January 9, 2015

Michael E. Gans, Clerk

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. On December 24, 2014, Appellants filed an
opposition that did not provide any statement in opposition to the motion to vacate
the stay but argued that the motion to expedite the appeal was premature because the
Supreme Court was scheduled to decide on January 9, 2015, whether to grant
petitions for writs of certiorari in other cases challenging similar marriage bans. I write
to advise the Court of recent developments.
At this time of the year, the Supreme Court typically announces grants of certiorari
the same afternoon as the conference at which the petitions were considered. See, e.g.,
Order List for Dec. 12, 2014, available at
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121214zr_m648.pdf. This
afternoon, the Supreme Court issued orders following todays conference; the orders
did not include any action with respect to the marriage cases. The Supreme Court has
not yet announced whether the petitions have been denied or rescheduled for a
different conference.
In light of the Supreme Courts inaction on the pending petitions for writs of
certiorari, Appellees/Cross-Appellants respectfully request a prompt ruling on their
motion to vacate stay or, in the alternate, expedite appeal. Appellants have raised no
American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation
454 Whittier Street Saint Louis, Missouri 63108
Appellate Case: 14-3779

Page: 1

Date Filed: 01/09/2015 Entry ID: 4233136

opposition to the motion to lift the stay, and continuance of the stay is particularly
inequitable in light of the Supreme Courts refusal to stay a similar decision in Florida.
Armstrong v. Brenner, No. 14A650, 2014 WL 7210190 (U.S. Dec. 19, 2014).
Moreover, while the motion to expedite appeal has been considered, Jernigan v.
McDaniel, No. 15-1022, a similar case arising out of Arkansas, has already received a
briefing schedule in this Court. Whether or not the Supreme Court ultimately grants
certiorari in another case, there is no equitable reason to hold the current case in
perpetual limbo. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument today in similar cases
and appears poised to issue a decision without waiting for a merits decision by the
Supreme Court, which is unlikely to come any earlier than late June.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Anthony E. Rothert
Anthony E. Rothert
Attorney for Appellees
cc (via ECF): Jeremiah Morgan
Jay Haden

Appellate Case: 14-3779

Page: 2

Date Filed: 01/09/2015 Entry ID: 4233136