVID ROBINSON are residents of Alaska. David grew up in Alaska and Sean moved to Alaska in 2005. They were married in 2011 in New York. Sean works for the University of Alaska, while David is a member the U.S. Air Force. Despite the fact that they were lawfully married in New York ne arly three years ago and that even the United States Armed Forces now recognize them as married , extending to Sean the benefits available to military spouses, the State of Alaska does not recognize their marriage, and in the eyes of the State, th ey are legal strangers, their marriage void under state law.
13. Plaintiffs TRACEY WIESE and KATRINA CORTEZ are residents of Alaska. Tracey moved to Alaska sixteen years ago and Katrina has lived in Alaska her entire life. Tracey works for Providence Medical Center a nd is a business owner. Katrina is a selfemployed business owner. The couple has a th ree year old daughter together. Although Tracey and Katrina were legally married in Hawaii on March 10, 2014 the State of Alaska does not recognize their marriage, and in the eyes of the State, they are legal strangers, their marriage void under state law.

-6-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 6 of 36

B. Defendants 14. Defendant SEAN C. PARNELL is the Governor of the State of Alaska. As governor he is ultimately responsible for the ex ecution of the laws of the State of Alaska, including Article 1, § 25 of the Alaska Constitution, Alaska Stat. §§ 25.05.011-.013, and other statutes, regulations, and policies that exclude sam e sex couples from marrying in Alaska or havi ng their lawful marriages recognized under Alas ka law. He is sued in his official capacity. 15. Defendant MICHAEL GERAGHTY is the Attorney General of the State of Alaska. As Attorney General he represents th e State of Alaska and its exe cutive branch agencies via the Alaska Depa rtment of La w. The Att orney Ge neral also defends state policy a nd actions in courts in Alaska and elsewhere, includ ing filing amicus briefs in other jurisdictions in support of similar unconstitutional laws in other states. He is sued in his official capacity. 16. Defendant WILLIAM J. STREUR is the Com missioner of t he Alaska Department of Health and S ocial Services. As such he is appointed by th e governor to oversee the executive branch agency that includes the Divisi on of Public Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics, the agen cy authorized to issue marri age licenses in Al aska under Alaska Stat. § 25.05.071. He is sued in his official capacity.

-7-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 7 of 36

17. Defendant PHILLIP MITCHELL is the section chief for the Alas ka Bureau of Vital Statistics, a section of the Division of Public Health of the Alaska Departm ent of Health and Social Services. A s the “licen sing officer” describ ed in Alaska Stat. § 25.05.071, he [or his designee] is “the only official who m ay issue m arriage licenses under this chapter [AS 25.05].” He is sued in his official capacity.
18. Defendants, through their respective duties and obligati ons, are responsible for enforcing Alaska laws th at bar same sex couples from marrying in Alaska and de ny recognition of the valid out of state marriages of same sex couples by the State of Alaska. Each Defendant has caused the ha rm alleged herein, and will c ontinue to harm Plaintiff s and those similarly situated un less enjoined. Theref ore, the relief sought is against all Defendants, as well as their designees, officers, employees and agents.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS 19. Article 1, § 25 of the Alaska Cons titution, adopted in 1 998, bars the state from recognizing or treating as valid any same sex marriage, as follows:
§ 25. Marriage
To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman. Alaska Const. Art. 1 Sec. 25.
20. Title 25 of Alaska Statutes ex plicitly defines marriage as limited to opposite sex couples under state law. Prior to 1996, Al aska law did not define m arriage
-8-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 8 of 36

as a contract between opposite sex persons, and did not explicitly prohibit the issuance of a marriage license to a same se x couples. Alaska Statute § 25.05.011 was amended to its current form in 1996 and now provides as follows:
Sec. 25.05.011. Civil contract.

(a) Marriage is a civil contract entered into by one man and one woman that requires both a license and solemnization. The man and the woman must each be at least one of the following:
(1) 18 years of age or older and otherwise capable;
(2) qualified for a license under Alaska Stat. § 25.05.171; or
(3) a member of the armed forces of the United States while on active duty.
(b) A person may not be joined in marriage in this state until a license has been obtained for that purpose as provided in this chapter. A marriage performed in this state is not valid without solemnization as provided in this chapter.
21. Alaska law now also explicitly bars the recognition by the state of valid
same sex marriages and voids same sex marriages lawfully entered into elsewhere.
Alaska Stat. § 25.05.013, enacted as a new law in 1996, provides as follows:

Sec. 25.05.013. Same-sex marriages.
(a) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or under statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state, and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage, including its termination, are unenforceable in this state.
-9-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 9 of 36

(b) A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage. 22. Alaska law also impos es criminal liability on any person who s olemnizes a marriage in Alaska without first receiving a marriage license, which Plaintiffs are barred from obtaining under Alaska law. Alaska Stat. §25. 05.361. Al aska law thus de nies Plaintiffs even the basic dignity of having their commitment to each other solemnized in the presence of their family and friends without threat to t he liberty and pr operty of anyone who solemnizes the marriage. 23. Plaintiffs Lam b and Pearson ar e an unm arried sam e sex couple in a committed relationship who wish to marry. Each wishes to publicly declare their love and commitment before their community in Alaska, to join their liv es together in Alaska and enter into a legally binding co mmitment to each other in Al aska, and to s hare in the protections and secur ity that m arriage prov ides. Yet Alaska la w denies them this fundamental freedom that “is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967). 24. The U nited States governm ent recognizes Plaintiffs’ Laborde, Tow, Hamby, S helden, Wiese, and C ortez’s resp ective m arriages for pur poses of taxation, veteran’s benefits, and other federal programs, but the State of Alaska treats them as legal

-10-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 10 of 36

strangers. The State does not re cognize their lawful marriag es and their marriages are void under Alaska law.
25. The married Plaintiffs are lawfully ma rried under the laws of sister states, but Alaska refuses to recognize their m arriages. Unilaterally, Alaska has voide d their legal status and their rights and responsibilities as married people.
26. Alaska law also explicitly forbid s the recognition of any other form of domestic same sex relationship t hat confers th e benefits of m arriage. Same sex couples are specifically singled out as not being entitled to the benefits of marriage. Alaska Stat. §25.05.013(b).
27. Alaska’s exclusion of same sex couples from marriage and refusal to recognize existing marriages of same sex couples, going so far as to void those marriages, harms the Plaintiffs and other Alaska same sex couples and their families in real and significant ways.
28. Alaska’s exclusion of same sex couples from marriage and refusal to recognize existing marriages, as well as its a ffirmative voiding of lawful marriages from sister states, undermines the Plaintiffs’ ability to achieve their as pirations, disadvantages them financially, and denies them “dignit y and status of im mense im port.” U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2692 (2 013). Plaintiffs and their ch ildren are stigmatized and relegated to second class st atus by being barred from legal recognition of their marriage
-11-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 11 of 36

in their home state. Alaska’s exclusion of sam e sex couples from marriage and its denia l of recognition of the m arriages of legally marri ed same sex couples unambiguously informs same sex couples an d the community that t heir committed relations hips are unworthy of recognition. By singling out same sex co uples and their families and excluding them from any t ype of marital protection, Alaska law also harm s the childre n raised by same sex couples and c onveys to those children that their families are not equal to other families in the community.
29. Federal and state courts and our society have disc arded, one by one, marriage laws that violated the Constitu tion’s mandate of equality, such as antimiscegenation laws that prev ented couples of different r aces from marrying, and laws that denie d m arried wom en t he right to m ake decisions for t hemselves. History has demonstrated that the vitality of marriage d oes not depend on maintaining dis criminatory laws. Eliminating these unconstitutional aspe cts of marriage has instead enhanced the institution. Ending the exclusion of same sex couples from marriage is no different.
30. A rapidly growing number of states and the District of Columbia extend the right to m arry to sam e sex couple s. Oregon recognizes same sex marriages entered into out of sta te. In A rkansas, U tah, Ida ho, Kent ucky, Michiga n, O hio, Okla homa, Tennessee, Texas, and Virgin ia, courts ha ve held t hat anti-same sex marriage laws, including constitutional amendments similar to Alaska’s , are unconstitutional and violate
-12-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 12 of 36

the United States Constitution’s guarantees of eq ual protection. The number of states in which courts have recognized that such laws are unconstitutional continues to grow.
31. Marriage contributes to the ha ppiness of countless couples and their families and also contributes to society. This is becaus e marriage is bot h a personal and public commitment of two people to each other, licensed by the state. Through marriage, the State recognizes the creation of a family unit in which both people publicly commit to support each other and the fam ily they create. Alaska, like other states, encourages and regulates marriage through laws that provide be nefits to and i mpose obligations upon married couples. In exchange, the State re ceives the well-established benefits that marriage brings: stable, supportive families th at contribute to t he social and economi c well being of the state and all of its residents.
32. Alaska’s exclusion of sam e sex co uples from marriage, and its refusal to recognize same sex marriages validly entered into out of state, vi olate the D ue Process and Equal Protection clauses of the F ourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This discriminatory treatment is subject to heightened scrutiny because it burdens the fundamental right to m arry and because it discrim inates based upon sex and sexual orientation. But it cannot stand under any le vel of scrutiny, because the exclusion does not rationally further any legitimate government interest. It serves only to disparage, exclude, and injure gay and lesbian couples and their families.
-13-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 13 of 36

33. Alaska Stat. §25.05 .011 was amended, and Alaska Stat. § 25.05.013 enacted, in 1996 in r esponse to a fear that sam e sex c ouples w ould be gin requesting marriage licenses. The pre- 1996 version of Alaska St at. § 25. 05.011 contained no language restricting the definition of marriage to opposite sex couples.
34. Prior to t he 1998 adoption by Ala ska of Article 1 Section 25 and the antimarriage statutes cited above, Al aska extended to its citizens a broader spectrum of civil rights and individual liberties than the Unite d States Constitution pr ovided. For the first 39 years of statehood, Alas kans could rely upon their state constitution to broadly guarantee their funda mental rights and t o gua rd agai nst those who wish t o oppress or injure indi viduals or groups for pur poses that do not adva nce a legitimate gover nment interest or prom ote a just and equal society. Section 25 of Article 1 and the a bove cited statutes deprive Alaskans of their fundam ental right to m arry and infri nge upon their constitutionally protected interests in liberty , dignity, privacy, au tonomy, and intimate association.
35. With respect to the married Plainti ffs, Alaska’s refusal to recognize their valid marriages deprives them of their constitu tionally protected interest in their marital status, burdens their exercise of fundamen tal rights includi ng the right to m arry, causes undue burden in obtai ning benefits that are freely available to other married couples in Alaska without sim ilar bur den, a nd discrimi nates against the class of legally married
-14-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 14 of 36

persons. The challenged statutes and constitu tional provision are, again, subject to heightened scrutiny because th ey infri nge upon f undamental rights and discrim inate on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. Bu t here, Alaska’s statutes and constitutional amendment cannot survive any level of cons titutional scrutiny, because they do not further any legitimate government interest but serve only to injure, oppress, and humiliate same sex couples and their fam ilies and deprive them from enjoying th e benefits of legal marriage in Alaska.
36. In addition to stigmatiz ing a portion of Alaska’s population as second class citizens, Alaska’s prohibition against same sex marriage and its refusal to recognize valid marriages from other jurisdictio ns deprives same sex coup les of critically important rights and responsibi lities that married coupl es rely upon to secure their marriag e commitment and safeguard their families. By way of exam ple, and without limitation, same sex partners are denied:
a) The right to have a state authorized official, including an authorized religious official, solemnize their co mmitment to be married. Alaska Stat. § 25. 05.361. b) The right to acquire an interest in property as tenants in the entirety. Alaska Stat. § 34.15.140. c) The right to be supported financially during the marriage.
-15-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 15 of 36

d) The right to attain the age of ma jority through marriage. Alaska Stat. § 25. 20.020.
e) The right to be a natural and legitim ate parent to a child born t o a spous e by medical fertilization during the marriage. Alaska Stat. § 25.20.045. f) The right to be recognized as a sp ouse when petitioning to adopt a legal child of a spouse. Alaska Stat. § 25.23.020. g) The right to have access to an ill spouse at the hospital and to make medical decisions for an ill or incapacitated s pouse without requirin g a written power of attorney. h) The right to have priority to be ap pointed as conservator or guardi an in the event that a spouse becom es incapacitated. Alaska Stat. § 13. 26.145, Alaska Stat. § 13.26.210. i) The right to spousal insurance coverage and benefits when spousal benefits are available. j) The ri ght t o a court ordered equita ble dist ribution of property upon the dissolution of the marriage. Alaska Stat. § 25.24.010 et seq. k) The right to determine the method of disposition of a spouse’s remains (and to have a spouse determine the method of disposal of one’s remains) under the Alaska Disposition of Human Remains Act. Alaska Stat. § 13.75.020.
-16-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 16 of 36

l) The right to access to any fede ral rights and responsibilities that are

available to or pertain to married couple s, including but not limited to any benefits

or rules that apply only when the individual’s or couple’s eligibility is

contingent upon recognition of their marriage in their state of residence.

m) The right to have marital assets and pr operty exem pt from consideration

when

determining eligibility for long term care benefits for a spouse under the

Medicaid or Medicaid waiver program. 7 AAC 40.240-.280.

n) The right to receive certain worke r’s compensation benefits for a deceased

spouse who died on the job. Alaska Stat. §§ 23.30.215, 23.30.395(40)(41).

o) The right to inherit a share of the estate of a spouse who dies without a

valid will. Alaska Stat. § 13.12.102.

p) The right to receive an elective share of a spouse’s estate who di ed with a

valid

will. Alaska Stat. § 13.12.202.

q) The right to a homestead allowan ce and ot her related allowance s from a

deceased spouse’s estate. Alaska Stat. §§ 13.12.402 -.405.

r) The privilege to not have to testify in court proceedi ngs about confidential

communications made during the marriage. Alaska Rules of Evidence §505.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

First Cause of Action

-17-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 17 of 36

Against All Defendants
Alaska’s Ban on Marriage by Same Sex Couples Deprives the Unmarried Plaintiffs of their Rights to Due Process of
Law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

37. Plaintiffs incor porate by reference all of the above par agraphs as though

fully set forth herein.

38. Plaintiffs state this cause of acti on agai nst all Defendants in their official

capacities for purposes of seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.

39.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable

pursuant to 42 U. S.C. §1983, pr ovides that no state shall “depri ve any per son of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, §1.

40.

The Alaska Constitution, Article 1, Section 25, Alaska Stat. §25.05.011,

Alaska Sta t. §25.05.013, a nd all other sour ces of state law that preclude m arriage for

same sex couples, violate the due process gu arantee of the Fourte enth Amendment both

facially and as applied to Plaintiffs.

41. The right to m arry the person of one ’s choi ce and to direct the course of

one’s life without undue government restriction is one of the fundamental rights protected

by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants’ actions to enforce

-18-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 18 of 36

the m arriage ban bot h directly and im permissibly infringe upon Plaintiffs’ choices of whom to marry, interfering with a fundamental and intimate personal choice.
42. The D ue P rocess Clause also pr otects choices central to persona l dignity, privacy, a nd a utonomy, including each i ndividual’s fundamental lib erty interests in family integrity and intimate association. Defendants’ actions to enforce the marriage ban directly and impermissibly infringe upon Plaintiffs’ deeply intimate, personal, and private decisions r egarding fa mily life, and preclude them from obtaining full liberty, dignity, privacy, and security for themselves and their families.
43. As Alaska’s gover nor, Defenda nt Parnell’s dutie s and actions to enforc e Alaska’s exclusion of sam e sex couples fro m m arriage, includi ng those actions take n pursuant to his responsibility for the policies and actions of the executive branch relating to, for example and with out limitation: health insurance c overage, vital records, and state employee benefit pr ograms, violate Plain tiffs’ fundamental ri ght t o m arry and fundamental interest in liberty, dignity, privacy, autonomy, family integrity, and intimate association under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
44. As Attor ney General of the Stat e of Alaska, Defenda nt Gera ghty’s duties and actions to enforce Alaska ’s exclusion of sam e sex co uples from marriage, including those actions taken pursuant to his responsibility for defending and providing legal advice supporting the policies and actio ns of the executive branch relating to, for example and
-19-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 19 of 36

without limitation: health insurance covera ge, vital records, state em ployee be nefit programs, and, as c hief crim inal prosecutor for the State of Alas ka, the enforcement of Alaska Stat. §25.05.361, violate Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to m arry and fundam ental interest in liberty, dignity, privacy, autono my, family integrity, a nd intimate association under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
45. As Commissioner of t he State of Alaska, Department of Health and S ocial Services, Defendant Streur’s duties and actions to enforce Alaska’s exclusion of same sex couples from m arriage, including those actions taken pursuant to his super vision of t he Division of Public Health, Vital Statisti cs Section, the agen cy which licenses all marriages in the State of Alaska and will not license same sex m arriages, violate Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and fundamental inte rest in liberty, dignity, privacy, autonom y, family in tegrity, and intimate associa tion under the F ourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
46. As the licensing officer of the Stat e of Alaska, Bureau of Vital Statistics, Defendant Mitchell’s duties and actions to enforce Alaska’s exclusion of same sex couples from marriage, including those actions take n purs uant to his oversight of the Bureau of Vital Statistics, th e agency which license s all marriages in the State of Alask a and will not license same sex marriages, viol ate Plaintiffs’ funda mental right to marry

-20-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 20 of 36

and fundamental interest in liberty, dignity, privacy, auto nomy, family integrity, and intimate association under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
47. Defendants cannot satisfy the re quirements of the Due Proce ss Clause because Alaska’s exclusion of same sex couples from marriage is not rationally related to any legitimate governmental interest and thus cannot survive even rational basis review, much less the hei ghtened level of scrutiny that applies to the deprivati on of t he fundamental right to marry and interference with fundamental liberty interests in liberty, dignity, privacy, autonomy, family integrity, and intimate association.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Against All Defendants
Alaska’s Failure to Recognize the Marriages of Plaintiffs Who Are Lawfully Married in Other States Violates Their Rights to Due Process of Law Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution 48. Plaintiffs incor porate by reference all of the above par agraphs as though fully set forth herein. 49. Plaintiffs Matthew H amby and Chri stopher Shel den a re lawfully m arried under the laws of the State of Utah and in Canada. 50. Plaintiffs Susan Tow and Christina LaBorde are lawfully married under the laws of the State of Maryland.

-21-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 21 of 36

51. Plaintiffs Tracey Wiese and Katrin a Cortez are lawfully married under the laws of the State of Hawaii.
52. Plaintiffs Sean Egan and David Robison a re lawfully m arried under t he laws of the state of New York.
53. When a marriage is recognized by a state, numerous rights, responsibilities, benefits, privileges and protections attach to that status under state and federal law.
54. When a c ouple e nters into a val id marriage in a state, the couple has a liberty interest in their marita l status that is protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, regardless of where the co uple chooses to live within the United States.
55. The married Plaintiffs in this case have a protected liberty interest in their lawful marital status and i n the c omprehensive protections and obliga tions that marriage provides.
56. The married Plaintiffs in this case al so have a protected property interest in their lawful marital status and in the comp rehensive protections and obli gations t hat marriage provides.
57. By operation of Article 1 Section 25 of the Alaska Constitution, and Alaska Stat. §25.05.011 and §25. 05.013, and other sections of Alaska Statutes, the lawful marriages of Plaintiff s Hamby and Shelden, Tow and LaBorde, Egan and Robinson, and
-22-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 22 of 36

Wiese and Cortez, are treated as nonexistent and void without legal st atus or effect in

Alaska. Alaska law effectively strips these Pl aintiffs of a valuable and fundamental legal

status that has been c onferred upon them by a sister state and deems them le gal strangers

to each other.

58. Accordingly, Alaska’s refusal to r ecognize the valid out of state marriages

of these Plaintiffs im permissibly deprives them of their fundamental liberty and property

interests in their marriages and the com prehensive pr otections afforded by marriage in

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

59. Moreover, Alaska’s refusal to reco gnize the valid out of state marr iages of

the unmarried Plaintiffs impermissibly burden s and interferes with their exercise of the

fundamental right to m arry in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process

Clause.

60.

Defendants’ deprivation of these Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under color

of state law violates 42 U.S.C. §1983.

61. Plaintiffs have no ade quate rem edy at law to redress the wrongs alleged

herein, which are of a continuing nature and which cause and will continue to cause them

irreparable harm.

62. The married Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief on

this basis.

-23-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 23 of 36

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Against All Defendants
Alaska’s Ban on Marriage by Same Sex Couples Deprives Unmarried Plaintiffs of Their Rights to Equal Protection of the Laws Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution

63. Plaintiffs incor porate by referenc es all of the above pa ragraphs as though

fully set forth herein.

64. Plaintiffs state this cause of ac tion agains t Defendants in their official

capacities for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

65.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, provides that no state shall “d eny to any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1.

66.

The Alaska Constitution, Article 1, Section 25, Alaska Stat. §25.05.011,

Alaska Sta t. §25.05.013, a nd all other sour ces of state law that preclude m arriage for

same sex couples viol ate the equal protecti on guarante e of the Fourteenth A mendment

both faciall y and as applied to Plaintiffs. The conduct of the De fendants in enforcing

these laws violates the right of Plaintif

fs to equal protection by dis criminating

impermissibly on the basis of sexual orientation and sex.

-24-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 24 of 36

67. As Alaska’s gover nor, Defenda nt Parnell’s dutie s and actions to enforc e Alaska’s exclusion of sam e sex couples fro m m arriage, includi ng those actions take n pursuant to his responsibility for the policies and actions of the executive branch relating to, for example and with out limitation: health insurance c overage, vital records, and state employee benefit program s, violate Plaintiffs ’ constitutional right to equal treatment, without re gard t o sexual orient ation or se x, under the F ourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
68. As Attor ney General of the Stat e of Alaska, Defenda nt Gera ghty’s duties and actions to enforce Alaska ’s exclusion of sam e sex co uples from marriage, including those actions taken pursuant to his responsibility for defending and providing legal advice supporting the policies and actio ns of the executive branch relating to, for example and without limitation: health insurance covera ge, vital records, state em ployee be nefit programs, and, as c hief crim inal prosecutor for the State of Alas ka, the enforcement of Alaska Stat. § 25.05.36 1, violate Plaintiffs’ constituti onal right to equal treatment, without re gard t o sexual orient ation or se x, under the F ourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
69. As Commissioner of t he State of Alaska, Department of Health and S ocial Services, Defendant Streur’s duties and actions to enforce Alaska’s exclusion of same sex couples from m arriage, including those actions taken pursuant to his super vision of t he
-25-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 25 of 36

Division of Public Health, Vital Statistics S ection, de prive unm arried Plainti ffs of their

constitutional right to equal treatment under the law by denying them marriage licenses.

70. As the licensing officer of the Stat e of Alaska, Bureau of Vital Statistics,

Defendant Mitchell’s duties and actions to enforce Alaska’s exclusion of same sex

couples from marriage, and deny them marriage licenses, depr ive unmarried Plaintiffs of

their constitutional right to equal treatment under the law.

71.

Alaska’s exclusion of sam e sex couples from m arriage, and Defenda nts’

actions to enforce that exclusion, deny same sex couples equal dignity and respect, and

deprive their famil ies of a critical safety net of rights and responsibilities. T hese laws

brand same sex couple s and their children as second class citizens through governm ent

imposed stigma, and also serve to foster private bias and discrimination by instructing all

persons wi th whom sam e sex couples inter act, including their own children, that their

relationships and families are less worthy th an others. Alaska’s ex clusion of same sex

couples reflect private moral disapproval and animus toward same sex couples.

72. Same sex couples are similar to opposi te sex couples in a ll of the

characteristics relevant to marriage. Like op posite sex couples, th ey make a commitment

to each other, build their lives together, create families t ogether, plan their futures

together, and hope to grow old together, caring for each other physically, em otionally,

and financially.

-26-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 26 of 36

73. The unmarried Plaintiffs seek to marry for the same types of reasons, and to provide the same legal shelter to their families as opposite sex couples.
74. Plaintiffs and their children are equally w orthy of t he tangi ble rights a nd responsibilities, as well as the respect, dignity , and le gitimacy that access to marriage confers on opposite se x couples and their children. For the ch ildren of same se x couples, the tangibl e resources and socie tal recogni tion a nd e steem that m arriage confers on families is no less precious than for children of opposite sex couples.
75. Alaska’s laws barring same sex couples from marriage target same sex Alaska couples by [excludi ng them or from any othe r form of relationship] ? recognition on the basis of sexual orientation.
76. Laws that discrim inate based on sexual orientation shoul d be subjected to heightened scrutiny for numerous reasons.
77. Gay m en and lesbians ha ve s uffered a long a nd painf ul his tory of discrimination i n Alaska and a cross the Un ited Sta tes. Sexual orientation bears no relationship to an individual’s contribution to society. Sexual orientation is a core, immutable, defining trait that is so fundamental to a pers on’s identity and autonomy that a person m ay not legi timately be required to ab andon or change it, even if that were possible, as a condition of equal treatment under the law.

-27-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 27 of 36

78. Lesbian, gay, and bi sexual persons are a discrete and insular m inority, and strong ongoing prejudice against them cont inues to seriously curtail the political processes that might ordinarily be relied upon to protect them. In Alaska, lesbian, gay and bisexual persons lack any stat utory protection against disc rimination and may be ope nly and legally discriminated against in most if not all public spheres, including employment, public accommodations, and housing. Alaska’s constitutional amendment excluding same sex couples from marriage is discrimination based upon sexual orientation a nd is unlawful under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States C onstitution as it denies same sex couples equal protection under the laws of the State of Alaska.
79. Alaska’s exclusion of sam e se x couples from m arriage based on sexual orientation cannot survive heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause because the State of Alaska cannot offe r an exceedi ngly persuasive sh owing that the exclusion i s substantially related to th e ac hievement of any im portant governmental objective. Moreover, because the exclusion of same sex couples from marriage base d upon sexual orientation serves no legitimate g overnment interest, the exclusio n cannot survive even rational basis review.
80. Alaska’s exclusion of sam e se x couples from m arriage discrim inates against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex, barring Plaintiffs from marriage solely because each of the Plaintiffs wishes to marry a life partne r of the sam e sex. The sex based restriction
-28-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 28 of 36

is plain on the face of Article 1, Section 25 of the Alaska Constitu tion, which restricts “valid or recognized ” marriage to “one m an and one woman” and in Al aska Stat. § 25.05.011, which defines marriage as a contract between “one man and one woman.”
81. Because of these sex-based classi fications, Courtney Lamb is prohibited from m arrying her devoted life partner becaus e she is a wom an and not a m an; were Courtney Lamb a man, she could marry Stephanie Pearson.
82. Alaska’s exclusion of sam e sex couples from marriage also serves the impermissible purpose of enf orcing and perpetuating sex stereotypes, becaus e Plaintiffs have failed to confor m to sex-based stereotypes that wom en should be attracted to, form intimate relationshi ps with, and m arry m en, not other wom en, a nd that m en shoul d be attracted to, form intimate relationships with, and marry women, not men.
83. There are no l onger any legal distinctions between the duties of hus bands and wives under Alaska law, and there is no basis for the sex-based eligibility requirements for marriage.
84. The exclusion of Pl aintiffs from marriage base d upon their sex and the enforcement of gender based stereotypes cann ot survive the heighten ed scrutiny for sex based discrimination, nor is it rationally related to any legitimate governmental purpose.
85. Alaska’s exclusion of sam e se x couples from m arriage discrim inates against Plaintiffs with respect to the exercise of the fundamental right to marry the person
-29-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 29 of 36

of one’s choice, and with respect to their li berty interests in personal autonom y, family integrity, association, and dignity. Such discrimination is subject t o heightened scrutiny. Alaska’s exclusion of sam e sex couples cannot s urvive such hei ghtened scrutiny, and cannot survive even rational basis review.

// FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Against All Defendants
Alaska’s Failure to Recognize the Marriages of Plaintiffs Lawfully Married in Other States Violates Their Right to Equal Protection of
the Laws Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
86. Plaintiffs incor porate by reference all of the above par agraphs as though fully set forth herein.
87. Alaska has long recognized m arriages that were validly entered into in other states, and afforded those marriages a ll of the rights and privileges of an Alaska marriage.
88. Unlike many other states, Alaska has not historically attempted to restrict or infringe upon t he rights of its citizens to m arry. For example, neither the state nor th e territorial gover nment ever enacted a ny racia lly based r estrictions on m arriage such as those struck down by th e U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S . 1 (1967).
-30-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 30 of 36

In fact, Alaska and it s people have histori cally been broa dly a ccepting of m arriages

between m embers of different racial groups . For exam ple, Alaska’s sole Congressm an,

Don Y oung and f ormer Gover nor Jay Ha mmond bot h m arried Native Alaskan wom en.

Both enjoyed long, successful marriages that were honor ed by Alaskans, and equall y

successful careers in which both they and their wives were in the public eye. Yet at the

time each of these couples married, their marri ages would have been illegal and voi d in

other states that had statutes that proh ibited m arriage between white a nd non-w hite

people.

89. Alaska also issues m arriage licenses to oppos ite sex couples who r eside in

other states and wish to celebrate their marriages in Alaska without significant restriction.

But in 1996 and 1998, Alaska singled out same sex co uples in order to exclude them

from recognition and to deny such couple

s any of the rights, pr otections, and

responsibilities of marriage, even if their marriages were lawfu lly entered into in a sister

state.

90. Alaska’s refusal to re cognize the lawful marriages of the married Plaintiffs

discriminates against the categor y of legally m arried persons a nd also discrim inates

against the married Plaintiffs ba sed upon sexual orientat ion, sex, and with respect to the

exercise of the fundamental right to marry the person of one’s choice and f undamental

-31-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 31 of 36

liberty interests in personal autonomy, dignity, pri vacy, fa mily integrity, and intimate association.
91. Alaska’s laws singling out legally married same sex couples in order to exclude their marriages from recognition cann ot s urvive heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause becaus e the State of Alaska cannot offer an exceedingly persuasive showing that those laws are subs tantially related to the achievement of any important government objective. Moreover, be cause excluding le gally married same sex couples from recognition does no t serve any l egitimate governmental interest, those laws cannot survive even rational basis review.
92. While the states have traditional ly had the authority to regulate marriag e that authority “must respect the constitutional rights of persons,” see Windsor, 133 S. Ct at 2691, and it is “subject to constitutional guarantees,” see id.
93. The princi pal pur pose and effect of Alaska’s anti-same-sex marriag e recognition laws “is to identif y a subset of state-sanctione d marriages and make them unequal.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694. These laws “impose a di sadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigm a upon all who enter in to same s ex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of [other] states.” Id. at 2693.
94. Alaska’s laws excluding legally married same sex couples from recognition are subject to heightened scrutiny. But ev en under rational basis review, a pur pose to
-32-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 32 of 36

harm a minority class of persons cannot justify disparate treatment of that group, as this is not a legit imate gove rnmental interest. Romer v. Ev ans, 517 U.S. 620, 635 ( 1996), Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693.
95. Accordingly, the enforcement of Alaska laws that deny recognition to and/or void the lawful m arriages of the m arried Plaintiffs, relegating them to a second and une qual class of m arried couples, violat es the equal prote ction right s of those Plaintiffs. They are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief on this basis.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Against All Defendants
For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
96. Plaintiffs incor porate by reference all of the above par agraphs as though fully set forth herein.
97. This case presents an actual c ontroversy because Defenda nts’ ongoi ng violation of Plaintiffs’ rights to due pr ocess and equa l protection subject Plaintiffs to serious and immediate harms, warranting the issuance of a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201-2202 and under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65.
98. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to protect their constitutional rights and avoid the i njuries des cribed above. A n order enjoi ning Defendants would redress and

-33-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 33 of 36

prevent the irreparable injuries to Plaintiffs that have been identified, for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law or in equity.
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this court to enter judgment: A. Declaring that the provisions of and enforcement by Defenda nts of Alaska laws excluding same sex couples from marriage , including Article 1, Section 25 of th e Alaska Constitution, Alaska St at. §§ 25.05.011-.013, and any other sources of state law that exclude same sex couple s from m arrying violat e the un married Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; B. Declaring that the provisions of and enforcement by Defenda nts of Alaska laws barring recogniti on of th e l awful and valid out of st ate marriages of the married Plaintiff same sex couples, incl uding Arti cle 1, Section 25 of th e Alaska Constitution, Alaska Stat. §§ 25.05. 011-.013, and a ny other sources of state law that deny recognition to and/or void the marriages of the Plaintiffs and all thos e similarly situated who validl y married a same sex spouse in a nother jurisdiction violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process and Equal Pr otection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

-34-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 34 of 36

C.

Permanently enjoining enforcement by Defendants of Article 1, Section 25

of the Alaska Constitution, Alaska Stat. § 25. 05.011-.013, and any other sources of state

law to e xclude the unmarried Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated from marriage or

to deny or refuse recognition of and/or void the marriages of the married Plaintiffs and all

others similarly situated;

D. Requiring Defendants in their offici al capacities to permit the issuance of

marriage licenses to the unmarried Plaintiffs and all thos e similarly situated, purs uant to

the same restrictions and limitations applicable to opposite sex couples, and to recognize

the marriages validly entered into by th e married P laintiffs and all those simil arly

situated;

E. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, e xpenses, and reasonable attorney’s fees

pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. §1988 and other applicable laws; and

F. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

G. The declaratory and injunctive relie f requested in this action is sought

against each Defendant, and all of them; an d each Defendant’s officers, employees, and

agents, and against all persons acting in

active concert or participation with any

Defendant, or under any Defenda nt’s supervision, direction, or control, whether direct or

indirect.

-35-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 35 of 36

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 12th da y of May, 2014 at Anchorage,

Alaska.

By: ____________/s/_______________

Heather 1425 Seattle, Telephone:

Gardner #0111079 Broadway #463
Washington 98122 (907) 375-8776

Caitlin Telephone:

Shortell #0405027 310 K Street Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 272-8181

Allison Mendel #8310136 Mendel & Associates, Inc. 1215 W 8th Ave Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 279-5001

-36-

HAMBY ET AL. V. PARNELL ET AL. CASE NO. 3:14-cvCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00089-RRB Document 1

Filed 05/12/14

Page 36 of 36

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

MATTHEW HAMBY, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs.

)

)

SEAN C. PARNELL, in his official capacity )

as Governor of Alaska, et al.,

)

)

Defendants. )

__________________________________________)

No. 3:14-cv-0089-HRH

NOTICE OF RECUSAL I hereby recuse myself as regards any further proceedings in the above-captioned case. The clerk of court will please reassign this case to another district judge by random draw. DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 21st day of May, 2014.

/s/ H. Russel Holland United States District Judge

Notice of Recusal

- 1 -

Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 4 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 1

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA

MATTHEW HAMBY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. SEAN C. PARNELL, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:14-cv-00089-TMB O R D E R

I. INTRODUCTION The issue in this case is whether Alaska’s constitutional and statutory provisions prohibiting same-sex m arriage and the r ecognition of same-sex m arriages lawfully entered i n other states violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.1 The Plaintiffs are five samesex couples living in Alaska; four of the couples are lawfully married in other states and one couple is u nmarried but seeks to m arry in Alaska (“Plaintiffs”).2 All c ouples w ish t o ha ve t heir commitments le gally r ecognized b y th e S tate o f Alaska. The D efendants, s ued in th eir o fficial capacities, are: Sean Parnell, the Governor of the State of Alaska; Michael Geraghty, the Attorney General of the State of Alaska; William J. Streur, the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Health and Human Services; and Phillip Mitchell, the section chief of the Division of Public Health of the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services for the Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics (“Defendants”).3
1 See Dkt. 1. 2 Dkt. 20 at 10. 3 Dkt. 1 at 7-8.
1 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 1 of 25

Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to 42 U .S.C. § 1983 a nd filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing t hat A laska’s l aws b anning s ame-sex m arriage an d r efusing t o r ecognize a same-sex m arriage lawfully e ntered in another s tate violate bot h t he Due P rocess and E qual Protection C lauses of t he F ourteenth A mendment of t he U .S. C onstitution.4 Plaintiffs s eek declaratory an d i njunctive r elief.5 The D efendants de ny a ny vi olation of t he P laintiffs’ constitutional rights and therefore seek summary judgment as a matter of law in their favor.6
For the reasons that follow, the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Court finds that Alaska’s ban on same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully entered in other states is unconstitutional as a deprivation of basic due process and equal protection principles under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
II. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of three Alaskan laws: Article 1, Section 25 of the Alaska Constitution and Alaska statutes Section 25.05.011 a nd Section 25.05.013 (collectively, “the same-sex marriage laws”). Article 1, Section 25 of the Alaska Constitution, adopted in 1998 and effective in 1999, confines the definition of a valid marriage to couples of the opposite sex:
§25. Marriage To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.7
4 See Dkt. 20. 5 Dkt. 1 at 2, 33. 6 Dkt. 31. 7 AK CONST. Art. 1, §25 (1998).
2 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 2 of 25

Alaska statute Section 25.05.011, enacted in 1996, reiterates the definition of marriage as being
between male-female couples and prevents the solemnization of any marriage that does not meet
that requirement:
§ 25.05.011. Civil Contract (a) Marriage is a civil contract entered into by one man and one woman that requires
both a license and solemnization. The man and the woman must each be at least one of the following:
(1) 18 years of age or older and otherwise capable; (2) Qualified for a license under Alaska Stat. § 25.05.171; or (3) A member of the armed forces of the United States while on active duty. (b) A Person may not be joined in marriage in this state until a license has been obtained for that purpose as provided in this chapter. A marriage performed in this state is not valid without solemnization as provided in this chapter.8
Alaska law r ecognized valid ma rriages en tered i n o ther s tates. H owever, in 1996, Section
25.05.013 was written to specifically exclude out -of-state same-sex marriages from that formal
recognition. It provides:
§ 25.05.013. Same-sex marriages. (a) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or
under statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state, and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage, including its termination, are unenforceable in this state. (b) A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage.9
In c ombination, t he s ame-sex m arriage laws s pecifically id entify homosexual couples as a
group that is (1) not entitled to the benefits and responsibilities conferred by m arriage, and (2)
excluded f rom ha ving l awful out -of-state m arriages recognized by t he S tate o f A laska. T he
Plaintiffs argue that the laws’ effect stigmatizes same-sex couples and their children by relegating
them t o a “s econd class s tatus,” as w ell as “undermines the P laintiffs’ a bility to a chieve th eir
8 ALASKA STAT. §25.05.011 (1996).
9 ALASKA STAT. §25.05.013 (1996). 3
Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 3 of 25

aspirations, di sadvantages t hem f inancially, a nd de nies t hem ‘ dignity and s tatus of i mmense import.’”10 The Plaintiffs allege that these harms deprive them of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which include t he r ight of all pe ople t o choose w hom t o marry an d t o b e t reated equally under the law.11
III. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a m atter of law.”12 The facts of this case a re not in dispute; the Plaintiffs present a facial challenge to the constitutionality of Alaska’s laws prohibiting same-sex m arriage and the r ecognition of s ame-sex m arriages lawfully entered i n o ther s tates. Challenges r egarding f acial c onstitutionality i mplicate o nly is sues o f la w.13 If P laintiffs demonstrate that Alaska’s same-sex marriage laws are facially invalid, the Court will strike the laws as unconstitutional.14 The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, in relevant part, that no s tate shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person w ithin its ju risdiction th e e qual p rotection o f th e la ws.”15 “At t he he art of [ Fourteenth Amendment] l iberty i s t he r ight t o de fine on e’s own c oncept of e xistence, of m eaning, of t he
10 Dkt. 1 at 11 (quoting United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2692 (2013)). 11 Dkt. 20 at 11; see Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978). 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 13 See, e.g., U.S. v. Bynum, 327 F.3d 986, 990 (9th Cir. 2003). 14 See Citizens United v. Federal Election Com’n, 558 U.S. 310, 312 (2010). 15 U.S. CONST. amend. XIV.
4 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 4 of 25

universe, a nd of t he m ystery of hum an l ife. B eliefs a bout t hese m atters c ould not de fine t he attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”16 While the power to define and regulate marriage is allocated to the separate states, state laws still may not infringe upon individual constitutional rights.17 Although the freedoms guaranteed by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are closely related and often intersect,18 the Court will address each clause in turn.
A. The Due Process Clause Due pr ocess unde r t he Fourteenth Amendment, c ontaining bot h pr ocedural a nd s ubstantive components, protects “all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty…from invasion by the States.”19 Protection provided by the substantive component of due process “barr[s] certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them…[and] serves t o pr event g overnmental pow er f rom be ing ‘ used f or pur poses of oppr ession.’”20 Furthermore, “[n]either the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects.”21
16 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992). 17 See, e.g., Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2680; Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 7 (1967). 18 Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 575 (2003) (“Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects….”). 19 Casey, 505 U.S. at 846-47 (quoting Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (1927)). 20 Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986) (internal citation omitted) (quoting Den ex dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Imp. Co., 59 U.S. 272, 277 (1855)). 21 Casey, 505 U.S. at 848.
5 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 5 of 25

To be considered “fundamental,” a right must be “objectively, deeply rooted in the Nation’s
history and tradition”22 and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” to the point that “neither
liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.”23 In addition to procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education,24 the Supreme Court has consistently recognized
that an individual’s choice to marry is a fundamental right protected by due process.25 While the
power to define and regulate marriage is allocated to the separate states, state laws still may not
infringe upon individual constitutional rights.26
Here, the Court is initially tasked with determining whether the right to marry an individual of
the same sex and the right to have legal recognition of a same-sex marriage entered in another state
are f undamental r ights. I f s o, t he C ourt a sks w hether a nd t o w hat de gree A laska’s s ame-sex marriage laws infringe upon those rights.27 If the laws significantly interfere with the Plaintiffs’
22 Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21 (1997). 23 Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325-26 (1937) (overruled on other grounds by Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969)). 24 Carey v. Population Services Int’l, 431 U.S. 678, 685 (1977). 25 See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and is “of fundamental importance for all individuals.”); Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. La Fleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-640 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by…the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Loving, 388 U.S. at 12 (“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness…fundamental to our very existence and survival.”). 26 See, e.g., Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2680; Loving, 388 U.S. at 7. 27 Beller v. Middendorf, 632 F.2d 788, 807 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[S]ubstantive due process scrutiny of a government regulation involves a case-by-case balancing of the nature of the individual interest allegedly infringed, the importance of the government interest furthered, the degree of infringement, and the sensitivity of the government entity responsible for the regulation to more carefully tailored alternative means of achieving its goals.”).
6
Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 6 of 25

rights, t he l aws “ cannot be uphe ld unl ess [ they a re] s upported b y s ufficiently i mportant s tate interests and [are] closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.”28
B. The Equal Protection Clause In analyzing an equal protection challenge, the Court first identifies the classification made by the s tate.29 Depending o n t he c lassification, t he Court us es di fferent s tandards of r eview t o determine whether a law violates equal protection.30 The highest level of scrutiny, strict scrutiny, applies to “suspect classes” (e.g., classifications based on race, religion, and national origin) and requires the government to prove that a d iscriminatory law is “narrowly tailored” to achieving a “compelling” s tate in terest.31 The l owest l evel of s crutiny, r ational ba sis r eview, applies t o classifications that are generally assumed to be valid (e.g., the elderly and mentally handicapped) and requires that the law be “rationally related” to a “legitimate” state interest.32 The Court applies intermediate scrutiny for “quasi-suspect” classes (e.g., gender and illegitimacy), requiring that the law be “substantially related” to achieving a “sufficiently important governmental interest.”33 In this case, the State of Alaska has constructed its marriage laws to exclude a class identified on the basis of sexual orientation. The Supreme Court has yet to declare what standard of review
28 Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 388. 29 See, e.g., United States v. Lopez-Flores, 63 F.3d 1469, 1472 (9th Cir. 1995) 30 Id. 31 See Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 720 (2007); Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005). 32 See Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320 (1993); Bower v. Whitman, 671 F.3d 905, 917 (9th Cir. 2012). 33 City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 440-41; United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 524 (1996).
7 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 7 of 25

is appropriate for laws that discriminate on this basis, but the Court is not left without guidance. Just days ago, in Latta, v. Otter, the Ninth Circuit employed heightened scrutiny to consider the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans in Nevada and Idaho because the laws “discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.”34 At oral argument on October 10, 201 4, the parties agreed that Latta is precedential in this circuit.35
Latta unambiguously requires that the Court employ a heightened standard of review to this case. In Latta, the Ninth Circuit assessed the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada that used similar language to that in Alaska’s same-sex marriage bans.36 Finding that the laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, the Ninth Circuit employed heightened scrutiny to f ind th at the s tates f ailed to d emonstrate th at th e la ws f urthered a ny l egitimate governmental purpose.37 Lacking sufficient justification, the Ninth Circuit held that the laws were unconstitutional for “impos[ing] legal, financial, social and psychic harms on numerous citizens”
34 2014 WL 4977682 at *15 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014). The Ninth Circuit’s earlier decision in Smithkline Beecham v. Abbott Laboratories, 740 F.3d 471, 481-84 (9th Cir. 2014) provided that, in light of Windsor, “heightened scrutiny” is the appropriate standard of review when laws discriminate based on sexual orientation. Even absent the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Latta, the Court would employ the heightened standard of review as required by Smithkline, leading to the same result found in this opinion. 35 When oral argument began, a stay by the Supreme Court was in place as to part of the Latta decision; by the end of oral argument, that stay had been lifted. Regardless, Latta is the controlling law of this Circuit. Wedbush, Noble, Cooke, Inc. v. S.E.C., 714 F.2d 923, 924 (9th Cir. 1983) (“It is fundamental that the mere pendency of an appeal does not, in itself, disturb the finality of a judgment. Similarly, the pendency of a petition for rehearing does not, in itself, destroy the finality of an appellate court’s judgment.”) (internal citations omitted). 36 2014 WL 4977682, at *4, n.2. 37 Id. at *13, *33.
8 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 8 of 25

of I daho and N evada.38 It is w ithin th is f ramework th at th e C ourt w ill d etermine th e constitutionality of Alaska’s same-sex marriage laws.
When applying a heightened standard of review under the Equal Protection Clause, the Court must invalidate discriminatory laws unless they have an “exceedingly persuasive justification.”39 The D efendants must s how “at le ast th at th e classification s erves imp ortant g overnmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to achievement of those obj ectives.”40 Moreover, t he cl assification must be based on le gitimate government concerns “other than disagreement with the choice the individual has made.”41 Nevertheless, this Court recognizes the Supreme Court’s cautioning that “equal protection is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.”42 In the context of the case at hand, the Court analyzes the objectives of Alaska’s same-sex marriage laws and their relationship to any important governmental objectives.
IV. DISCUSSION Since the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) last year in United States v. Windsor, numerous federal courts have addressed the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriages.43 Currently, four circuits have ruled on the issue; the Ninth,
38 Id. at 32. 39 Virginia, 518 U.S. at 531. 40 Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 724 (1982) (internal quotations omitted). 41 Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 435 (1990). 42 FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993). 43 Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675; see, e.g., Brenner v. Scott, 2014 WL 4113100 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2014); Love v. Beshear, 2014 WL 2957671 (W.D. Ky. July 1, 2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, 2014
9 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 9 of 25

Seventh, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits each held that state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.44 While the question before the Court today is not identical to that in Windsor, the hol ding of t he S upreme C ourt pr ovides insight. T he Windsor court f ound t hat D OMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all those who enter same-sex marriages” and created a differentiation that “demeans the [same-sex] couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.”45
The Plaintiffs continuously cite Windsor to argue that Alaska’s same-sex marriage laws are analogous t o D OMA b ecause t he l aws not onl y deny th em “ equal d ignity” b y tr eating heterosexuals and homosexuals differently, but are also demeaning to their families, undermine their personal autonomy, and are in violation of their constitutional rights.46 The Defendants argue that Windsor is i napposite t o t his c ase be cause t he S upreme C ourt’s holding was ba sed on t he state’s authority to define marriage and the inability of the federal government to interfere with that authority.47 The Defendants’ interpretation of Windsor is that it “stands for the proposition that the definition of marriage is an issue for the states.”48 State sovereignty in defining marriage
WL 2058105 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F.Supp.2d 757 (E.D. Mich. 2014); DeLeon v. Perry, 975 F.Supp.2d 632 (W.D. Tex. 2014); McGee v. Cole, 2014 WL 321122 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 29., 2014). 44 See Latta, 2014 WL 4977682; Baskin v. Bogan, 2014 WL 4359059 (7th Cir. Sept. 4, 2014); Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014); see also Bishop v. Smith, 2014 WL 3537847 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014). 45 133 S.Ct. at 2693 (citing Lawrence, 539 U.S. 558). 46 Dkt. 20 at 2, 24-25, 36-40, 43. 47 133 S.Ct. at 2689-91. 48 Dkt. 31 at 13.
10 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 10 of 25

is certainly emphasized in Windsor, but the primary principle behind the Supreme Court’s ruling is that regulation of marriage consistent with the Constitution requires that state laws not “degrade or demean” a class of people without sufficient justification.49
A. Alaska’s Same-Sex Marriage Laws Violate Due Process 1. Alaska’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the unmarried plaintiffs’ fundamental right to choose whom to marry
The p arties do not di spute t hat our na tion ha s a l ongstanding hi story of r ecognizing an individual’s f undamental r ight t o m arry, w hich i s pr otected b y t he D ue Process C lause o f t he Fourteenth Amendment.50 However, the Plaintiffs argue that same-sex marriage is encompassed in t he r ight t o m arry w hile t he D efendants c ontend t hat t he r ight t o m arriage, a s r ooted i n our nation’s history and tradition, is strictly between a man and a woman.
It is true, as Defendants argue, that in categorical terms “[t]he Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”51 This does not, however, equate to the notion that no such right exists. As the Supreme Court in Casey explained:
It is tempting, as a means of curbing the discretion of federal judges, to suppose that…the Due Process Clause protects only those practices, defined at the most specific level, that were protected against government interference by other rules of law when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. But such a view would be inconsistent with our law. It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.52 In ot her w ords, even r ights not e xplicitly m entioned i n t he Bill of R ights c an b e p rotected b y substantive due process. For example, in Loving v. Virginia, the “right to interracial marriage”
49 133 S.Ct. at 2695. 50 Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 726. 51 Dkt. 31 at 12. 52 Casey, 505 U.S. at 847 (internal citations omitted).
11 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 11 of 25

was not included in the Constitution (in fact, it was illegal in most states at the time), nor did the Supreme Court declare a fundamental right to interracial marriage. Rather, the decision hinged on the determination that the freedom to marry, without an additional descriptor, “resides with the individual a nd c annot be i nfringed b y t he S tate.”53 In t his w ay, t he S upreme C ourt f ound interracial m arriage “t o b e an aspect o f l iberty protected a gainst s tate i nterference b y t he substantive component of due process.”54
While the Supreme Court cases defining marriage as a “fundamental right” involved oppositesex couples, nothing in the decisions indicates that the fundamental right to marry is circumscribed by other defining characteristics (e.g., in this case, a fundamental right to “male-female marriage”). The Supreme Court has never described or defined marriage as a right that is dependent upon the particular facts of the case before it or a right belonging to a particular group; on the contrary, its discussion of marriage has consistently been “in broad terms independent of the persons exercising it.”55 The choice of whom to marry is an “associational right[]” that is “of basic importance in our society” an d i s “sheltered by t he Fourteenth Amendment a gainst t he S tate’s unw arranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”56
Our society places immense value on marriage because it “involve[es] the most intimate and personal c hoices a p erson m ay m ake i n a l ifetime, c hoices c entral t o personal di gnity and autonomy….”57 In Griswold v. C onnecticut, t he Supreme C ourt de scribed in d etail the
53 388 U.S. at 12. 54 Casey, 505 U.S. at 847-48. 55 Kitchen, 755 F.3d at 1209. 56 M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1971). 57 Casey, 505 U.S. at 851.
12 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 12 of 25

autonomous e ssence of marriage and t he private choice involved when e ntering such a commitment:
Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.58 More recently, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court explained that “our laws and tradition afford constitutional pr otection t o pe rsonal de cisions r elating t o marriage, pr ocreation, contraception, f amily relationships, c hild r earing, and e ducation…. P ersons i n a hom osexual relationship m ay s eek a utonomy for t hese pur poses, j ust a s he terosexual p ersons do.”59 The holding in Lawrence concerned an anti-sodomy law in Texas, but the reasoning was rooted in the persistent c oncept of i ndividual pr ivacy a nd i ndependence w hen e xercising t he r ights t o m ake decisions on personal matters. In Lawrence, the critical mistake identified by the Supreme Court in its earlier reasoning is the same error made by Defendants in this case: in the desire to narrowly define the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, they “fail[] to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake.”60 Our forefathers wrote the Bill of Rights hundreds of years ago and could not have predicted “the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities” as we see today.61 As the Supreme Court articulately explained, “those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clause[]…knew times can
58 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). 59 539 U.S. at 574. 60 Id. at 567. 61 Id. at 578-79.
13 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 13 of 25

blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once necessary and proper in fact only s erve t o oppr ess. A s t he C onstitution e ndures, pe rsons i n every generation c an i nvoke i ts principles in their own search for greater freedom.”62 The Plaintiffs in this case do not ask the Court to recognize an entirely new fundamental right to same-sex marriage; rather, Plaintiffs wish to participate in th e existing liberty granted to other couples t o m ake a d eeply pe rsonal choice about a private family matter.
Here, “[t]he inescapable fact is that adjudication of substantive due process claims may call upon the Court in interpreting the Constitution to exercise that same capacity which by tradition courts always have exercised: reasoned judgment….That does not mean we are free to invalidate state policy choices with which we disagree; yet neither does it permit us to shrink from the duties of our office.”63 The Court has been called upon to use reasoned judgment to interpret the right to choose w hom t o m arry and t he br eadth of t hat right unde r s ubstantive due pr ocess. It is in consideration of this duty that the Court finds that marriage between individuals of the same sex is encompassed by our nation’s longstanding fundamental right to marry.
The C ourt th en mu st d etermine w hether A laska’s s ame-sex ma rriage la ws s ignificantly interfere with the Plaintiffs’ right to marry whom they choose. The answer is obvious as to the unmarried Plaintiffs: the law prevents them from exercising that right. For many years, there have been powerful voices condemning homosexual conduct as immoral, but the Court’s obligation in this case is not to determine or mandate a particular moral code, but rather “to define the liberty of all.”64 While homosexuality and the union of same-sex couples through marriage may be against
62 Id. 63 Casey, 505 U.S. at 849. 64 Id. at 850.
14 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 14 of 25

the beliefs or beyond the moral parameters of some Americans, the core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment is to protect an i ndividual’s freedom by e nsuring t hat a constitutional right i s not “infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it be.”65 Alaska’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage “usurp, disregard, and disrespect” the fundamental right of all homosexuals to choose who to marry; a right of liberty, privacy, and association freely given to heterosexuals.66
2. Alaska’s refusal to recognize valid same-sex marriages entered in other states violates the married Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to have their marriages recognized
In light of the Court’s determination that Alaska’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to choose whom to marry, it necessarily follows that Alaska’s antirecognition law concerning valid same-sex marriages entered in other states also violates that right. By refusing to recognize valid same-sex marriages entered in other states and declaring them void in Alaska, Section 25.05.013 effectively strips same-sex married couples of their liberty interest in having their valid marriages recognized.67 Therefore, Alaska Statute 25.05.013 a lso violates the m arried P laintiffs’ f undamental r ight to h ave th eir valid out -of-state marriages r ecognized under the due process clause.
If t his c ase c oncerned only a due pr ocess c laim, t he C ourt w ould be gin t o a ssess t he Defendants’ assertions o f t he governmental i nterests an d whether A laska’s s ame-sex m arriage
65 Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Gen. Assembly of State of Colo., 377 U.S. 713, 736-37 (1964). 66 See Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923); Griswold, 381 U.S. at 486; M.L.B., 519 U.S. at 116. 67 See Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2694 (The refusal of one jurisdiction to recognize a legally established marriage from another jurisdiction “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects…and whose relationship the [latter] State has sought to dignify.”).
15 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 15 of 25

laws are related to those interests. However, since this case also involves a claim under the Equal Protection Clause, which requires the same inquiry, the Court reserves the analysis until after an initial discussion of the equal protection claim.
B. Alaska’s Same-Sex Marriage Laws Violate Equal Protection “A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense.”68 Alaska’s same-sex marriage laws declare that it is more difficult for homosexuals to seek the benefits of lawful marriage with a person of their choosing than it is for heterosexuals. Even i f w e ac cept t he Defendants’ co ntention t hat A laska’s s ame-sex m arriage l aws w ere n ot intended t o di scriminate a gainst or ha rm same-sex c ouples, but r ather t o “ retain t he t raditional definition of marriage,”69 the fact is that the laws do discriminate. Defendants provide minimal evidentiary support for the argument concerning the legislative history of Alaska’s same-sex marriage laws, stating simply that Alaskan voters chose to adopt the definition of marriage as between “one man and one woman.”70 Defendants point out that the Statement in Support of the Marriage Amendment for the Official Election Pamphlet declares that the amendment “does not ‘target’ anybody or ‘deny’ anybody their rights”; that “[a]ll Alaskans are equal before the law. But that’s not what this debate is about.”71 In fact, that is exactly what the debate on marriage is about. By singling out homosexual couples and banning their ability to
68 Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996). 69 Dkt. 31 at 9. 70 Id. at 9-10. 71 Id. at 9.
16 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 16 of 25

marry an individual of their choosing, it is impossible to assert that all Alaskans are equal under the state’s laws.
Defendants contend that the same-sex marriage laws do not deny any benefits, and the Court acknowledges t hat A laska g rants s ame-sex co uples some benefits corresponding w ith those granted to legally-married opposite-sex couples. However, the inability to legally marry denies same-sex co uples a panoply of state an d f ederal benefits afforded oppos ite-sex co uples.72 The Court l ooks t o Windsor where t he S upreme C ourt f ound t hat t he “principle pur pose” a nd “necessary effect” of DOMA were to “impose inequality” on same-sex couples and their families by f orbidding th em from p articipating in ma rriage.73 Here, rather t han promoting marriage between a man and woman by granting them additional rights and privileges, the apparent purpose and practical effect of Alaska laws is to impose inequality upon same-sex couples by denying them the rights and privileges afforded heterosexual couples.
Intermediate s crutiny places th e “demanding” burden of ju stification on t he D efendants t o prove t hat t he obj ectives of A laska’s s ame-sex m arriage l aws a re “substantially related” t o achieving an “important governmental objective.”74 Additional considerations for assessing laws that di scriminate ba sed on s exual or ientation include the “ resulting i njury and i ndignity,” “the ‘disadvantage’ inflicted on gays and lesbians,” and the “government-sponsored message” sent by
72 See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 6013 (granting married couples the ability to file income taxes jointly); 26 U.S.C. §1041 (right for married couples to transfer assets to one’s spouse while married or during divorce without tax liability); 5 U.S.C. §§ 8901(5), 8905 (healthcare benefits for legallymarried spouses of federal employees). 73 Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2694-95. 74 Virginia, 518 U.S. at 524, 533; Hibbs v. Dep’t of Human Resources, 273 F.3d 844, 855 (9th Cir. 2001).
17 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 17 of 25

the laws about the status of homosexuals in our society.75 Here, Defendants assert one primary governmental objective: affirming th e citizens’ r ight t o c hange law through t he de mocratic process. T he Defendants’ argument includes the voters’ interests in maintaining the traditional definition of marriage and encouraging opt imal, s table child-rearing e nvironments that ar e implicated by the overarching theme of federalism.76
1. Affirming Alaskan voters’ right to decide how to define marriage Defendants rely on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action77 to emphasize the “right of the citizens to vote and decide the critical issues affecting their lives.”78 Marriage is of particular interest to society as it is often the root or foundation of family units that create and strengthen communities. It is not surprising that due to the importance and impact o f m arriage, a s tate’s interest in regulating m arriage within its b oundaries in cludes th e power to determine, within constitutional bounds, what marriage is and who may enter into those unions.79 It i s obvi ous that t he g overnment ha s a strong interest in supporting t he de mocratic process, which grants citizens the power to “seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times” and to have a hand in changing the social institutions of which they are a part.80
75 Smithkline, 740 F.3d at 482 (quoting Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2692-93). 76 Dkt. 31 at 24-27. 77 134 S.Ct. 1623 (2014). 78 Dkt. 31 at 15. 79 Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2691. 80 Bond v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2355, 2364 (2011).
18 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 18 of 25

However, a s tate’s r ight t o de fine m arriage i s not unbounde d; a s tate may n ot exercise its power to define marriage in a way that infringes upon individuals’ constitutional rights.81 “Though each faith, minister, and individual can define marriage for themselves, at issue here are laws that act outside that protected sphere. Once the government defines marriage and attaches benefits to that d efinition, it mu st do s o c onstitutionally. It c annot imp ose a tr aditional o r f aith-based limitation upon a publ ic r ight w ithout a sufficient ju stification f or it .”82 Many Alaskans may personally wish to enshrine their own definition of marriage in the law. However, this case does not concern whether any person or group finds same-sex marriage repugnant based on pe rsonal moral or religious beliefs; the Constitution protects the right to express one’s personal beliefs and values, but it also protects same-sex couples from laws that negatively impact their Constitutional rights.83 Even if a majority of citizens disapprove of homosexuality, an infringement on same-sex couples’ c onstitutional r ights “ must b e p redicated o n le gitimate s tate c oncerns o ther th an disagreement with the choice the individual has made.”84 The basic principle is that “fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”85
The S upreme C ourt ha s c onsistently s truck dow n s tate l aws that regulate m arriage i n an impermissible fashion, particularly when the regulation is one that withholds the right to marry
81 Loving, 388 U.S. at 11-12; see also Dkt. 31 (Defendants concede: “Where the citizens have exercised their right to vote—their decision should not be overturned by the judiciary absent compelling circumstances such as the violation of a fundamental right.”) 82 Bourke v. Beshear, 2014 WL 556729 at *10 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2014). 83 See Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1137-38 (D. Or. 2014). 84 Hodgson, 497 U.S. at 435. 85 W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).
19 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 19 of 25

entirely for a particular group. For example, regardless of the majority’s beliefs, a state may not refuse the right to marriage for an interracial couple,86 nor for individuals that have not upheld their child-support obligations,87 nor for the incarcerated.88 Even if many Alaskan citizens have moral or religious sentiments that conflict with homosexuality, the mere “fact that the governing majority in a state has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.”89
Homosexuals ar e “among th e mo st s tigmatized, misunderstood, a nd d iscriminated-against minorities in the history of the world.” 90 Alaska’s denial of the benefits and dignity of marriage for t hem onl y pe rpetuates t his discrimination without le gitimate g rounds. Same-sex co uples comprise onl y a s mall por tion of A laska’s popul ation, a nd “ [m]inorities t rampled on b y t he democratic process have recourse to the courts; the recourse is called constitutional law.”91 To put it simply, “a primary purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from oppression by majorities.... Thus, considerations of federalism cannot carry the day....”92
86 Loving, 388 U.S. at 11. 87 Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 387-88. 88 Turner, 482 U.S. at 96-99. 89 Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 560 (“Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause because legal classifications must not be ‘drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law.’”) Id. at 583 (quoting Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 US. 528, 633 (1973). 90 Baskin, 2014 WL 4359059 at *11. 91 Id. at *19. 92 Latta, 2014 WL 4977682, at *29.
20 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 20 of 25

Moreover, when assessing an equal protection challenge, regardless of the level of scrutiny
employed by the Court, the stated government interests must have a logical relationship to the law
in question. Even if the Court employed the lowest standard of review, it is illogical to say that
Alaska’s same-sex marriage laws are rationally related to serving the right of citizens to vote on
significant changes t o t he l aw. Alaska’s s ame-sex m arriage l aws governing th e in stitution o f
marriage have nothing to do with promoting or ensuring a citizen’s voting rights.
2. The preservation of the traditional definition of marriage
Defendants correctly argue that throughout our nation’s history, a “t raditional” marriage has typically been an agreement between one man and one woman.93 However, “[a]ncient lineage of a legal concept does not give it immunity from attack” under the appropriate standard of review.94
Adherence to tradition is not a valid basis for taking away an individual’s constitutional rights,
particularly when experience reveals that the injustice no longer serves, or even acts as a detriment to, the general welfare.95 In regard to a parallel argument concerning tradition brought by the state
in Baskin, the Seventh Circuit explained:
The state’s argument from tradition runs head on into Loving v. Virginia, since the limitation of marriage to persons of the same race was traditional in a number of states when the Supreme Court invalidated it. Laws forbidding black-white marriage dated back to colonial times and were found in northern as well as southern colonies and states. Tradition per se has no positive or negative significance. There are good traditions, bad traditions pilloried in such famous literary stories as Franz Kafka’s “In the Penal Colony” and Shirley Jackson’s “the Lottery,” bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that from a public-policy standpoint are neither good nor bad (such
93 Dkt. 31 at 26. 94 Heller, 509 U.S. at 326. 95 See Wolf v. Walker, 986 F.Supp.2d 982, 1019 (W.D. Wis. 2014), aff’d, Baskin, 2014 WL 4359059 (“The rejection of these inequalities by later generations shows that sometimes a tradition may endure because of unexamined assumptions about a particular class of people rather than because the laws serve the community as a whole.”).
21
Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 21 of 25

as trick-or-treating on Halloween). Tradition per se therefore cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination—regardless of the age of the tradition.96 As previously discussed, the traditional notion of marriage as described by the Supreme Court is comprised of two individuals that make the deeply personal choice to dedicate their lives to each other. It i s a uni on that act s as a b enefit t o s ociety an d i s defined by commitment, in timacy, autonomy, and personal dignity. Many same-sex couples, the Plaintiffs among them, desperately wish t o e nter i nto s uch a legally v alid lif elong r elationship, and they devote s ubstantial time , energy, and money to have the state recognize their commitment. While th e s tate and its c itizens may in deed h ave a le gitimate in terest in promoting certain virtues, it does not follow that a law forbidding same-sex marriage has any relation to the status of male-female marriage. Presented with unsupported arguments about the future effects of same-sex marriage on traditional marriage, the Ninth Circuit stated: Unsupported legislative conclusions as to whether particular policies will have societal effects of the sort at issue in this case—determinations which often, as here, implicate constitutional rights—have not been afforded deference by the Court. To the contrary, we “retain an independent constitutional duty to review factual findings where constitutional rights are at stake….” [T]here is no empirical support for the idea that legalizing same-sex marriage would harm—or indeed affect—opposite sex marriages or relationships.97 Just a s i n Latta, t he D efendants ha ve pr ovided t he C ourt w ith l ittle m ore than uncorroborated suggestions a bout t he i mpact of s ame-sex m arriage. W ithout pe rsuasive f actual f indings t o evaluate, the Court finds that there is inadequate support for the contention that banning same-sex marriages has any rational relationship to the preservation of traditional marriages.
96 Baskin, 2014 WL 4359059, at *14 (internal citation omitted). 97 Latta, 2014 WL 4977682, at *17, *18 (quoting Gonzalez v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 165-66 (2007)).
22 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 22 of 25

3. Child-rearing Defendants further mention the notion that “it is legitimate for voters to believe that children can prosper with a father and a mother in their lives—because they derive unique values from each parent” and that the state seeks “to ensure that all children have the best chance to grow in a stable environment b y supporting families.”98 Again, these contentions are unsupported b y empirical evidence.99 As the Ninth Circuit found, “[r]aising children is hard; marriage supports same-sex couples in parenting their children, just as it does opposite-sex couples.”100 For the many same-sex couples with children in the United States today, permitting them to enter into marriage encourages security and stability in their family and for their children. It is estimated th at 2 3% o f same-sex c ouples i n A laska a re r aising c hildren ( biological, a dopted, or step-children), t he t hird highest pe rcentage i n t he na tion.101 Preventing t hese i ndividuals f rom participation in marriage places upon t hem unwarranted social, economic, and political burdens and pr events t hem f rom obt aining t he extensive be nefits a nd p rotections t hat a re p rovided t o families of opposite-sex couples.102 Discussing the states’ arguments regarding procreation and child-rearing, the Ninth Circuit in Latta found:
98 Dkt. 31 at 26. 99 See, e.g., “Lesbian and Gay Parenting.” (American Psychological Association), http://apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx?item=6 (last visited October 11, 2014) (“[E]vidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychological growth.”). 100 Latta, 2014 WL 4977682, at *22. 101 “Six Million American Children and Adults Have an LGBT Parent.” (Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, Feb. 2013), http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/LGBT-Parenting.pdf. 102 See Plaintiffs’ affidavits at Dkts. 21-26.
23 Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 23 of 25

In extending the benefits of marriage only to people who have the capacity to procreate, while denying those same benefits to people who already have children, Idaho and Nevada materially harm and demean same-sex couples with children…. Denying children resources and stigmatizing their families on this basis is “illogical and unjust.”… It is counterproductive, and it is unconstitutional.103
A more effective way to support the state’s interest in building strong, supportive families with
children would be to allow same-sex couples the same public resources as heterosexual couples have for creating and nurturing a family.104 There is no sensible reason to deny same-sex families
the same advantages and benefits already given to opposite-sex couples.
In s um, a ny relationship be tween A laska’s s ame-sex m arriage l aws and t he government
interests asserted b y Defendants is either nonexistent or purely speculative. Alaska’s same-sex
marriage laws are a prime example of how “the varying treatment of different groups or persons
is s o unrelated t o the achievement of any combination of l egitimate purposes t hat we can onl y conclude that the legislature’s actions were irrational.”105 Refusing the rights and responsibilities
afforded b y l egal m arriage s ends t he publ ic a g overnment-sponsored message t hat s ame-sex
couples and their familial relationships do not warrant the status, benefits, and dignity given to
couples of the opposite sex. This Court finds that Alaska’s same-sex marriage laws violate the
103 Latta, 2014 WL 4977682, at *25 (internal citation omitted) (quoting Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 220 (1982)). 104 See, e.g., Press Release, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Pediatrics Supports Same Gender Civil Marriage (March 21, 2013) (available at: http://www.aap.org/enus/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-Supports-SameGender-Civil-Marriage.aspx) (“The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) supports civil marriage for same-gender couples—as well as full adoption and foster care rights for all parents, regardless of sexual orientation—as the best way to guarantee benefits and security for their children.”). 105 Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 (1979).
24
Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 24 of 25

Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because no state interest provides “ex ceedingly p ersuasive justification”106 for the significant infringement of rights that they inflict upon homosexual individuals.
V. CONCLUSION Any state interests identified by Defendants are insufficient for Alaska’s same-sex marriage laws to pass constitutional muster under due process or equal protection. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket 20 is GRANTED. With th is r uling, t he C ourt he reby DECLARES that A laska’s s ame-sex marriage l aws ar e unconstitutional for vi olating the Due P rocess a nd Equal P rotection C lauses of t he F ourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court IMMEDIATELY ENJOINS the state o f A laska, in cluding s tate o fficers, personnel, a gents, g overnment di visions, a nd ot her pol itical e ntities, from e nforcing A laska Constitution A rticle 1, S ection 25 a nd A laska S tatute S ections 25.05.011 a nd 25 .05.013 t o t he extent that the laws prohibit otherwise qualified same-sex couples from marriage and refusing to recognize lawful same-sex marriages entered in other states. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 12th day of October, 2014. /s/ Timothy M. Burgess TIMOTHY M. BURGESS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
106 Virginia, 518 U.S. at 531. 25
Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 38 Filed 10/12/14 Page 25 of 25

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

MATTHEW HAMBY, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. SEAN C. PARNELL, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:14-cv-00089-TMB
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

JURY VERDICT. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.
XX DECISION BY COURT. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the state of Alaska' s same-sex marriage laws are unconstitutional for violating the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The state of Alaska, including state officers, personnel, agents, government divisions, and other political entities, are immediately enjoined from enforcing Alaska Constitution Article 1, Section 25 and Alaska Statute Sections 25.05.011 and 25.05.013 to the extent that

Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 43 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 2

the laws prohibit otherwise qualified same-sex couples from marriage and refusing to recognize lawful same-sex marriages entered in other states.

APPROVED:
/s/Timothy M. Burgess TIMOTHY M. BURGESS United States District Judge
October 14, 2014 Date

MARVEL HANSBRAUGH Clerk

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE 2
Case 3:14-cv-00089-TMB Document 43 Filed 10/14/14 Page 2 of 2

 
 CLOSED,TMBLC2
U.S. District Court District of Alaska (Anchorage) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:14−cv−00089−TMB

Hamby et al v. Parnell et al Assigned to: Timothy M. Burgess Case in other court: 9CCA, 14−35856 Cause: 28:1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff
Matthew Hamby a married couple

Date Filed: 05/12/2014 Date Terminated: 10/14/2014 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Allison E. Mendel Mendel Colbert & Associates, Inc. 1215 West 8th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 907−279−5001 Fax: 907−279−5437 Email: amendel@mendelcolbert.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caitlin Shortell Shortell Gardner 645 G Street Suite 100−752 Anchorage, AK 99501 907−272−8181 Fax: 888−526−6608 Email: shortellc@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather Leigh Gardner Heather Gardner Attorney at Law LLC 4141 B Street, Suite 410 Anchorage, AK 99503 907−375−8776 Fax: 1−888−526−6608 Email: hgardnerlaw@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Christopher Shelden a married couple

represented by Allison E. Mendel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caitlin Shortell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather Leigh Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Christina Laborde a married couple
Case: 3:14-cv-89

represented by Allison E. Mendel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
As of: 12/06/2018 04:52 PM AKST 1 of 11

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caitlin Shortell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather Leigh Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Susan Tow a married couple

represented by Allison E. Mendel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caitlin Shortell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather Leigh Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
David Robinson a married couple

represented by Allison E. Mendel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caitlin Shortell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather Leigh Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sean Egan a married couple

represented by Allison E. Mendel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caitlin Shortell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather Leigh Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

represented by

Case: 3:14-cv-89 As of: 12/06/2018 04:52 PM AKST 2 of 11

Tracey Wiese a married couple
Plaintiff Katrina Cortez a married couple
Plaintiff Courtney Lamb unmarried persons
Plaintiff Stephanie Pearson unmarried persons

Allison E. Mendel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caitlin Shortell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Leigh Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison E. Mendel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caitlin Shortell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Leigh Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison E. Mendel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caitlin Shortell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Leigh Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison E. Mendel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caitlin Shortell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Leigh Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:14-cv-89 As of: 12/06/2018 04:52 PM AKST 3 of 11

V.
Defendant
Sean C. Parnell in his official capacity as Governor of Alaska

represented by Kevin Todd Wakley State of Alaska, Department of Law (Juneau) PO Box 110300 Juneau, AK 99811−0300 9187434443 Fax: 9185561119 Email: kevin.wakley@sprouselaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William E. Milks Alaska Office of the Attorney General PO Box 110300 Juneau, AK 99811−0300 907−465−3600 Fax: 907−465−6735 Email: bill.milks@alaska.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Michael Geraghty in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Alaska

represented by Kevin Todd Wakley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William E. Milks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
William J. Streur in his official capacity as Commissioner of the State of Alaska, Department of Health and Social Services

represented by Kevin Todd Wakley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William E. Milks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Phillip Mitchell in his official capacity as State Registrar and Licensing Officer, Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics

represented by Kevin Todd Wakley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William E. Milks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus

American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska

represented by Amanda Goad American Civil Liberties Union 1313 West 8th Street

Case: 3:14-cv-89 As of: 12/06/2018 04:52 PM AKST 4 of 11

Amicus National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Anchorage Branch
Date Filed # Docket Text

Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−5244 Fax: 213−977−5273 Email: agoad@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua A. Decker ACLU of Alaska Foundation 1057 W Fireweed Lane, Suite 207 Anchorage, AK 99503 907−258−0044 Fax: 907−258−0288 Email: jdecker@acluak.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Orlansky Reeves Amodio LLC. 500 L Street, Suite 300 Anchorage, AK 99501 907−222−7117 Fax: 907−222−7199 Email: susano@reevesamodio.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas W. Stenson ACLU of Alaska Foundation 1057 W Fireweed Lane, Suite 207 Anchorage, AK 99503 907−258−0044 Fax: 907−258−0288 Email: tstenson@akclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua A. Decker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Orlansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas W. Stenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:14-cv-89 As of: 12/06/2018 04:52 PM AKST 5 of 11

05/12/2014 05/13/2014 05/13/2014 05/20/2014 05/20/2014
05/21/2014 05/21/2014
06/04/2014
06/19/2014 06/20/2014 06/27/2014 07/17/2014 07/18/2014
07/18/2014 07/22/2014
07/30/2014 08/20/2014

1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400.), filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Mendel, Allison) Modified on 5/13/2014 to add filers(PXS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/12/2014)
2 Unissued summons re Defendant Parnell, (Attachments: # 1 Unissued Summons re Defendant Geraghty, # 2 Unissued Summons re Defendant Mitchell, # 3 Unissued Summons re Defendant Streur)(TYM, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
Summons Issued as to Michael Geraghty, Phillip Mitchell, Sean C. Parnell, William J. Streur. (TYM, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
3 NOTICE: Upon Order of the Chief Judge, this case shall be referred to the Clerk's Office for random reassignment. (Jan, Chambers Staff) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
Docket Annotation: Error re Order issued on 5/20/14, the parties are advised that the order was issued as a clerical error and as such, has been stricken from the record. Based upon the random reassignment, this action is reassigned to the Honorable H. Russel Holland for all further proceedings. Please use the following case number on all future filings: 3:14−cv−00089−HRH. (CLW, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
4 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Judge H. Russel Holland recused. The clerk of court is directed to reassign this case to another district judge by random draw. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 5/21/14. (CLW, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
CLERK'S NOTICE; Based upon the random reassignment, this action is reassigned to the Honorable Timothy M. Burgess for all further proceedings. Please use the following case number on all future filings: 3:14−cv−00089−TMB. (CLW, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese on all Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1 to Proof of Service)(Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
6 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by All Defendants.(Milks, William) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
7 INITIAL CASE STATUS REPORT/CASE SCHEDULING AND PLANNING ORDER: Counsel for plaintiff shall serve and file the Rule 26 Meeting Report within 28 days from service of order. (PXS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
8 ORDER Setting Scheduling Conference: There will be a scheduling and planning hearing on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 at 12:00 p.m. before Judge Timothy M. Burgess. (SRL, CHAMBERS STAFF) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
9 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Michael Geraghty, Phillip Mitchell, Sean C. Parnell, William J. Streur.(Wakley, Kevin) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
10 TMB TEXT ORDER GRANTING 9 Motion for Leave to Appear Telephonically. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Wakley is permitted to appear telephonically at the status conference on July 22, 2014 at 12:00 PM. Mr. Wakley is directed to call (907) 677−6225 to participate. (SRL, CHAMBERS STAFF) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
11 STATUS REPORT Joint Planning and Scheduling Report by Matthew Hamby. (Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
12 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Timothy M. Burgess: Scheduling and Planning Conference held on 7/22/2014. Court ordered Plaintiffs to file Motion for Summary Judgment by 8/22/2014; Responses due by 9/19/2014; Replies due by 9/26/2014. Oral Argument re Motion for Summary Judgment set for 10/10/2014 at 1:00 PM in Anchorage Courtroom 1 before Timothy M. Burgess. Court ordered parties to file Revised Joint Planning and Scheduling Report by 7/30/2014. cc: USM, USPO. (NXL, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/22/2014)
13 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
14 MOTION for Extension of Time to File UNOPPOSED Motion for Extension of Time to file Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese. (Attachments: # 1

Case: 3:14-cv-89 As of: 12/06/2018 04:52 PM AKST 6 of 11

08/20/2014 08/21/2014 08/22/2014 08/29/2014
08/29/2014 08/29/2014 08/29/2014 08/29/2014 08/29/2014 08/29/2014 08/29/2014

Proposed Order Proposed Order on Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment)(Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
15 AFFIDAVIT of Allison Mendel re 14 MOTION for Extension of Time to File UNOPPOSED Motion for Extension of Time to file Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese. (Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
16 TMB ORDER granting 14 Motion for Extension of Time; Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is now due no later than August 29, 2014. (RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
17 ORDER; Defendants response due 9/26/14, Plaintiffs reply due 10/3/14. Oral argument will take place at 1:00 p.m. on 10/10/14 in Anchorage Courtroom 1.. Signed by Judge Timothy M. Burgess on 8/22/14. (RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
18 MOTION for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief (Unopposed) by American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Anchorage Branch. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amici Curiae Brief of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Anchorage Branch, # 2 Appendix A to Amici Curiae Brief of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Anchorage Branch, # 3 Proposed Order)(Decker, Joshua) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
19 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Pro Hac Vice (Non−Resident ) Attorney Amanda Goad by American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Anchorage Branch.(Decker, Joshua) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
20 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Anchorage Branch, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
21 DECLARATION of Matthew Hamby re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Anchorage Branch, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese. (Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
22 DECLARATION of Christopher Shelden re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Anchorage Branch, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese. (Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
23 DECLARATION of Sean Egan re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Anchorage Branch, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese. (Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
24 DECLARATION of Stephanie Pearson re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Anchorage Branch, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese. (Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
25 DECLARATION of Susan Tow re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Anchorage Branch, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese. (Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 08/29/2014)

Case: 3:14-cv-89 As of: 12/06/2018 04:52 PM AKST 7 of 11

08/29/2014 08/29/2014
08/29/2014 09/02/2014 09/02/2014 09/05/2014 09/26/2014 10/03/2014 10/03/2014
10/06/2014

26 DECLARATION of Tracey Wiese re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Anchorage Branch, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese. (Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
27 ADDITIONAL RELATED DOCUMENT Attachment 1 to Plaintiffs' Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Anchorage Branch, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment . (Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
28 Receipt of $150.00 non−resident attorney payment for Amanda Goad as to Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Anchorage Branch. re 19 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Pro Hac Vice (Non−Resident ) Attorney Amanda Goad (PXS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
Docket Annotation re 18 Motion to Participate as Amicus Curiae: The parties are advised that the role of the proposed Amicus Curiae has been changed from Amicus Curiae to Movant until the Motion to Participate has been decided. (PXS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
29 CLERK'S NOTICE re 19 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Amanda Goad, at docket 19 , is authorized under D.Ak. LR 83.1(d). (PXS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
30 ORDER GRANTING 18 Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief. Signed by Judge Timothy M. Burgess on 9/5/14. (SRL, CHAMBERS STAFF) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
31 RESPONSE in Opposition re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Michael Geraghty, Phillip Mitchell, Sean C. Parnell, William J. Streur. (Wakley, Kevin) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
32 REPLY to Response to Motion re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese. (Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
33 ERRATA And Filing of Corrected Reply by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese 32 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Katrina Cortez, Christina Laborde, Stephanie Pearson, Susan Tow, Matthew Hamby, Tracey Wiese, Christopher Shelden, Courtney Lamb, David Robinson, Sean Egan. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Corrected Reply)(Gardner, Heather) Modified on 10/6/2014 to create relationship to document #20 (PXS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/03/2014)
Docket Annotation ERROR re: 33 Errata,, filed by Katrina Cortez, Christina Laborde, Stephanie Pearson, Susan Tow, Matthew Hamby, Tracey Wiese, Christopher Shelden, Courtney Lamb, David Robinson, Sean Egan ; the document is not in compliance with D.Ak. LR 5.1 which may result in the document being stricken if not corrected within seven (7) days.

CORRECTION: Attorney to file proof of service for the document referenced above. (PXS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/06/2014)

10/06/2014

34 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese re 33 Errata,, And Filing of Corrected Reply (Gardner, Heather) (Entered: 10/06/2014)

10/07/2014

35 TMB TEXT ORDER RE Oral Argument: Oral Argument set for Friday, October 10, 2014 at 01:00 PM in Anchorage Courtroom 1 before Judge Timothy M. Burgess will be broadcast live in both Juneau and Fairbanks courtrooms. (SRL, CHAMBERS STAFF) (Entered: 10/07/2014)

Case: 3:14-cv-89 As of: 12/06/2018 04:52 PM AKST 8 of 11

10/08/2014 10/10/2014 10/12/2014 10/13/2014 10/13/2014 10/14/2014 10/14/2014 10/14/2014
10/14/2014 10/15/2014
10/28/2014 10/28/2014

36 ORDER Regarding Oral Argument set for October 10, 2014. Signed by Judge Timothy M. Burgess on 10/8/14. (SRL, CHAMBERS STAFF) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
37 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Timothy M. Burgess: Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment 20 held on 10/10/2014. Matter taken UNDER ADVISEMENT, written ruling to issue. (DJE, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/10/2014)
38 ORDER granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Timothy M. Burgess on 10/12/14. (Burgess, Timothy) (Entered: 10/12/2014)
39 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Michael Geraghty, Phillip Mitchell, Sean C. Parnell, William J. Streur. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 097−−1827646. (Milks, William) Modified on 10/14/2014 to create relationships to documents #38 and #43. (PRR, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2014)
40 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal (Emergency) by Michael Geraghty, Phillip Mitchell, Sean C. Parnell, William J. Streur.(Milks, William) (Entered: 10/13/2014)
41 USCA Case Number 14−35856 for 39 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Geraghty, Sean C. Parnell, William J. Streur, Phillip Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Opening Packet, # 2 USCA Mediation Letter, # 3 USCA Mediation Questionnaire)(BJK, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
42 USCA Scheduling Order as to 39 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Geraghty, Sean C. Parnell, William J. Streur, Phillip Mitchell. (BJK, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
43 JUDGMENT declaring Alaska's same−sex marriage laws unconstitutional for violating Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution; state of Alaska enjoined from enforcing Alaska Constitution Article 1, Section 25 and Alaska Statute Sections 25.05.011 and 25.05.013 to the extent the laws prohibit otherwise qualified same−sex couples from marriage and refusing to recognize lawful same−sex marriages entered in other states. Signed by Judge Timothy M. Burgess on 10/14/14. (PRR, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/15/2015: # 1 Judgment with atty fees, costs and expenses added and redistributed on 4/15/15.) (RMC, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/14/2014)
44 TMB TEXT ORDER denying the Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Appeal filed at docket 40 . (PRR, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
45 USCA ORDER as to 39 Notice of Appeal, filed by Michael Geraghty, Sean C. Parnell, William J. Streur, Phillip Mitchell. The court GRANTS a temporary stay of the district courts October 12, 2014 order, until 12:00 p.m. (noon) PDT on Friday, October 17, 2014, to afford appellants an opportunity to seek a stay from the United States Supreme Court. Barring any such stay from the Supreme Court, this courts temporary stay dissolves at 12:00 p.m. PDT on October 17, 2014. Appellants corrected emergency motion for a stay of the district courts October 12, 2014 order pending appeal is otherwise DENIED. The briefing schedule established previously remains in effect. OSCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: While I concur in affording the state of Alaska the opportunity to seek a stay from the Supreme Court, I would grant the stay pending appeal in this court. (TYM, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
46 First MOTION for Attorney Fees by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Anchorage Branch, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
47 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese 46 First MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Katrina Cortez, Christina Laborde, Stephanie Pearson, Susan Tow, Matthew Hamby, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Anchorage Branch, Tracey Wiese, Christopher Shelden, Courtney Lamb, David Robinson, Sean Egan. (Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 10/28/2014)

Case: 3:14-cv-89 As of: 12/06/2018 04:52 PM AKST 9 of 11

10/28/2014 10/28/2014 10/28/2014 11/05/2014 11/05/2014 11/07/2014 11/12/2014 11/21/2014
11/25/2014 11/25/2014 12/02/2014 12/02/2014

48 AFFIDAVIT of Laurence Blakely re 46 First MOTION for Attorney Fees by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese. (Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
49 DECLARATION of Caitlin Shortell re 46 First MOTION for Attorney Fees by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese. (Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
50 DECLARATION of Heather Gardner re 46 First MOTION for Attorney Fees by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese. (Mendel, Allison) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
51 DESIGNATION of Record on Appeal by Michael Geraghty, Phillip Mitchell, Sean C. Parnell, William J. Streur re 39 Notice of Appeal, (Wakley, Kevin) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
52 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Michael Geraghty, Phillip Mitchell, Sean C. Parnell, William J. Streur re 39 Notice of Appeal, (Wakley, Kevin) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
53 Joint STIPULATION TO EXTEND STATE DEFENDANTS DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES by Michael Geraghty, Phillip Mitchell, Sean C. Parnell, William J. Streur.(Wakley, Kevin) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
54 TMB TEXT ORDER GRANTING 53 Joint STIPULATION TO EXTEND STATE DEFENDANTS DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline for State Defendants to file their opposition to Motion at Docket 46 is 11/25/14. (SRL, CHAMBERS STAFF) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
55 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings ; Oral Argument on Motion for Summary Judgment held on October 10, 2014, before Judge Timothy M. Burgess. Realtime Court Reporter: R. Joy Stancel.
Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy by calling Realtime Court Reporter, R. Joy Stancel, 907−677−6104. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after Release of Transcript Restriction deadline of 2/19/2015. (RJS, ) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
56 RESPONSE in Opposition re 46 First MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Michael Geraghty, Phillip Mitchell, Sean C. Parnell, William J. Streur. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Milks, William) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
57 DECLARATION of William Milks re 56 Response in Opposition to Motion by Michael Geraghty, Phillip Mitchell, Sean C. Parnell, William J. Streur. (Milks, William) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
58 REPLY to Response to Motion re 46 First MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3)(Gardner, Heather) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
59 DECLARATION of Caitlin Shortell (Amended) re 58 Reply to Response to Motion, by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb, Stephanie Pearson, David Robinson, Christopher Shelden, Susan Tow, Tracey Wiese. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Declaration of C. Shortell)(Gardner, Heather) (Entered: 12/02/2014)

Case: 3:14-cv-89 As of: 12/06/2018 04:52 PM AKST 10 of 11

12/03/2014
03/03/2015
04/15/2015 05/13/2015 05/14/2015
05/20/2015 06/03/2015 07/01/2015 09/02/2015

60 Notice to Counsel re 58 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Katrina Cortez, Christina Laborde, Stephanie Pearson, Susan Tow, Matthew Hamby, Tracey Wiese, Christopher Shelden, Courtney Lamb, David Robinson, Sean Egan. A review of the document submitted at dkt 58 confirms that it is over 25 pages in length. If a CHAMBERS copy of the document has not been forwarded to the Court, counsel is reminded that, pursuant to D.Ak.LR 10.1(b) and the Administrative Policies and Procedures, you are required to provide the court with a CHAMBERS copy of your filing at dkt 58. The CHAMBERS copy must be attached to a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing and must be printed with the ECF pdf footer on each page. (RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
61 USCA ORDER as to 39 Notice of Appeal, filed by Michael Geraghty, Sean C. Parnell, William J. Streur, Phillip Mitchell. The appellants opposed motion to stay appellate proceedings pending the Supreme Court decision in DeBoer v. Snyder, Supreme Court Docket No. 14−571, is GRANTED. Appellate proceedings are stayed until 14 days after the decision issues in DeBoer or June 30, 2015, whichever occurs first. At or prior to the expiration of the stay of appellate proceedings, the appellants shall file the opening brief or file a motion for appropriate relief. If the opening brief is filed, the answering brief will be due July 30, 2015. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. In the absence of a motion, the stay of appellate proceedings will terminate without further notice. (TYM, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
62 ORDER granting in part 46 Motion for Attorney Fees in the amount of $127,262.50 and $458.40 in costs and expenses for a total of $127,720.90. Signed by Judge Timothy M. Burgess on 4/15/15. (RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
63 MOTION for Reconsideration re 62 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees by and on behalf of Shortell and Gardner by Katrina Cortez, Sean Egan, Matthew Hamby, Christina Laborde, Courtney Lamb. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order Granting Reconsideration, # 2 Affidavit Declaration Gardner, # 3 Affidavit Declaration Holen, # 4 Declaration Legacki, # 5 Declaration Hedges, # 6 Declaration Shortell)(Shortell, Caitlin) (Entered: 05/13/2015)
64 Notice to Counsel re 63 MOTION for Reconsideration re 62 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees by and on behalf of Shortell and Gardner filed by Katrina Cortez, Christina Laborde, Matthew Hamby, Courtney Lamb, Sean Egan. A review of the document submitted at dkt 63 confirms that it is over 25 pages in length. If a CHAMBERS copy of the document has not been forwarded to the Court, counsel is reminded that, pursuant to D.Ak.LR 10.1(b) and the Administrative Policies and Procedures, you are required to provide the court with a CHAMBERS copy of your filing at dkt 63. The CHAMBERS copy must be attached to a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing and must be printed with the ECF pdf footer on each page. (PXS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
65 TMB TEXT ORDER re 63 MOTION for Reconsideration re 62 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees. Defendants shall file a response to the Motion for Reconsideration on or before June 3, 2015. Oral argument will be set once the motion has been fully briefed. (RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2015)
66 RESPONSE in Opposition re 63 MOTION for Reconsideration re 62 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees by and on behalf of Shortell and Gardner filed by Michael Geraghty, Phillip Mitchell, Sean C. Parnell, William J. Streur. (Wakley, Kevin) (Entered: 06/03/2015)
67 USCA ORDER as to 39 Notice of Appeal, filed by Michael Geraghty, Sean C. Parnell, William J. Streur, Phillip Mitchell. The stipulation to dismiss the appeal under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 42(b) is GRANTED. The costs shall be allocated pursuant to the stipulation. A copy of this order shall act as and for the MANDATE of this court. (TYM, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
68 ORDER DENYING 63 Motion for Reconsideration re 62 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees by and on behalf of Shortell and Gardner. Signed by Judge Timothy M. Burgess on 9/2/15. (SRL, CHAMBERS STAFF) (Entered: 09/02/2015)

Case: 3:14-cv-89 As of: 12/06/2018 04:52 PM AKST 11 of 11