The letter informs the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Supreme Court denied a request from Florida to stay a preliminary injunction allowing same-sex marriage in that state. This is relevant to the case before the Eighth Circuit because the district court previously believed Supreme Court denials of stay requests in similar cases were not applicable since they came from circuits that had already ruled on the issue. However, the Supreme Court's denial indicates a stay of the final judgment in this case, where no stay was requested, is no longer justified.
The letter informs the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Supreme Court denied a request from Florida to stay a preliminary injunction allowing same-sex marriage in that state. This is relevant to the case before the Eighth Circuit because the district court previously believed Supreme Court denials of stay requests in similar cases were not applicable since they came from circuits that had already ruled on the issue. However, the Supreme Court's denial indicates a stay of the final judgment in this case, where no stay was requested, is no longer justified.
The letter informs the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Supreme Court denied a request from Florida to stay a preliminary injunction allowing same-sex marriage in that state. This is relevant to the case before the Eighth Circuit because the district court previously believed Supreme Court denials of stay requests in similar cases were not applicable since they came from circuits that had already ruled on the issue. However, the Supreme Court's denial indicates a stay of the final judgment in this case, where no stay was requested, is no longer justified.
The letter informs the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Supreme Court denied a request from Florida to stay a preliminary injunction allowing same-sex marriage in that state. This is relevant to the case before the Eighth Circuit because the district court previously believed Supreme Court denials of stay requests in similar cases were not applicable since they came from circuits that had already ruled on the issue. However, the Supreme Court's denial indicates a stay of the final judgment in this case, where no stay was requested, is no longer justified.
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse Room 24.329 111 South 10th Street St. Louis, Missouri 63102 Re:
Kyle Lawson, et al. v. State of Missouri
No. 14-3779 Kyle Lawson, et al. v. Robert Kelly, et al. No. 14-3780
Dear Mr. Gans:
On December 10, 2014, Appellees/Cross-Appellants filed their motion to vacate stay or, in the alternate, expedite appeal. I write to advise the Court of a development since that motion was filed. On December 19, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the State of Floridas request for a stay of a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of Floridas exclusion of same-sex couples from eligibility for marriage licenses. Armstrong v. Brenner, No. 14A650, 2014 WL 7210190 (U.S. Dec. 19, 2014). This denial is relevant because, in the case before this Court, the district court believed that the Supreme Courts previous denials of stays in cases like this one were inapposite because the decisions of which stays were sought were by district courts located in circuits where they court of appeals had already issued a decision. The Supreme Courts denial of a stay requested by the State of an order granting interlocutory relief indicates that a stay of the final judgment in this case, where no stay has been requested, is no longer appropriate. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Anthony E. Rothert Anthony E. Rothert Attorney for Appellees American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation 454 Whittier Street Saint Louis, Missouri 63108 Appellate Case: 14-3779