Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • stayvcap

    Uploaded by

    Caleb Taylor
    971 views3 pages
    stay on vcap scotus

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    stay on vcap scotus

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    971 views3 pages

    stayvcap

    Uploaded by

    Caleb Taylor
    stay on vcap scotus

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    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

    You might also like