Title: State v. Moriarty
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 112590
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: October 10, 2014

TN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
No. 112,590 
STATE OF KANS!\S ex rel. DEREK SCHMIDT, ATTORNEY GE 
RAL, 
Pelirioner, 
v. 
KEVfN P. MORIARTY, CHIEF JUDGE, TENTH JUDlCIAL DISTRICT,  
Al\D SANDRA MCCURDY, CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT,  
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT,  
Respondents. 
ORDER 
This original action was filed October 10, 2014, by petitioner Attorney General Derek 
Schmidt, alleging that respondent Chief Judge Kevin P. Moriarty of the Tenth Judicial District 
exceeded his administrative authority and contravened Kansas constitutional, statutory, and 
cornman law by issuing Amended Administrative Order 14-11. This Order penni-ned marriage 
licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. Respondent Sandra McCurdy is the Clerk of the 
District Court in the Tenth Judicial District. Her office is responsible for complying with 
Amended Administrative Order 14-11 in the acceptance of applications for, and issuance of, 
marriage licenses. 
In the Attorney General's petition, he seeks the following relief "on an expedited basis": 
"Ca) 
An order directing the Respondents to immediately cease from 
issuing marriage applications or licenses to same gender couples in contravention 
of 
existing Kansas law; 
"Cb) 
AperemplOlY vvrit of mandamus barring the Respondents from 
following or 
othenvise implementing Administrative Order 14-1 1; 
"(c) 
An order vacating Administrative Order 14-11 and declaring it null 
and void; and 
1 
"(d) 
Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper 
attributable to Respondents' failure to follow the law." (Emphases added.) 
The court has carefully reviewed the Attorney General's petition and memorandum in 
support. Given the nature of his claim-based in part as it is on what he believes to be 
inconsistent practice among the state's 31 judicial districts-it is appropriate that jurisdiction 
remain in thi S COlirt. Relief is not avai lable in the district court. See Supreme Court Rule 9.01 (b) 
(2013 Kan. Ct. Rule Annot. 82). 
On the Attorney General's petition and memorandum, we do not discern a need for an 
immediate or peremptory grant of relief under K. S.A. 60-802(b), nor for an ex parte grant of 
relief under Supreme Court Rule 9.01(c)(2). Simply put, the Attorney General's right to reliefon 
the merits is not clear, nor is it apparent per the Rule "that no valid defense to the petition can be 
offered," given the interpretation and application of the United States Constitution by panels of 
the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Bishop v. Smirh, 760 FJd 1070 (10th Cir. 
2014); Kirchen v. Herberr, 755 F.3d 1193 (lOth Cir. 2014). 
Nevertheless, in the interest of establishing state\vide consistency, we grant the Anorney 
General's alternative request, advanced in his memorandwl1, for a temporary stay of Chief Judge 
Moriarty's Amended Administrati 
ve Order 14-11, insofar as this Order allows issuance of 
marriage licenses. Applications for mamage licenses may continue to be accepted during the 
period of the stay. The stay shall remain in force pending further order by th is COlirt. 
In addition, we order the follo\\ring: 
(1) 
Respondents shall file a response to the petition by 5:00 p.m. on October 21, 
2014. Under Supreme Court Rule 9.0 I(c)(3)(B), the respondents may file a joint response. But 
Chief Judge Moriarty also remains free to invoke Supreme Court Rule 9.0 1(c)(3)(C), which 
provides that he may decide not to appear in this proceeding. 
2 
(2) 
Any additional briefing the parties wish to submit on any currently pending issue 
must be filed by 5:00 p.m. on October 28,2014. The currently pending issues include but are not 
limited to: 
(a) 
\\rhether Chief Judge Moriarty possessed authority to issue  
Amended Admin.istrative Order 14-11;  
(b) 
\Vhether Chief Judge Moriarty was correct in asserting that the 
interpretations and appl ications 0 f the United States Constiturion by panels of the 
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals are supreme and therefore modify any Kansas 
state constitutional, statutory, or common law ban on same-sex marriage; and 
(c) 
Even if 
the Tenth Circuit rulings on federal constitutional law are 
supreme, whether Kansas' state constitutional, statutory, or common law bans on 
same-sex marriage are pennissible under the United States Constitution. 
(3) 
No extensions of the filing deadlines setout above in (1) and (2) v,rill be 
considered or permined. 
(4) 
Counsel for any party appearing in this action must appear for oral argument at 
10:00 a.m. on November 6, 2014. Each side will be allowed 15 minutes of argwnent. Should 
both respondents appear, they will be responsible for allocating the 15 minutes allowed to their 
side of the case between them. The court will not entertain any motion for a continuance of this 
sening. 
IT IS SO ORDERED THrs rOth day OfOct~ 
A 
/3/~ 
La'W10n R. Nuss 
Chief Justice 
3