A federal judge refused Wednesday to lift a stay on carrying out her Nov. 25 ruling declaring the state's bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, saying she believes the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals now has jurisdiction of the case.
RELATED ARTICLE
http://www.arkansas…">No new gay nuptials in Alabama
If U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker had lifted the stay requested by the plaintiffs in a lawsuit that led to her ruling, it would have created the potential for another round of same-sex marriages in Arkansas -- at least until the appeals court intervened or the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in another same-sex marriage case by late June, as it expects to do.
Last year, about 600 same-sex couples in Arkansas got married in the state in the seven-day period between Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza's May 9 ruling declaring the bans unconstitutional and the Arkansas Supreme Court's May 16 issuance of a stay on that ruling, which kept the bans intact while the case is on appeal.
Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, who opposed the recent requests to lift stays pending before both Baker and the Arkansas Supreme Court, said Wednesday in a news release, "As the state prepares to defend Amendment 83 to the Arkansas Constitution and Arkansas's marriage statutes before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in May, I am pleased that Judge Baker has denied the request to lift the stay."
She said that, as argued in the state's written objection to lifting the stay, "unnecessary confusion, uncertainty and additional litigation would have resulted had Judge Baker lifted her stay while this case is pending before the Eighth Circuit. As the appeal moves forward, I will continue to vigorously defend the constitutionality of Arkansas's marriage laws."
Little Rock attorney Jack Wagoner, who represents the plaintiffs, said he doesn't plan to ask the 8th Circuit to lift the stay because the St. Louis-based appellate court has already refused to lift a stay of a federal judge's order in a similar case in Missouri. That is one of the cases that has been consolidated with the Arkansas case at the 8th Circuit for purposes of oral arguments, which have been scheduled for the week of May 11. The other case included in the consolidation is from South Dakota.
On Monday, a federal district judge in Nebraska blocked that state's gay-marriage ban, prompting the state to appeal to the 8th Circuit. That case could end up being consolidated with the the cases from Arkansas, Missouri and South Dakota -- especially because the oral arguments are scheduled to be heard in Omaha.
The 8th Circuit has jurisdiction over federal district courts in seven states -- Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota and Minnesota.
Meanwhile, the Arkansas Supreme Court hasn't issued a ruling in the appeal of Piazza's ruling, and Wagoner said again Wednesday that he doesn't expect it to at this point, because "this is all going to be decided in June anyway" by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Baker's four-page order explaining why she declined to lift the stay she imposed simultaneously with her order three months ago, the judge noted that the 8th Circuit docketed the state's notice of appeal of her ruling on Jan. 7, and on Feb. 3, agreed to expedite the South Dakota case and hear oral arguments on it alongside the Arkansas and Missouri cases.
She said the U.S. Supreme Court has held that as a general rule, a federal district court and a federal court of appeals "should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case simultaneously," and that "the filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance -- it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal."
While the plaintiffs cited exceptions to the general rule that have allowed district courts to exercise jurisdiction while an appeal is pending, she said that those exceptions "are usually limited to preserving the status quo while an appeal is pending," and that, "It is not clear that vacating the stay here would be a preservation of the status quo."
She acknowledged there is a "close question" on whether another exception might apply, but, "Here, the Court views the stay as intertwined with the merits of the injunction and is not convinced that the collateral matters exception applies."
As Wagoner mentioned, Baker also noted that the 8th Circuit has declined to vacate the district court's stay of its order in the Missouri case, Lawson v. State of Missouri.
"Further," Baker said, "the Supreme Court's refusal to impose a stay on other federal district court decisions does not compel this Court to vacate the stay in this case."
Metro on 03/05/2015