IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

CHARLOTTE DIVISION


General Synod of The United Church of Christ;
Central Conference of American Rabbis;
Alliance of Baptists, Inc.; Association of
Welcoming & Affirming Baptists; Reverend
Joseph Hoffman; Reverend Nancy Ellett Allison;
Reverend Nathan King; Reverend Nancy Kraft;
Rabbi Jonathan Freirich; Reverend Robin
Tanner; Reverend Mark Ward; Reverend Dr.
Nancy E. Petty; The Very Reverend Todd
Donatelli; The Reverend Canon Thomas
Murphy; Reverend Milly Morrow; Rabbi Lucy
H.F. Dinner; Rabbi Ari N. Margolis; Rabbi Ariel
Edery; Rabbi Eric M. Solomon; Reverend Russ
Dean; Reverend Amy Jacks Dean; Kay Diane
Ansley; Catherine Cathy McGaughey;
Elizabeth Lisa Cloninger; Kathleen Smith;
Shauna Bragan; Stacy Maloney; Cathy Fry;
Joanne Marinaro; Joel Blady; Jeffrey Addy;
Betty Mack; and Carol Taylor;

Plaintiffs,

v.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General of North
Carolina; Drew Reisinger, Register of Deeds for
Buncombe County; Wayne Nixon, Register of
Deeds for Cabarrus County; Tonia Hampton,
Register of Deeds for McDowell County; J. David
Granberry, Register of Deeds for Mecklenburg
County; Laura M. Riddick, Register of Deeds for
Wake County; Ronald L. Moore, Buncombe
County District Attorney; Roxann Vaneekhoven,
Cabarrus County District Attorney; Bradley
Greenway, McDowell County District Attorney;
Andrew Murray, Mecklenburg County District
Attorney; and Ned Mangum, Wake County
District Attorney;

Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)






Civ. No. 3:14-cv-213






Case 3:14-cv-00213-MR-DLH Document 102 Filed 10/07/14 Page 1 of 6


PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LIFT STAY
AND ENTER PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs, through undersigned counsel, submit this short memorandum in support of
their motion to lift the Courts stay order and grant immediately Plaintiffs Motion for
Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all previously filed pleadings concerning
these matters.
Two matters are beyond dispute that support a preliminary injunction the mandate has
issued in Bostic v. Schaefer, No. 14-1167, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 3702493 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014),
cert. denied sub nom. McQuigg v. Bostic, ___ S.Ct. ____, 2014 WL 4354536 (Oct. 6, 2014),
1
and
Plaintiffs meet the four requisite elements for entitlement to a Preliminary Injunction.
A. The Mandate Has Issued
This Courts stay order directed that this matter is hereby STAYED pending the
Supreme Courts disposition of Bostic, whether by denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari,
or by a grant of such petition and a judgment by the Court. [Doc. 91] On Monday, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in Bostic. See 83 USLW 3102 (U.S.
Oct. 6, 2014) (Nos. 14-153, 14-225, & 14-251). The Supreme Courts stay in Bostic stated that it
shall terminate automatically in the event the petition for a writ of certiorari [is] denied. The
Fourth Circuit already denied a stay prior to the Supreme Court issued its now-expired stay.
Thus, any basis for continuing this Courts stay has been removed by the denial of certiorari.
B. Under Bostic, Plaintiffs Are Entitled to a Preliminary Injunction
Given the denial of certiorari, the Fourth Circuits ruling in Bostic is the law of this
Circuit and under that law North Carolinas corollary to Virginias marriage laws -- Amendment

1
The Supreme Courts denial of the petition can be found here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100614zor.pdf

Case 3:14-cv-00213-MR-DLH Document 102 Filed 10/07/14 Page 2 of 6


One and related marriage laws -- are plainly unconstitutional and violate the fundamental right to
marry.
The parties agree that the test for a preliminary injunction is whether Plaintiffs are (1)
likely to succeed on the merits; (2) likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Each of those four elements is
readily satisfied in light of Bostic.
1. Plaintiffs Clearly Suffer Irreparable Harm
Bostic emphatically decided that denial of marriage to same-sex couples deprives
Plaintiffs of a fundamental Fourteenth Amendment right. Such constitutional violations
constitute irreparable and ongoing injury. See, also, e.g., Legend Night Club v. Miller, 637 F.3d
291, 302 (4th Cir. 2011); 11A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure 2948.1
(3d ed. 2014) (where alleged deprivation of constitutional right is involved, most courts hold
that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary).
2

2. Plaintiffs Are Clearly Likely to Succeed on the Merits
Plaintiffs likelihood of success under Bostic is certain. Defendants concede as much.
The parties fully briefed Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction before this Court stayed
the case. Defendants expressed their respective positions on the impact of the Fourth Circuit
ruling in Bostic. For example, Defendant Riddick has stated that further briefing with respect to
Bostic and its application to North Carolina and the issues present here would be unnecessary
and axiomatic as a legal issue. [Doc. 96 at 2] As detailed in Plaintiffs previously filed Notice

2
As the Court is aware, Plaintiffs had also moved separately for a preliminary injunction on First Amendment
grounds under both the Free Exercise and Expressive Association guarantees that Bostic did not address in any
manner. [Doc. 5] Such violations involve per se irreparable harm. See, e.g., Legends Night Club, 637 F.3d at 302.
Because Plaintiffs are certain to prevail on their Fourteenth Amendment claims, however, it is unnecessary to
address the First Amendment claims.
Case 3:14-cv-00213-MR-DLH Document 102 Filed 10/07/14 Page 3 of 6


of Attorney General Coopers Position, State Defendants have noted in legal filings the absence
of any meaningful distinctions between North Carolina and Virginia marriage laws in question.
[Doc. 92]
3. The Equities and Public Interest Weigh In Plaintiffs Favor
Because the risk of irreparable harm and likelihood of success are so clear under Bostic,
the equities and the public interest favors constitutional application of the states marriage laws
to all of its citizens.
Moreover, the State Defendants recent filing noted that [t]he mandate issued by the
Fourth Circuit in Bostic v. Schaefer constitutes binding precedent on this Court, and [n]o
further briefing is required on any remaining issues. [Doc. 100]
For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court lift its stay order and
grant immediately Plaintiffs pending, fully briefed, Motion for Preliminary Injunction in light of
the issuance of the mandate in Bostic after the denial of certiorari on October 6, 2014.

Case 3:14-cv-00213-MR-DLH Document 102 Filed 10/07/14 Page 4 of 6


Dated: October 7, 2014

Jonathan S. Martel
David J. Weiner
Samuel Witten
Sarah E. Warlick
Thomas A. Glazer
Arnold & Porter LLP
555 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Phone: (202) 942-5470
Fax: (202) 942-5999
Email: jonathan.martel@aporter.com
Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Sean Morris
Arnold & Porter LLP
777 South Figueroa St.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 243-4222
Email: sean.morris@aporter.com
Admitted Pro Hac Vice





Respectfully submitted,

/s/ S. Luke Largess
S. Luke Largess
/s/ Jacob H. Sussman
Jacob Sussman
/s/ John W. Gresham
John W. Gresham
Tin Fulton Walker & Owen
301 East Park Avenue
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: (704) 338-1220
Fax: (704) 338-1312
Email: llargess@tinfulton.com
Email: jsussman@tinfulton.com
Email: jgresham@tinfulton.com

Mark Kleinschmidt
Tin Fulton Walker & Owen
312 West Franklin Street
Chapel Hill NC 27516
Phone: (919) 240-7089
Fax: (919) 240-7822
Email: mkleinschmidt@tinfulton.com


ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Case 3:14-cv-00213-MR-DLH Document 102 Filed 10/07/14 Page 5 of 6


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing Memorandum with the Clerk of
the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of
record.
Dated: October 7, 2014

/s/ Jacob H. Sussman
Jacob H. Sussman
Tin Fulton Walker & Owen
301 East Park Avenue
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: (704) 338-1220
Fax: (704) 338-1312
Email: jsussman@tinfulton.com





Case 3:14-cv-00213-MR-DLH Document 102 Filed 10/07/14 Page 6 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION


General Synod of The United Church of Christ;
Central Conference of American Rabbis;
Alliance of Baptists, Inc.; Association of
Welcoming & Affirming Baptists; Reverend
Joseph Hoffman; Reverend Nancy Ellett Allison;
Reverend Nathan King; Reverend Nancy Kraft;
Rabbi Jonathan Freirich; Reverend Robin
Tanner; Reverend Mark Ward; Reverend Dr.
Nancy E. Petty; The Very Reverend Todd
Donatelli; The Reverend Canon Thomas
Murphy; Reverend Milly Morrow; Rabbi Lucy
H.F. Dinner; Rabbi Ari N. Margolis; Rabbi Ariel
Edery; Rabbi Eric M. Solomon; Reverend Russ
Dean; Reverend Amy Jacks Dean; Kay Diane
Ansley; Catherine Cathy McGaughey;
Elizabeth Lisa Cloninger; Kathleen Smith;
Shauna Bragan; Stacy Maloney; Cathy Fry;
Joanne Marinaro; Joel Blady; Jeffrey Addy;
Betty Mack; and Carol Taylor;

Plaintiffs,

v.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General of North
Carolina; Drew Reisinger, Register of Deeds for
Buncombe County; Wayne Nixon, Register of
Deeds for Cabarrus County; Tonia Hampton,
Register of Deeds for McDowell County; J. David
Granberry, Register of Deeds for Mecklenburg
County; Laura M. Riddick, Register of Deeds for
Wake County; Ronald L. Moore, Buncombe
County District Attorney; Roxann Vaneekhoven,
Cabarrus County District Attorney; Bradley
Greenway, McDowell County District Attorney;
Andrew Murray, Mecklenburg County District
Attorney; and Ned Mangum, Wake County
District Attorney;

Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)






Civ. No. 3:14-cv-213






























.


Case 3:14-cv-00213-MR-DLH Document 102-1 Filed 10/07/14 Page 1 of 3
[PROPOSED]

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TO SHOW CAUSE
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs motion to lift the stay entered in this matter,
and for issuance of a preliminary injunction and an order to show cause that Plaintiffs are not
entitled to Judgment, The parties had briefed the preliminary injunction motion fully prior to
issuance of the stay, therefore the matter is ripe for disposition.
Upon review of the briefs, including the State Defendants recent filing that no discovery
is required to resolve the issues in this matter and that no further briefing is required on any
remaining issues, and in light of the Supreme Courts denial of certiorari on October 6, 2014 in
Bostic v. Schaefer, No. 14-1167, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 3702493 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014), cert. denied
sub nom. McQuigg v. Bostic, ___ S.Ct. ____, 2014 WL 4354536 (Oct. 6, 2014), IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED:
1. The stay previously entered in this action pending the Supreme Courts
disposition of the appeal process in Bostic is lifted.
2. Having satisfied all of the required elements, Plaintiffs have demonstrated
that they are entitled to entry of a preliminary injunction.
Accordingly, until final resolution of this action or until further order of this Court,
it is ORDERED that:
3. North Carolinas marriage laws are deemed facially unconstitutional under
the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution to the extent they deny the rights of marriage to same-sex
couples or recognition of lawful marriages between same-sex couples that are validly
entered into in other jurisdictions.
Case 3:14-cv-00213-MR-DLH Document 102-1 Filed 10/07/14 Page 2 of 3
4. Defendants and all those acting in concert with them, including their
officers, agents, and employees, are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing: Article XIV, 6
of the North Carolina State Constitution and North Carolina General Statute 51-1.2, and
any other provision of North Carolinas marriage laws if and to the extent that a statute
denies to same-sex couples the rights and privileges of marriage that are afforded to
opposite-sex couples.
5. That Defendants are ordered to show cause within ___ days of entry of this
Order as to any reason that Plaintiffs are not entitled to Judgment and that this injunction
should not then become permanent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This the day of October, 2014.


Hon. Martin Reidinger
U.S. District Court Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00213-MR-DLH Document 102-1 Filed 10/07/14 Page 3 of 3