IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES N. STRAWSER and JOHN 

E. HUMPHREY, 

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0424-CG-C

)

LUTHER STRANGE, in his official 

capacity as Attorney General for 

the State of Alabama,

)

)

)

)

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary and 

permanent injunction. (Doc. 15). An evidentiary hearing was held and sworn 

testimony was offered by Plaintiffs in support of their motion on December 18, 2014. 

For the reasons stated below, the court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to 

preliminary injunctive relief.

The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction “is within the sound 

discretion of the district court...” Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 

2002). This court may grant a preliminary injunction only if the plaintiff 

demonstrates each of the following prerequisites: (1) a substantial likelihood of 

success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat irreparable injury will occur absent 

issuance of the injunction; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the potential damage 

the required injunction may cause the non-moving parties; and (4) the injunction 

would not be adverse to the public interest. Id., 287 F.3d at 1329; see also

McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d. 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998). “In this 

Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 29 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Circuit, ‘[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be 

granted unless the movant clearly established the “burden of persuasion” ‘ as to the 

four requisites.” McDonald’s Corp., 147 F.3d at 1306; All Care Nursing Service, Inc. 

v. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989)(a 

preliminary injunction is issued only when “drastic relief” is necessary.

This case is brought by a same-sex couple, James Strawser and John 

Humphrey, who have been denied the right to a legal marriage under the laws of 

Alabama. The couple resides in Mobile, Alabama and participated in a church 

sanctioned marriage ceremony in Alabama. Strawser and Humphrey applied for a 

marriage license in Mobile County, Alabama, but were denied. 

Strawser testified that he has health issues that will require surgery that 

will put his life at great risk. Strawser’s mother also has health issues and requires 

assistance. Prior to previous surgeries, Strawser had given Humphrey a medical 

power of attorney, but was told by the hospital where he was receiving medical 

treatment that they would not honor the document because Humphrey was not a 

family member or spouse. Additionally, Strawser is very concerned that Humphrey 

be permitted to assist Strawser’s mother in all of her affairs if Strawser does not 

survive surgery.

Plaintiffs contend that Alabama’s marriage laws violate their rights to Due 

Process, Equal Protection and the free exercise of religion. This court has 

determined in another case, Searcy v. Strange, SDAL Civil Action No. 14-00208-CGN, that Alabama’s laws prohibiting and refusing to recognize same-sex marriage

violate the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 29 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Amendment to the United States. In Searcy, this court found that the Sanctity of 

Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act restrict the 

Plaintiffs’ fundamental marriage right and do not serve a compelling state interest. 

The Attorney General of Alabama has asserted the same grounds and arguments in 

defense of this case as he did in the Searcy case. Although the Plaintiffs in this case 

seek to marry in Alabama, rather than have their marriage in another state 

recognized, the court adopts the reasoning expressed in the Searcy case and finds 

that Alabama’s laws violate the Plaintiffs’ rights for the same reasons. Alabama’s 

marriage laws violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process Clause and Equal 

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

by prohibiting same-sex marriage. Said laws are unconstitutional.

As such, Plaintiffs have met the preliminary injunction factors. Plaintiffs’ 

inability to exercise their fundamental right to marry has caused them irreparable 

harm which outweighs any injury to defendant. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 

373, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (holding that deprivation of constitutional 

rights “unquestionably constitutes irreparable harm.”). Moreover, Strawser’s 

inability to have Humphrey make medical decisions for him and visit him in the 

hospital as a spouse present a substantial threat of irreparable injury. 

Additionally, “it is always in the public interest to protect constitutional rights.” 

Phelps–Roper v. Nixon, 545 F.3d 685, 690 (8th Cir. 2008). Therefore, the Plaintiffs 

have met their burden for issuance of a preliminary injunction against the 

enforcement of state marriage laws prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 29 Filed 01/26/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that the Alabama Attorney General 

is prohibited from enforcing the Alabama laws which prohibit same-sex marriage. 

This injunction binds the defendant and all his officers, agents, servants and 

employees, and others in active concert or participation with any of them, who 

would seek to enforce the marriage laws of Alabama which prohibit same-sex 

marriage.

Defendant stated at the hearing that if the court were to grant Plaintiffs’ 

motion, Defendant requests a stay of the injunction pending an appeal. As it did in 

the Searcy case, the Court hereby STAYS execution of this injunction for fourteen 

days to allow the defendant to seek a further stay pending appeal in the Eleventh 

Circuit Court of Appeals. If no action is taken by the Eleventh Circuit Court of 

Appeals to extend or lift the stay within that time period, this stay will be lifted on 

February 9, 2015.

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of January, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00424-CG-C Document 29 Filed 01/26/15 Page 4 of 4