The complete filing, with appendices, is a 244 pp PDF.
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 1
No. 15-5880
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
APRIL MILLER, Ph.D; KAREN ANN ROBERTS; SHANTEL BURKE; STEPHEN NAPIER; JODY FERNANDEZ; KEVIN HOLLOWAY; L. AARON SKAGGS; and BARRY SPARTMAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
KIM DAVIS, Individually, Defendant-Appellant.
On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District of Kentucky In Case No. 15-cv-00044 Before The Honorable David L. Bunning
APPELLANT KIM DAVIS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT'S SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 INJUNCTION ORDER PENDING APPEAL
A.C. Donahue Horatio G. Mihet, Counsel of Record
DONAHUE LAW GROUP, P.S.C. Roger K. Gannam
P.O. Box 659 Jonathan D. Christman
Somerset, Kentucky 42502 LIBERTY COUNSEL
(606) 677-2741 P.O. Box 540774
ACDonahue@DonahueLawGroup.com
Orlando, Florida 32854
(800) 671-1776
hmihet@lc.org / rgannam@lc.org / j christman@lc.org
Counsel for Appellant Kim Davis
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 2
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2) and 27, Appellant Kim Davis ("Davis") hereby moves this Court, on an emergency basis, for a stay pending appeal of the district court's September 3, 2015 injunction order. (R.74.)
INTRODUCTION
This appeal began with the district court's entry of its August 12, 2015 preliminary injunction ordering Davis to issue marriage licenses to the named Plaintiffs. (R.43 (the "Injunction").) Davis immediately filed a notice of appeal of the Injunction, bringing it within this Court's jurisdiction, and depriving the district court of jurisdiction to alter or expand the Injunction's scope.1 (R.44 (Injunction and notice of appeal attached hereto as Exhibit A).) But the district court did just that, without fair notice or hearing, by entering a new injunction order that materially expanded the original Injunction while it was already on appeal to this Court. (R.74 (the "Expanded Injunction").) The district court's Expanded Injunction lays waste to well-established principles of jurisdiction and due process in the federal court system while an appeal is pending. And, under color of the Expanded Injunction, the district court has coopted a supervisory role over the operations of the Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk's Office.
__________
1 Davis presented substantial arguments against the merits of the Injunction in its motion to stay the Injunction pending appeal filed herein. (Doc. 15-1.) Davis will fully address the merits of the Injunction in her opening brief on the merits, to be filed with this Court at the appropriate time.
1
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 3
Davis timely appealed the Expanded Injunction. (R.82 (Expanded Injunction and notice of appeal attached hereto as Exhibit B).) Quite apart from Davis' religious liberty interests involved in her appeal of the original Injunction on the merits, her appeal of the Expanded Injunction, and this request for stay, involve only the issue of the district court's acting without jurisdiction. The district court's far-reaching expansion of the original Injunction must be reversed, and should be stayed pending this Court's decision on the merits.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Injunction
On July 2, 2015, less than one week after the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges and the Kentucky Governor issued a directive ordering all county clerks to personally authorize the issuance of Kentucky marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit demanding that Davis authorize and approve their Kentucky marriage licenses, despite widespread availability of licenses and Davis' undisputed religious conscience objection to same-sex "marriage."2 (R.1, Compl.)
__________
2 Expressly to avoid disparate treatment of any couple, Davis discontinued the issuance of all marriage licenses after Obergefell. (R.26, Prelim. Inj. Hr’g Tr. July 20, 2015, PgID 259:6-16.)
2
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 4
Plaintiffs filed the action on behalf of themselves and a putative class consisting of "all present and future individuals who, though legally eligible to marry in Kentucky, will be denied a marriage license pursuant to the Defendant's policy." (R.1, Compl., PgID 9.) "Named Plaintiffs" also moved for a preliminary injunction to bar Davis "from enforcing the challenged policy of refusing to issue marriage licenses against them" (R.2, Pls.' Mot. Prelim. Inj., PgID 34 (emphasis added)), and submitted a proposed Order enjoining Davis "from enforcing the policy of refusing to issue marriage licenses to any future marriage license applications submitted by the Named Plaintiffs" (R.2-2, Proposed Prelim. Inj. Order (emphasis added)).
The district court hastily scheduled a full evidentiary hearing on the injunction motion, to occur on July 13, 2015—just eleven days after the motion was filed. (R.5, Order.) Plaintiffs did not, however, obtain service of process on Davis prior to the hearing. (R.21, Prelim. Inj. Hr'g Tr. July 13, 2015, PgID 105:15-107:7.) Thus, Davis' counsel appeared specially and objected to the district court's proceeding with the hearing, without having obtained jurisdiction over Davis through service of process. (R.21, Prelim. Inj. Hr'g Tr. July 13, 2015, PgID 102:19-24, 105:15-106:2, 117:1-10.) Deeming the fundamental jurisdictional defects mere "Road blocks to getting to the merits," the district court overruled counsel's objection to proceeding without Davis, took evidence, and heard argument on Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion. (R.21, Prelim. Inj. Hr'g Tr. July 13, 2015, PgID 117:1-119:7.)
3
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 5
After allowing all of Plaintiffs' evidence and hearing argument, the district court "continued in progress" the July 13, 2015 hearing (R.21, Prelim. Inj. Hr'g Tr. July 13, 2015, PgID 207:2-4), and concluded the hearing on July 20, 2015 (R.26, Prelim. Inj. Hr' g Tr. July 20, 2015). Plaintiffs' evidence at both hearings was limited exclusively to the named Plaintiffs' claims.3
On August 12, 2015, the district court granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction by its Memorandum Opinion and Order (R.43 (the "Injunction").) Exactly as requested by Plaintiffs in their motion and proposed order (R.2, 2-2), the Injunction enjoins Davis "from applying her 'no marriage licenses' policy to future marriage license requests submitted by Plaintiffs." (R.43, Inj., PgID 1173 (emphasis added).) Thus, there was complete agreement between what Plaintiffs requested and what the district court ordered.4
__________
3 Because the relief sought by Plaintiffs in their preliminary injunction motion was personal to them, no evidence was presented on their Complaint’s class allegations or request for class-wide relief. Plaintiffs did not file their motion for class certification until August 2, 2015.
4 In contrast to the expedited treatment of Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion against Davis, the district court brushed away any urgency regarding Davis’ own motion for preliminary injunction against Third-Party Defendant Governor Beshear (R.39), and effectively denied the motion by ordering a stay (on the court’s own motion) of all proceedings on Davis’ motion pending this Court’s decision on the merits of Davis’ appeal of the Injunction against her. (R.58, Order Aug. 25, 2015, PgID 1289.) Davis appealed to this Court the district court’s effectual denial of her preliminary injunction motion (R.66, Notice of Appeal), which appeal is docketed at Case No. 15-5961.
- - - - -
4
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 6
Plaintiffs' Request For Class Certification
On August 2, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. (R.31, Pls.' Mot. Class Cert.). On August 11, 2015, Davis filed a motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' class certification motion, requesting that the Court set a response date for ninety (90) days after the district court ruled on all of the motions pending before the district court at that time.5 (R.42, Mot. Ext. Time Respond.) Plaintiffs filed no written opposition to this motion in the time allotted under the Local Rules. On August 24, 2015, Davis filed a reply brief after Plaintiffs' time to oppose expired, showing that "Plaintiffs' failure to file a timely written opposition constitutes a waiver of any opposition to Davis' motion for extension of time." (R.56, Reply Br. Supp. Mot. Ext. Time Respond, PgID 1289.)
On August 25, 2015, the district court granted Davis' motion for extension of time. (R.57, Virtual Order Aug. 25, 2015 ("Plaintiffs having filed no opposition to the MOTION, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Davis' response to said motion is due 30 days after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals renders its decision on the appeal of the Court's granting of Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.").)
__________
5 These pending motions included Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction (R.2), Davis’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (R.32), and Davis’ motion for preliminary injunction (R.39).
5
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 7
The effect of this order was to stay all proceedings on Plaintiffs' class certification motion until this Court decides the appeal of the Injunction on the merits.
Plaintiffs' Motion to "Clarify" the Injunction and the "Hearing"
Despite the unambiguous agreement between what Plaintiffs requested in their motion for preliminary injunction and what the district court granted in the Injunction, Plaintiffs manufactured a disingenuous motion to "clarify" the Injunction to encompass a class of persons not covered by the Injunction. (R.68, Pls.' Mot. "Clarify" Prelim. Inj.) Specifically, Plaintiffs moved:
for an order to clarify or, in the alternative, to modify the preliminary injunction to state unambiguously that the preliminary injunction applies not only to future marriage license requests submitted by the four named Plaintiff couples in this action, but also to requests submitted by other individuals who are legally eligible to marry in Kentucky.
(R.68, Pls.' Mot. "Clarify" Prelim. Inj., PgID 1488 (emphasis added).) Thus, rather than a motion to "clarify," Plaintiffs actually sought to convert the Injunction's relief, which was limited and personal to them by their own request, into a class-wide preliminary injunction even though (1) they had never previously requested a class-wide injunction (R.2-2, Proposed Prelim. Inj. Order), (2) they presented no actual evidence regarding the purported "other members of the putative class" (R.68, Pls.' Mot. "Clarify" Prelim. Inj., PgID 1489); and (3) their actual motion for class certification was stayed. (R.57, Virtual Order Aug. 25, 2015.)
6
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 8
Plaintiffs filed their motion to "clarify" the Injunction on September 1, 2015, three weeks after the district court entered its Injunction. (R.68, Pls.' Mot. "Clarify" Prelim. Inj., PgID 1488-91.) Moreover, Plaintiffs' motion to "clarify" was filed on the heels of, or "contemporaneously with" (Plaintiffs' words), their motion to hold Davis in contempt of court for violating the Injunction by failing to authorize a marriage license for one Plaintiff couple. (R.67, Pls.' Contempt Mot.) Within minutes of Plaintiffs' filing the contempt motion, the district court scheduled a contempt hearing to occur two days later, ordered Davis and all of her deputy clerks to be present at the hearing, and limited Davis to filing a five-page opposition by close of business the next day (which Davis did).6 (R.69, Order Sept. 1, 2015, PgID 1496; see also R.72, Contempt Resp., PgID 1540-46.)
Approximately forty-eight hours later, on September 3, 2015, the district court commenced the hearing it had exclusively noticed for Plaintiffs' contempt motion. (R.69, Order Sept. 1, 2015, PgID 1496 ("IT IS ORDERED that this matter be, and is, hereby set for a hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Hold Defendant Kim Davis in Contempt of Court DE[67] on Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. in Ashland, Kentucky."); R.78, Contempt Hr'g (the hearing transcript, attached hereto
__________
6 In her response brief opposing Plaintiffs’ contempt motion, Davis specifically stated that she opposed Plaintiffs’ thinly-veiled motion to “clarify” the Injunction, and intended to file a written opposition in accordance with the Local Rules (21 days after service). (R.72, Contempt Resp., PgID 1542.)
7
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 9
as Exhibit C).) Before taking up the contempt motion, however, and without any advance notice to Davis, the district court called up Plaintiffs' motion to "clarify" the Injunction. (R.78, Contempt Hr'g, PgID 1570:21-1571:22, 1572:19-1573:19.) Davis' counsel objected to proceeding on the motion to "clarify" due to lack of fair notice, and due to the district court's lack of jurisdiction to expand the Injunction because it was already on appeal. (R.78, Contempt Hr'g, PgID 1573:20-1580:19.)
The district court acknowledged that the motion to "clarify" was not noticed for hearing. (R.78, Contempt Hr'g, PgID 1571:18-20 ("The case wasn't noticed for that hearing. ").) The district court also acknowledged that the so-called "clarification" sought by Plaintiffs was, in fact, to add relief to the Injunction which was not sought by Plaintiffs in their motion for preliminary injunction. (R.78, Contempt Hr'g, PgID 1578:20-25 ("I recognize they did not request it in the original motion." (emphasis added)).) Nonetheless, over Davis' objection, and without taking any evidence to support this class-wide relief, the district court granted the expansion of the Injunction. (R.78, Contempt Hr'g, PgID 1580:3-15.) After expanding the Injunction, the court immediately passed the issue to this Court. (R.78, Contempt Hr'g, PgID 1580-81 ("We'll just include that as part of the appeal. . . . And the Sixth Circuit can certainly decide if that's appropriate.").)
Having expanded the Injunction, the district court then proceeded with hearing the only motion the court noticed for hearing, Plaintiffs' contempt motion.
8
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 10
(R.78, Contempt Hr'g, PgID 1581:18-19 ("Let me now turn to the actual merits of the matter that's before the Court.").) The court ordered Davis to jail as a contempt sanction for Davis' refusal to issue a marriage license, in violation of her conscience, to one Plaintiff couple.7 (R.78, Contempt Hr'g, PgID 1659:22-1661:25.) The condition for Davis' release would be her compliance with the Expanded Injunction, not the original Injunction (R.78, Contempt Hr'g, PgID 1661:18-1662:16.) The district court then appointed criminal defense counsel for each of Davis' deputy clerks—all of whom had been summoned in advance to the hearing—and interrogated each deputy clerk as to whether each of them would issue marriage licenses without Davis' authorization. (R.78, Contempt Hr'g, PgID 1667:19
__________
7 The district court memorialized this most severe of contempt sanctions against Davis by a mere “minutes” order (R.75 (the “Contempt Order”)); no formal written order has been entered. (R.78, Contempt Hr’g, PgID 1651:21-24 (“I haven’t decided if I’m going to enter a written order or not. I probably will enter some sort of written order following up the Court’s decision.”).) Davis separately appealed the Contempt Order to this Court (R. 83, Contempt Order Notice of Appeal), which appeal has been docketed as Case No. 15-5978. Davis also filed therein, on September 8, 2015, an emergency motion to stay the Contempt Order pending appeal. As shown in Davis’ emergency motion to stay the Contempt Order, and as will be more fully developed in Davis’ brief on the merits of that order at the appropriate time, the district court failed to provide Davis requisite due process in the contempt proceedings. Among other fundamental errors, the district court provided no notice that it would significantly expand and alter its Injunction at the contempt hearing, while the Injunction was already on appeal, and then confine Davis to prison based upon the ultra vires and expanded preliminary injunction.
9
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 11
1730:6.) All but one (Davis' son) were coerced by the threat of contempt sanctions to answer "yes."8 (Id.)
On September 8, 2015, the sixth day of Davis' incarceration, Plaintiffs filed a status report, showing the district court that the Plaintiffs had received marriage licenses from the deputy clerks.9 (R.84, Status Report.) Following the status report, the district court ordered Davis released, stating in its order the court was "satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk's Office is fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses" under the Injunction. (R.89 (the "Release Order"), PgID 1827-28.) The Release Order commands, however, "Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly
__________
8 One deputy clerk, Kristie Plank, has the primary responsibility within the Rowan County Clerk’s Office for servicing automobile dealers, a critical position within the office which does not include the issuance of marriage licenses. (R.78, Contempt Hr’g, PgID 1698:25-1705:5.) She expressed concern with assenting to the issuance of marriage licenses to the extent it would interfere with her legitimate existing responsibilities. (Id.) Another deputy clerk, Melissa Thompson, tearfully agreed to issue licenses under the court’s order, but was clearly under duress, stating, “I don’t really want to, but I will comply with the law. I’m a preacher’s daughter, and this is the hardest thing I’ve ever done in my life . . . . None of us hate anybody. It’s just hard.” (R.78, Contempt Hr’g, 1692:17-1697:8.)
9 The status report showed that three of the four Plaintiff couples had received marriage licenses. (R.84, Status Report, PgID 1798.) Plaintiffs had previously shown the court, however, that as of August 13, 2015, Plaintiffs Burke and Napier were “making new wedding arrangements.” (R.46, Pls.’ Resp. Mot. Stay Prelim. Inj., PgID 1235.) This fourth couple has never testified in this case or otherwise supplied verified proof that they are qualified to obtain a marriage license, or that they have not received one, both prerequisites to injunctive relief. (R.29, Resp. Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj., PgID 359.) Moreover, based on the status report, the district court found, “Plaintiffs have obtained marriage licenses . . . .” (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1827.)
10
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 12
or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses," on pain of new sanctions for contempt. (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1828.) The order also requires the deputy clerks, through their appointed criminal defense counsel, to file status reports with the district court every fourteen days. (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1828.)
Emergency Motion to Stay
Davis now moves this Court for an order staying the September 3, 2015 Expanded Injunction pending appeal. Seeking a ruling from the district court on a stay request is "impracticable" under Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2)(A)(i), due to the extraordinary doggedness of the district court to expand the Injunction, without jurisdiction or fair notice and opportunity to be heard, and the district court's haste to pass the matter to this Court for determination—"the Sixth Circuit can certainly decide if that's appropriate" (R.78, Contempt Hr'g, PgID 1580-81). Accordingly, Davis now seeks a stay from this Court.
ARGUMENT
In deciding a motion for stay pending appeal, this Court balances the same four factors that are traditionally considered in evaluating a motion for preliminary injunction: "(1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail on the merits of the appeal; (2) the likelihood that the moving party will be irreparably harmed absent a stay; (3) the prospect that others will be harmed if the court grants
11
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 13
the stay; and (4) the public interest in granting the stay." Mich. Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir. 1991).
I. Davis has a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of her appeal to warrant an immediate stay of the Expanded Injunction.
The district court had no jurisdiction to enter the Expanded Injunction. Thus, it is a nullity. There is no doubt as to Davis' likelihood of success in obtaining reversal of the Expanded Injunction on the merits.
"[A] a district court may not alter or enlarge the scope of its judgment pending appeal . . . ." N.L.R.B. v. Cincinnati Bronze, Inc., 829 F.2d 585, 588 (6th Cir. 1987). "The standard for jurisdiction after the filing of the notice of appeal . . . is that a district court may enforce its judgment but not expand upon it." Am. Town Ctr. v. Hall 83 Associates, 912 F.2d 104, 110-11 (6th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added); cf. United States v. State of Mich., Nos. 94-2391, 95-1258, 1995 WL 469430, *18 (6th Cir. 1995) ("[S]ince the district court's . . . orders were already on appeal, the district court lacked jurisdiction . . . to reduce the number of mental health beds which it had required defendants to provide in its . . . orders." (emphasis added)).
Any amendment of an order without jurisdiction is a "nullity." Workman v. Tate, 958 F.2d 164, 168 (6th Cir. 1992) ("Since the district court was without jurisdiction to amend its order . . . the Amended Order . . . is a nullity."); United States v. Holloway, 740 F.2d 1373, 1382 (6th Cir. 1984) ("In the present case, the
12
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 14
district court's order is 'null and void since that court was without jurisdiction . . . after the appeal had been taken.'").
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction expressly, and only, sought to enjoin Davis to issue licenses to the "Named Plaintiffs." The resulting Injunction enjoined Davis to issue licenses, expressly and only, to the "Plaintiffs." The scope of the Injunction could not be clearer. There is no "confusion as to the Order's scope," as Plaintiffs facetiously allege in their thinly-veiled motion to "clarify." (R.68, Pls.' Mot. "Clarify" Prelim. Inj., PgID 1489.) Thus, expanding the class of persons entitled to licenses pursuant to the Injunction—to include anyone in the world who wants a marriage license in Rowan County—can in no way be described as a clarification. The expansion of the class is an expansion of the Injunction, which the district court had no jurisdiction to do. Thus, the Expanded Injunction is a nullity, and unquestionably is due to be reversed on the merits.
II. Davis is substantially more harmed than the named Plaintiffs absent a stay of the Expanded Injunction pending appeal.
In weighing the harm that will occur as a result of granting or denying a stay, this Court generally considers three factors: "(1) the substantiality of the injury alleged; (2) the likelihood of its occurrence; and (3) the adequacy of the proof provided." Michigan Coal., 945 F.2d at 154. The "key word" in this consideration
13
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 15
is "irreparable," and the harm must be "both certain and immediate, rather than speculative or theoretical." Id.
Given the strength of Davis' position on the merits, her required showing on irreparable injury is reduced. "The probability of success that must be demonstrated is inversely proportional to the amount of irreparable injury [the moving party] will suffer absent the say. Simply stated, more of one excuses less of the other." Mich. Coal., 945 F.2d at 153 (internal citation omitted). In other words, "a stay may be granted with either a high probability of success and some injury or vice versa." State of Ohio v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm 'n, 812 F.2d 288, 290 (6th Cir. 1987). Nonetheless, Davis's harm from the denial of a stay will be both real and irreparable.
Pursuant to the Release Order, the district court is now supervising the operations and personnel of the Rowan County Clerk's Office, including Davis as the Clerk, and her deputy clerks. (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1828.) Far from being straightforward, however, the Release Order's command that "Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses" substantially and ambiguously interferes with Davis' ability to manage the legitimate affairs of her office which are unrelated to her individual position on marriage licensing.
For example, Davis' management judgment to assign a particular deputy clerk or clerks exclusively to non-marriage-licensing duties—based on the needs of the
14
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 16
office10—could be deemed "interference] . . . in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses . . . ." (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1828.) Furthermore, the Release Order's directive conflicts with Davis' own legal duty, as an employer, to consider and grant as appropriate any deputy clerk's request for religious accommodation relating to marriage licenses11 under laws like Title VII and the Kentucky RFRA. These ambiguous burdens on Davis' management of the affairs of her office all carry the specter of new (and presumably, more severe) contempt sanctions, and the threat is indefinite because the Expanded Injunction opens the Injunction's relief to everyone (in the world) who may desire a Kentucky marriage license issued in Rowan County. The harm from having to operate under this constant threat is irreparable, for even success on the merits of Davis' appeals cannot restore the months of constant strain imposed on Davis, her office, and her employees by the district court's intrusive supervision.
The foregoing burdens and threats of contempt sanctions are more than hypothetical; Davis has already spent six days in jail that Plaintiffs could obtain the relief ordered by the original Injunction (while its merits are still on appeal). But, such burdens and threats are unnecessary and improper. As an order of enforcement, the Release Order serves no purpose with respect to the original Injunction because
__________
10 See supra, n. 8.
11 See supra, n. 8.
15
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 17
only the Plaintiffs were granted relief in the original Injunction, and the district court is already "satisfied" that Plaintiffs have received their ordered relief. (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1827-28.) Thus, the district court only has an enforcement interest under the Expanded Injunction which, as shown herein, is null and void as exceeding the district court's jurisdiction. Only a stay of the Expanded Injunction pending Davis' appeal will avoid this onerous and improper exercise of enforcement power.
In stark contrast to the threat of sanctions hanging over Davis each day she enters her office while waiting for relief from an impartial audience in this Court on her appeals, Plaintiffs will suffer no harm if the Expanded Injunction is stayed pending appeal. Plaintiffs have already received the benefits of the Injunction, to the "satisfaction" of the district court. (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1827-28.) Plaintiffs received no additional relief from the Expanded Injunction; staying its enforcement pending Davis's appeal cannot harm them.
III. The public interest favors granting a stay.
No public interest is served by upholding an order exceeding a district court's jurisdiction. To the contrary, the public is only served by the disregard of any such order, which is "null and void." See Holloway, 740 F.2d at 1382.
Furthermore, the federal court supervision over Davis' office imposed by the Release Order, in enforcement of the Expanded Injunction, violates established principles of federalism and comity, usurping the role of a publicly elected official
16
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 18
in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and invading the province, discretion, and affairs of her office. It is also contrary to contempt principles, for in devising enforcement remedies, federal courts are to "take into account the interests of state and local authorities in managing their own affairs, consistent with the Constitution." Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280-81 (1977). Indeed, it is incumbent upon federal district courts that sanctions imposed against state officials should be the "least intrusive" remedy available. See Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432, 438 (6th Cir. 1984); Spallone v. U.S., 493 U.S. 265, 276 (1990). The public is not served by the violation of such principles for any length of time.
As shown herein, from the commencement of this case, Plaintiffs have received procedural preferences, notwithstanding even fundamental jurisdictional defects. Davis has received the opposite, culminating in incarceration for conscience, and the threat of more severe sanctions under an invalid order which the district court had no jurisdiction to enter. For all of the foregoing reasons, Davis requests the following:
17
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 19
RELIEF REQUESTED
Appellant Kim Davis respectfully requests that this Court: (1) grant immediate consideration and (2) enter an order staying the district court's September 3, 2015 Expanded Injunction pending final resolution of the appeal in this Court.
DATED: September 10, 2015
A.C. Donahue
Donahue Law Group, P.S.C.
P.O. Box 659
Somerset, Kentucky 42502
(606) 677-2741
ACDonahue@DonahueLawGroup.com
Respectfully submitted:
/s/ Roger K. Gannam
Horatio G. Mihet, Counsel of Record
Roger K. Gannam
Jonathan D. Christman
Liberty Counsel, P.O. Box 540774
Orlando, Florida 32854
(800) 671-1776
hmihet@lc.org / rgannam@lc.org / jchristman@lc.org
Counsel for Appellant Kim Davis
18
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 11th day of September, 2015, I caused the foregoing document to be filed electronically with the Court, where it is available for viewing and downloading from the Court's ECF system, and that such electronic filing automatically generates a Notice of Electronic Filing constituting service of the filed document upon the following:
William Ellis Sharp
ACLU of Kentucky
315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300
Louisville, KY 40202
sharp@aclu-ky.org
Daniel J. Canon
Laura E. Landenwich
Leonard Joe Dunman
Clay Daniel Walton Adams, PLC
462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101
Louisville, KY 40202
dan@justiceky.com
laura@justiceky.com
joe@justiceky.com
Counsel for Appellees
William M. Lear, Jr. Palmer G. Vance II
Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC
300 West Vine Street, Suite 2100
Lexington, KY 40507-1380
william.lear@skofirm.com gene.vance@skofirm.com
Counsel for Third Party Defendants-Appellees
Daniel Mach
Heather L. Weaver
ACLU Foundation
915 15th Street, NW, Suite 6th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
dmach@aclu.org hweaver@aclu.org
James D. Esseks
Ria Tabacco Mar
ACLU Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jesseks@aclu.org rmar@aclu.org
- - - - -
Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 21
/s/ Roger K. Gannam
Roger K. Gannam
Liberty Counsel
P.O. Box 540774
Orlando, Florida 32854
(800) 671-1776
rgannam@lc.org
