Case 2:22-cv-00184-LCB-CWB Document 633 Filed 07/02/24 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION BRIANNA BOE, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:22-cv-184-LCB ) STEVE MARSHALL, et al., ) ) Defendants. )
ORDER
On June 24, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari
in United States v. Skrmetti, No. 23-477. Like this case, Skrmetti poses the question
of whether a categorical ban on “gender-affirming healthcare for transgender
adolescents[] triggers heightened scrutiny and likely violates the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.” Cert. Pet. at 3, United States v. Skrmetti,
No. 23-477 (U.S. Nov. 1, 2023). The United States, as Plaintiff-Intervenor, has
therefore renewed its motion to stay all district-court proceedings on the merits of
this case,1 (Doc. 604), joined by the private Plaintiffs. (Doc. 607). The State opposes
the motion. (Doc. 612).
A district court may stay proceedings “to control the disposition of the causes
on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for
1 That is, their request does not extend to the attendant attorney-disciplinary proceedings. Case 2:22-cv-00184-LCB-CWB Document 633 Filed 07/02/24 Page 2 of 3
litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Given the risk that the
Supreme Court may well change the governing standard of review—which controls
at summary judgment no less than at trial—before the merits of this case have been
fully adjudicated, the interests of judicial economy plainly favor a stay.
In opposition, the State “emphasiz[es] how simple the summary judgment
question is for the Court” under the deferential standard of rational-basis review.
(Doc. 612 at 4). While the question may be “simple,” the Court’s answer will require
a significant investment of judicial resources. The State’s exhibits alone run to well
over 7,500 pages, and that’s not counting the Private Plaintiffs’ and the United
States’ responses and supporting exhibits, or the State’s reply, which are or are likely
to be voluminous as well. (Doc. 564). Furthermore, if the Court were to decide the
summary judgment question now, a change in the standard governing this case
would likely result in a second consideration of this expansive record. In that light,
it would be unwise for the Court to invest the substantial judicial resources required
to decide this case until it has further guidance from the Supreme Court on the
governing standard of review.
These gains in judicial efficiency far outweigh any harm to the State from
litigation risks that might attend the stay. And what’s more, the State suffers no
prejudice from a delay in the final adjudication: stay or no, the State may continue
to enforce its law.
2 Case 2:22-cv-00184-LCB-CWB Document 633 Filed 07/02/24 Page 3 of 3
For these reasons, Plaintiff-Intervenor United States of America’s Renewed
Motion to Stay All District Court Proceedings (Doc. 604) is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part. The Court STAYS the final-lists deadline and the trial setting
until the Supreme Court has issued its opinion in United States v. Skrmetti. But since
the State may well be right that Skrmetti could “put this case right back where [it is]
now—just a year later,” (Doc. 612 at 6), the Court will not stay the summary-
judgment or Daubert briefing deadlines. If the Supreme Court declines to change
the standard of review, the parties’ motions will be fully briefed and ripe for
decision.
Finally, the Court ORDERS the United States of America to notify the Court
within three days of a decision from the Supreme Court in United States v. Skrmetti.
DONE and ORDERED this July 2, 2024.
_________________________________ LILES C. BURKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Edward Kruelski, Jr. v. State of Connecticut Superior Court For The Judicial District of Danbury and Geographical Area 3 at Danbury, 316 F.3d 103, 2d Cir. (2003)
