14A196 McQuigg Stay Reply

8/11/2019 14A196 McQuigg Stay Reply

1/15

14A196

i i t b e

upreme Court of tbe utteb ta tc

Mich l e B . McQuigg , n her official capacity as Prince WilliamCounty Clerk of ircuit Court ,

zicant,

V .

Timothy B . Bostic , t al .

espondents

Reply n Support of Application toStay Mandate Pending Appeal

DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE JOHN G . ROBERTS , RCHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES AND IRCUIT

JUSTICE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

David A . ortmanByron J . abione

Counsel of ecordDavid Austin R . NimocksJames A . CampbellKenneth J . ConnellyKel l ie M F iedorekJ . aleb DaltonALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM

15100 North 90th StreetScottsdale , AZ 5260

480 ) 44 -0020 480 ) 44 -0028 Fax )bbabione @all iancedefendingf reedom.org

A torneys for Applican


2/15

T BLE O CONTENTS

T BLE OF UTHORITIES i

RGUMENT

I There Is a Fair Prospect That his Court Will Reverse the Judgment Below

II Irreparable Harm Will Result from Denying the Stay 3

I I I The Balance of he Equities Weighs n Clerk McQuigg s Favor 4

ON LUSION 8


3/15

TABLE O AUTHORITIES

Cases

Bare foo t y . s t e l l e ,

459 U .S . 1169 1983

C o n k r i g h t y. rommert ,556 U S . 401 2009 )

,7

erbertv .EvansNo . 4A65 , 014 WL 5571 12 U S . uly 18 , 014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

erbert y. itchen134 5 . t . 93 2014 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,

Hollingsworth y.558 U S . 83 2010 ) 1,4 , ,

In re MarriageCases ,183 P 3 d 384 Cal .

Maryland y. ing ,133 5 . t . 2012 )

2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

~ ~ 4

New Ve h i c l eBd of al y. rrin F o x C ,434 U S . 345 1977 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

N k e n y H o l d e r ,556 U . S . 418 2009

P l a n n e d P a r e n t h o o d o f e Pa y Casey ,510 U . S . 1309 1994

United S t a t e s y. Wi ndsor,133 5 . Ct. 2675 2013 2 3 4

S c u e t t ey 134 S

BA

Ct . 623 2014 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


4/15

Other Authorities

Eugene Gressman t a l . Supreme Court r a c t i c e 9th ed . 2007 8

Peter Dujardin , l l iesDiverge o n Whether Supreme Cour t Shou ldD e lay Same -SexMarriage Rul ing ailyPress , Aug . 19 014 t t p : / /www . d a i l y p r e s s. c o m /news /d p -nws - nn - r e q u e s t - f o r - s t a y-20 40818 ,0 ,137631 s t o r y 5

il l


5/15

o h e Honorab le John . Ro be r t s J r . Chief J u s t i c e o f t h e United S t a t e s a n d

i r c u i t J u s t i c e for t h e Uni t ed S t a t e s Cour t o f Appea l s for the Four th i r c u i t :

Mich l e B . McQuigg , n her official capaci ty a s Prince William County Clerk of

Circuit Court , espectfully submits this reply in support of her application to stay the

Fourth Circuit s mandate pending the final disposition of l l t imely filed petitions for a

writ of ertiorari .

RGUM NT

Respondents agree that the standa rd this Court utlined in Holl ingsworth y. erry,

558 U .S . 183 , 190 (2010 per curiam ) , governs here , ee Bost ic Response at 4, nd do

not dispute that four Justices will co nsider the question presented worthy of his Court s

review . heir arguments on he remaining actors are unpersuasive .

I . There s a Fair Prospect That his Court Will Reverse the Judgment Below .

By ssuing the stay in Herbert y . Kitchen, 34 S . Ct . 893 (2014 ) , his Court l ready

indicated that there is 'a fair prospect that a majority of he Court will vote to reverse th e

judgment below and uphold the man -woman marriage laws enacted throughout the

various States . See Hollingsworth , 558 U .S . t 190 . The lower -court decisions that have

issued since Herbert y. Kitchen , a point emphasized by Respondents (see Bostic

Response at 10 -11; arris Response at 10 ) , do not eliminate this Court s own prior

assessment that litigants defending man -woman marriage laws have a fair prospect of

succeeding on appea l.

In arguing that government fficials defending man -woman marriage laws have no

chance of success on appea l, Respondents rely heavily on lower -co urt rulings decided


6/15

a f t e r U n i t e d Sta tes y. Wi n d s o r , 33 S . Ct . 2675 2013 ) . S e e Bost ic R e s p o n s e a t 7 ; Harr i s

R e s p o n s e a t 2 , 9 . B u t Wi n d s o r d o e s n o t u n d e r m i n e t h e S t a t e s' an -woman m a r r i a g e

l a w s . I n d e e d , Wi n d s o r express ly c o n f i n e d i t s h o l d i n g n d opin ion o the peculiar

s i t u a t i o n w h e r e t h e federal g o v e r n m e n t refused t o recognize same - s e x m a r r i a g e s made

lawful by the S t a t e. 133 . Ct . t 2695 - 96 ; e e a l so id . a t 2696 (Roberts , C J . dissen t ing )

( T h e Court d o e s n o t h a v e before i t, n d the logic o f i t s opin ion d o e s n o t d e c i d e , he

d i s t i n c t quest ion w h e t h e r the S t a t e s . . . may ontinue to u t i l i z e the t r a d i t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n

o f marr iage . ) .

T h e Court there e m p h a s i z e d t h a t [ t ] h e S t a t e ' s p o w e r i n def in ing the mari tal

r e l a t i o n [wa ]s o f cen t ra l re levance i n th[at ] a s e , i d . a t 2692 e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) , b ecause

the f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t unusually depar t [ e d ] r o m [ i t s ] i s t o r y a n d t r a d i t i o n o f e l i a n c e

o n s t a t e l a w t o def ine m a r r i a g e , id . H e r e , n c o n t r a s t, t a t e s t h a t h a v e r e t a i n e d the man -

woman marr iage d e f i n i t i o n h a v e not d e p a r t e d f r o m , but h a v e s i mp ly reaff irmed , h e i r

h i s t o r y a n d t r a d i t i o n o n marr iage . Therefore , n t h i s c a s e , the S t a t e ' s a u t h o r i t y over

m a r r i a g e come [ s ] n t o play o n the o ther s ide o f the board , i d . a t 2697 Rober ts , C J .

d i s s e n t i n g) , a n d b o l s t e r s the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f the cha l lenged m a r r i a g e l a w s

Accord ing ly , he l ower courts t h a t h a v e r e a d Wi n d s o r t o condemn S t a t e s' an -woman

m a r r i a g e l a w s h a v e d o n e s o i n e r r o r, n d t h u s t h o s e dec i s ions d o no t undercu t the f a i r

prospec t t h a t a major i ty o f h i s Court w i l l vote to reverse the j u d g m e n t be low .

Tellingly , e v e n t h o u g h Registrar R a i n e y believes tha t the Four th C i r c u i t' s r u l i n g

was c o r r e c t , s h e a d m i t s t h a t s u f f i c i e n t uncertainty urrounding t h a t dec i s ion

2


7/15

s a t i s f i j e s ] he ' f a i r p r o s p e c t t a n d a r d . R a i n e y R e s p o n s e a t 2 1 T h a t t h e C o u r t v iews

t h e c o n t r o v e r s i a l ques t ion p o s e d h e r e a s a n o p e n o n e , Registrar R a i n e y expla ins , s

bu t t ressed by e a s o n a b l e in fe rences d r a w n f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t t h e C o u r t h a s t w i c e s tayed

l o w e r cour t rul ings t h a t w o u l d h a v e a l l o w e d same - s e x m a r r i a g e s t o p r o c e e d i n U t a h

b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t c o u l d h a v e t h e f i n a l s a y . Id . a t 5 . T h e r e i s t h u s a f a i r p r o s p e c t t h a t t h i s

C o u r t w i l l reverse t h e j u d g m e n t b e l o w .

II I r r e p a r a b l e Harm Wil l R e s u l t from D e n y i n g t h e S t a y .

R e s p o n d e n t s d o n o t d e n y t h a t en jo in ing t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f Virginia ' s man -woman

m a r r i a g e l a w s w i l l i n f l i c t a o r m o f r r e p a r a b l e injury . M a r y l a n d y. K i n g , 133 S . C t . 1, 3

(2012 ) R o b e r t s , C J . in c h a m b e r s ) q u o t i n g New M o t o r Vehicle Bd . Cal . y. Orrin

Fox Co . 434 U .S . 1345 , 1351 (1977 Rehnquist , . in chambers )). Standing alone , hat

(implicitly conceded ) harm satisfies t h e i rreparable harm prong of this Court 's s tay

analysis .

Unable to dispute this i rreparable injury , the Bostic and Harris Respondents

mischaracter ize the gravity of he harm by reducing t to a prohibition on public officials

enfor [ing ] democrat ical ly enacted laws , Bost ic Response at 8 , or see ing t h e state ' s

When at tempting to justify the Fourth Circuit ' s decis ion, egistrar Rainey incorrectlyasserts that this Court in Windsor already rejected the same justifications offered byJudge Niemeyer and Clerk McQuigg in support of Virginia 's man -woman marriagelaws. ee Rainey Response at 3 -4 . As Windsor itself recognized , he federa l governmenthas no authority . . . on the subject of marriage . 133 5 . Ct . t 2691 internal quotationmarks omitted ) . Thus , when Congress raised various marriage -related interests , hoseinterests were not legi t imate because they fell outside Congress ' s authority . n contrast ,t h e States , which have essential authority to def ine the marital relation , id . at 2692 ,advance var ious legi t imate and compelling interests through their regulation of man -woman marriage .

3


8/15

law e n f o r c e d , Harr i s R e s p o n s e a t 13 But the dec i s ion b e l o w b y eras ing Virg inia's

e n d u r i n g m a r r i a g e d e f i n i t i o n o u l d s i l e n c e the v o i c e o f countless Virg in ians including

the more than 1 .3 million who approved the Commonwealth ' s marriage definition and

sought to shap [e ] he destiny of heir own times on marriage . Windsor , 33 S . Ct . t

2692 . t would eradicate their fundamental right to speak and debate and learn and

then , as a matter of political will , o act through a lawful electoral process on this

profoundly important question of ublic policy . See Schuette y . BAMN , 34 S . Ct . 623 ,

1637 (2014 ). This concrete harm to citizens throughout the Commonwealth will

unquestionably occur n the absence of he requested stay .

Because this irreparable injury is irrefutable , he Bostic and Harr is Respondents

shift the focus to themselves , laiming that they will experience irreparable harm if th e

s tay is granted and f hey ultimately prevail in this lawsui t. ee Bostic Response t 9 -10

Harr is Response t 14 . Yet he i rreparable harm nalysis considers the likelihood that

irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay not the granting of one .

Hollingsworth , 558 U S. t 190 (emphasis added ); accord King , 33 S . Ct . t 2 (Roberts ,

C . J . in chambers (quoting Conkright y . Frommert , 556 U S. 1401 , 1402 (2009 )

(Ginsburg , . in chambers )); Planned Parenthood Se . Pa . y. Casey , 510U . S. 1309 ,

1310 (1994 Souter , . in chambers ) a likelihood of rreparable injury that , ssuming

the correctness of he applicants ' osit ion , ould esult were a tay not ssued ) .

I I I . The Balance of he Equities Weighs n Clerk McQuigg 's Favor .

Because the primary three factors of he stay analys is weigh decidedly in Clerk

McQuigg ' s favor , er stay application does not present a close case [], and the Court

4


9/15

need no t "ba lance t h e e q u i t i e s [o r ] e igh t h e r e l a t i v e h a r m s t o t h e a p p l i c a n t a n d t o the

respondent [ s l . "See Holl ingsworth , 58 .S . t 190 .

Nevertheless , t h e balance o f t h e e q u i t i e s warrants a stay . While t h e Bost ic

Responden t s argue t h a t confusion a n d "uncertainty o u l d f a l l [ ] " only " o n those s a m e -

sex couples who choose t o m a r r y before t h i s C o u r t has ruled , " Bost ic Response a t 9 , he

u n c e r t a i n t y w o u l d , s R e g i s t r a r R a i n e y explains , f f e c t countless t h i r d p a r t i e s , " such as

" [e ]mployers a n d i n s u r e r s , " a n d g o v e r n m e n t agencies and o f f i c i a l s , l i k e "the Virginia

D e p a r t m e n t o f Taxation," R a i n e y Response a t 10 - 11 . S h o u l d t h i s Cour t upho ld the

v a l i d i t y o f man -woman marr iage l a w s , ndoing a l l t h a t follows as a consequence o f the

Four th C i r c u i t' s mandate w o u l d , n the w o r d s o f e g i s t r a r R a i n e y , p o s e a wrenching a n d

insurmountable task ." Id . a t l i .

U n a b l e t o diminish t h e h a r m i d e n t i f i e d b y Cle rk McQuigg, he Bostic Responden t s

argue t h a t t hey w o u l d experience i r r e p a r a b l e h a r m i f a stay i s i s s u e d. See Bostic

R e s p o n s e a t 9 - 10 . B u t Mr . Bost ic himself has p u b l i c l y s t a t e d t h a t "waiting another s i x

m o n t h s . . . i s no t t h a t big o f a n i s s u e." R a i n e y Response a t 9 i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s

omit ted ) ; see also Peter Dujardin , l l i e s Diverge o n Whether S u p r e m e C o u r t S h o u l d

D e l a y Same -Sex M a r r i a g e Ruling , DailyPress , Aug . 19, 2014 , t t p : / /www . d a i l y p r e s s .

com n e w s /d p - n w s - nn - r e q u e s t - f o r - s t a y -20 40818 ,0 , 137631 0 s t o r y ( No matter [whe ther

t h e C o u r t grants a s t a y ] , Tim Bostic a n d Tony L o n d o n . . . s ay t hey w i l l wait u n t i l t h e

S u p r e m e Cour t hands down t s f i n a l r u l i n g . ) . By o n t r a s t , " R e g i s t r a r Rainey affirms ,

d e c l i n i n g t o stay t h e m a n d a t e " w o u l d b e a v e r y 'big i s s u e' or the C o m m o n w e a l t h a nd

t h i r d p a r t i e s hroughout V i r g i n i a. R a i n e y Response a t 9 .

5


10/15

The b a l a n c e of t h e h a r m s thu s reduce s t o t h i s : t h e Bost ic a n d Harris R e s p o n d e n t s

h a v e i d e n t i f i e d potent ial h a r m s (e . g . , a d e l a y i n o b t a i n i n g s t a t e recognit ion of t h e i r

r e l a t i o n s h i p s) h a t w i l l r e s u l t on ly i f t h e y u l t i m a t e l y p r e v a i l i n t h i s case h e r e a s Cle rk

McQuigg a n d Registrar R a i n e y h a v e i d e n t i f i e d certain h a r m s (e . g . en jo in ing a d u l y

e n a c t e d s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l provision ) h a t w i l l r e s u l t a s soon a s t h e Four th C i r c u i t issues

i t s m a n d a t e . T h a t b a l a n c e t i p s sharp ly i n favor of s tay ing t h e F o u r t h C i r c u i t ' s m a n d a t e .

The Bost ic R e s p o n d e n t s a rg u e t h a t b a l a n c i n g t h e e q u i t i e s in t h i s case d i f f e r s f rom

H e r b e r t y. K i t c h e n c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e Commonwealth h a s n o l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t in

enforc ing i t s l a w s because the Vi rg in ia A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l here n l ike t h e U t a h A t to rney

G e n e r a l i n H e r b e r t e l ieves t h a t t h e c h a l l e n g e d l a w s are u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . S e e Bostic

R e s p o n s e a t 1 1 . Fo r purposes of t h i s stay inqu i ry h o w e v e r t h e proper ques t ion i s

w h e t h e r Registrar R a i n e y in tends t o enforce t h e Commonwealth ' s man -woman marr iage

l a w s p e n d i n g a p p e a l ( no t t h e A t t o r n e y Gen e ra l ' s v i e w s a b o u t those l a w s'

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y . I n t h a t respect , H e r b e r t y. K i t c h e n i s i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f rom t h i s c a s e .

I n d e e d egistrar R a i n e y , l i k e t h e U t a h s t a t e o f f i c i a l s in H e r b e r t y. K i t c h e n a s made t

clear t h a t s h e w i l l c o n t i n u e t o enforce [ t h e c h a l l e n g e d m a r r i a g e l a w s n t i l a d e f i n i t i v e

j u d i c i a l r u l i n g c a n b e o b t a i n e d rom t h i s Cour t . S e e Ra i n e y Response t o S t a y M o t i o n a t

6 ostic y. S c h a e f e r Nos . 1 4 - 11 6 7 , 1 4 - i 1 69 4-1173 (4th Ci r . Aug . 5 , 2014 . Therefore

t h e cases are not d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e for purposes of g r a n t i n g a stay n d t h i s C ou r t should

fol low w h a t t did i n He rbe r t.

The Harris R e s p o n d e n t s for t h e i r p a r t , a rg u e t h a t a l though confus ion a n d

uncer ta in ty occur red i n U t a h b e c a u s e t h e s t a t e o f f i c i a l s c o n t i n u e d enforcing t h e i r man -

6


11/15

woman a r r i a g e l aws a f t e r t h i s Cour t stayed the d i s t r i c t cou rt's i n j u n c t i o n , the re i s [no ]

reason to be l i eve [ t h a t] o u l d recur here . Harris Response a t 12 . On h e contrary , h e r e

i s e v e r y reason t o think t h a t w o u l d h a p p e n h e r e b e c a u s e , a s s t a t e d a b o v e , h e Virg in ia

A t t o r n e y Gene ra l ha s indicated t h a t Registrar R a i n e y w i l l continue t o enforce th e

cha l lenged m a r r i a g e l a w s u n t i l t h i s Cour t i n a l l y resolves t h i s case . 2

T h e Harris Responden t s a d d i t i o n a l l y a rg u e t h a t t h i s Cour t ' s stay orders in H e r b e r t

a n d H e r b e r t y. E v a n s

d i s t inguishable because

No . 14A65 , 2014 W 557112 U . S . July 18 , 2014 ) , are

t h e y s tayed d i s t r i c t court j u d g m e n t s t h a t h a d not yet b e e n

r e v i e w e d b y the court o f appeals . Harris Response a t 11 . u t the s a m e analysis applies

w h e t h e r the applicant asks t h i s Cour t to stay a d i s t r i c t co urt's o rder or a court o f appeals

m a n d a t e . Compare o n k r i g h t , 56 U . S . t 1402 G i n s b u rg , . i n c h a m b e r s ) outlining the

s tandard for ana lyz ing a n a p p l i c a t i o n for a stay o f a cour t o f appeals a n d a t e ) , with

Hollingsworth , 558 U . S . a t 189 -90 o u t l i n i n g the same standard for analyzing a n

a p p l i c a t i o n for a stay o f the D i s t r i c t Co ur t ' s o r d e r ) . And the s a m e reasons why h i s

Cour t h a s s tayed a d i s t r i c t -court j u d g m e n t t h a t enjoins a S t a t e ' s man -woman m a r r i a g e

l aws e .g . providing for the orderly administration of ustice , aintaining the status quo

until the case is finally decided , and avoiding the irreparable harm , confusion , and

2 The Harris Respondents also argue that California s experience with a temporaryredefinition of marriage in 2008 shows that confusion and uncertainty will not result inVirginia . See Harris Response at 12 n .3 . But those circumstances were very differentfrom the facts at hand . alifornia issued marriage licenses to same -sex couples pursuantto a final decision of the California Supreme Court construing state law . See In reMarriage Cases , 183 . 3d 384 , 453 Cal . 2008 ). Here , however , bsent the requestedstay , ublic officials in the Commonwealth would issue marriage licenses to same -sexcouples pursuant to a district -court decision that is s t i l l subject to this Court s review .

7


12/15

u n c e r t i n t y t h t w i l l l i k e l y r e s u l t f rom prem ture ly u p e n d i n g t h e s t t u s qu o equally

compel this Court t o stay a court of appeals ' mandate affirming such a judgment .

Moreover , his Court granted the st ay in Herbert y. Evans even after the Tenth Circuit

had already declared Utah ' s man -woman marriage laws unconstitutional i n Kitchen y

Herbert. herefore , hat stay order , s Registrar Rainey notes , makes ense only f this

Court s reserving t o itself the final decision on whether h e Constitution prohibits States

from efining marriage as the union of man and a woman . ainey Response at 7

ON LUS ON

For h e foregoing reasons , lerk McQuigg respectfully requests an order staying

the issuance of h e Fourth Circuit ' s mandate .

3The Court converts stay applications to petit ions for a wri t of ertiorari only where anobvious emergency calls for expedition by h e Court . Eugene Gressman et al . , SupremeCourt ractice 4 8 -19 (9 th cd . 007 ; see , e .g . , Nken y . Holder , 56 U .S . 18 , 23 (2009 )(converting stay application t o petition for a wri t of ertiorari where h e applicant was obe deported and where he asked in the alternative that [the Court ] grant certiorari ) ;Barefoot y. stelle , 459 U .S . 1169 (1983 ) converting stay application t o petition for awri t of ertiorari where h e applicant was o be executed one day ater ). Should h e Courtdetermine tha t such an emergency exists here , Clerk McQuigg does not oppose treatingher application as a petition for a wri t of ertiorari .

8


13/15

Dated : August 19 , 014

Respec t fu l ly Submitted ,

Davi

Counfel o f e c o rdDavid Austin R . Nimocks

James . C a m p b e l lK e n n e t h . C o n n e l l yKellie M Fiedorek . Ca l eb Da l ton

ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM

15100 N o r t h 90th t r e e t

Scottsdale , Z 5260 480 44 -0020 ; 480 44 -0028 F ax

b b a b i o n e @ a l l i an c e d e fen d i ng f r e ed om . o rg

C o u n s e l r Applicant


14/15

CERTIFICATE OF ERVICE

I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t on t h e 1 9 t h day of August 01 4 caused t h e foregoing Reply

i n Suppor t of Application t o Stay Manda te Pending Appeal t o b e served on t h e following

counsel v i a e l e c t r o n i c mail and F i r s t - c l a s s United S t a t e s mail postage prepaid :

David B . OakleyJ e f f r e y F . rookePoole Mahoney PC860 Greenbrier C i r c l e u i t e 401Chesapeake, V 3320doakley @ p o o l e m a h o n e y . c o mjbrooke @ p o o l e m a h o n e y . c o m

Attorneys or Responden t Ge orge E Schaefer I I

S t u a r t RaphaelTrevor Stephen Cox

Office of he Attorney Genera l9 ast M a i n S t r e e tR i c h m o n d V 3 2 1 9

sraphael @oag . s t a t e .v a .us

tcox @oag . s t a t e .v a .us

Attorneys or Respondent Janet M Ra iney

Theodore B . Olson

Gibson Dunn ru tcher LLP

1 0 5 0 Connecticut Av e n u e NW

Washington DC 0036

t o l s o n @gibsondunn . c o m

D a v i d Bojes

Boies c h i l l e r lexner LLP333 Mai n S t r e e tArmonk , NY 0504

dboies @bsfllp . c o m

Attorneys or Respondents Timothy Bostic et al .

1 0


15/15

Pau l M . mi th

J enne r l ock LLP

1099 New Yo r k Av e n u e NW u i t e 900

Washing ton DC 0001

psmith @ j e n n e r . com

R e b e c c a K . l e n b e rgACLU f Virginia701 East Frankl in t r e e t u i t e 1412

R i c h m o n d V 3219

rg lenberg @ a c l u v a .org

Attorney for R e s p o n d e n t Harr is Cl a s s

~

Documents

14A196 McQuigg Stay Reply