IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES N. STRAWSER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LUTHER STRANGE, in his official
capacity as Attorney General for
the State of Alabama and DON
DAVIS in his official capacity as
Probate Judge of Mobile County,
Alabama,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0424-CG-C

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (Doc. 43), and the
response thereto of Attorney General Strange (Doc. 44). A hearing on Plaintiffs’
motion was held on February 12, 2015. Appearing at the hearing were counsel for
Plaintiffs, counsel for defendant Judge Don Davis and counsel for Plaintiffs in a
similar case, SDAL Civil Action No. 15-067-CG-C. For the reasons explained below,
the court finds that Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction should be granted.
The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction “is within the sound
discretion of the district court...” Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir.
2002). This court may grant a preliminary injunction only if the plaintiff
demonstrates each of the following prerequisites: (1) a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat irreparable injury will occur absent

 issuance of the injunction; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the potential damage
the required injunction may cause the non-moving parties; and (4) the injunction
would not be adverse to the public interest. Id., 287 F.3d at 1329; see also
McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d. 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998). “In this
Circuit, ‘[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be
granted unless the movant clearly established the “burden of persuasion” as to the
four requisites.” McDonald’s Corp., 147 F.3d at 1306; All Care Nursing Service, Inc.
v. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989)(a
preliminary injunction is issued only when “drastic relief” is necessary.)
This case is brought by four same-sex couples in committed relationships who
reside in Mobile, Alabama and have been denied the right to a legal marriage under
the laws of Alabama. This court previously issued a preliminary injunction in this
case prohibiting the Alabama Attorney General, “his officers, agents, servants and
employees, and others in active concert or participation with any of them who would
seek to enforce the marriage laws of Alabama that prohibit same-sex marriage”
from enforcing the Alabama laws which prohibit same-sex marriage. (Doc. 29).
That preliminary injunction was initially stayed, but went into effect on Monday,
February 9, 2015, after the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court of the United States denied Attorney General Strange’s request to extend the
stay. (Doc. 40, Exh. 1; Doc. 43, p. 2). On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiffs went to the
Mobile County Probate office seeking marriage licenses, but found the office closed.
(Doc.43-4, ¶ 5; Doc. 43-5, ¶ 5; Doc. 43-6, ¶ 5; Doc. 43-7, ¶ 5). Judge Don Davis of the
Mobile County Probate Court issued a press release on February 9, 2015, stating
2

 that the Marriage License Section of the Court’s Recording Division would remain
closed pending further instructions from the United States District Court and the
Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. (Doc. 43-3, and Hearing Exhibit 6).
Judge Davis’s press release further stated that he had filed an action with the
Alabama Supreme Court seeking guidance and clarification. (Doc. 43-3 and Hearing
Exhibit 6). The Alabama Supreme Court has since dismissed that petition. (See
Doc. 52 at p. 26 and Hearing Exhibit 10B). Judge Davis was not initially a
defendant in this matter and was not named in the preliminary injunction that
went into effect on February 9, 2015. However, the amended complaint filed on
February 10, 2015, names Judge Davis in his official capacity as a defendant and
seeks an injunction against Judge Davis prohibiting him from enforcing the
Alabama laws, policies or practices that exclude Plaintiffs from marriage. (Doc. 47).
The Plaintiffs report that they all feel demeaned and humiliated by
Alabama’s refusal to treat them equally. (Doc. 43-4, ¶ 3; Doc. 43-5, ¶ 3; Doc. 43-6, ¶
3; Doc. 43-7, ¶ 3, Hearing Exhibits 1 - 4). Plaintiff James Strawser has serious
health issues that will require surgery that will put his life at risk. (Doc. 43-4, ¶ 4,
Hearing Exhibit 1). When Strawser had surgery in the past, he signed a form
giving his partner, John Humphrey, legal power over Strawser’s medical decisions,
but the hospital refused to honor that document because under Alabama law
Humphrey was not a spouse or family member. (Doc. 43-4, ¶ 4, Hearing Exhibit 1).
Plaintiff Meredith Miller wants to marry her partner, Anna Lisa Carmichael
to have the legal protections and security that only marriage provides. (Doc. 43-5, ¶
3, Hearing Exhibit 2). Each day that they are excluded from marriage, they must
3

 deal with uncertainty about whether they will be treated as family members if they
experience a life crisis or emergency. (Doc. 43-5, ¶ 3, Hearing Exhibit 2). Miller and
Carmichael hope to have children but are concerned that if they are not married
their children will get the message that their family is not as worthy of dignity and
respect as other families in Alabama and that their children will be denied
important legal protections that come with marriage. (Doc. 43-5, ¶ 4, Hearing
Exhibit 2).
Plaintiff Kristy Simmons wants to marry her partner, Marshay Safford, to
have a legal family relationship and build stability for their children. (Doc. 43-6, ¶
3, Hearing Exhibit 3). Each day that they are not permitted to marry they
experience uncertainty about whether they will be treated as family members in the
event of an emergency. (Doc. 43-6, ¶ 3, Hearing Exhibit 3). The legal protections of
marriage are especially important to Simmons because she has a rare disorder
called Wegener’s Granulomatosis that causes her blood vessels to become inflamed
and can damage her major organs. (Doc. 43-6, ¶ 4, Hearing Exhibit 3).
Plaintiff Robert Povilat wants to marry his partner, Milton Persinger, in
order to protect one another and have the legal protections and security that only
marriage provides. (Doc. 43-7, ¶ 3, Hearing Exhibit 4). Mr. Povilat has survived two
bouts of prostate cancer and fears that he could be diagnosed with cancer again.
(Doc. 43-7, ¶ 4, Hearing Exhibit 4). Every day that they are not allowed to be
married, they experience uncertainty about whether they will be treated as family
members if they experience a crisis or an emergency. (Doc. 43-7, ¶ 3, Hearing
Exhibit 4).
4

 Plaintiffs contend that Alabama’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage1
violate their rights under the United States Constitution to Due Process and Equal

The Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment to the Alabama Constitution
provides the following:
(a) This amendment shall be known and may be cited as the Sanctity
of Marriage Amendment.
(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a
woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in
encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in
order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of
society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of
the same sex is invalid in this state.
(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a
woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is
present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which
is recognized by the state as a civil contract.
(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to
parties of the same sex.
(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of
parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred
as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a
marriage license was issued.
(f) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any common law
marriage of parties of the same sex.
(g) A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex
in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered
and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this
state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other
union replicating marriage.
ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006).
1

The Alabama Marriage Protection Act provides:
(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Alabama Marriage
Protection Act.”
(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a
woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in
encouraging, supporting, and protecting the unique relationship in
order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of
society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of
the same sex is invalid in this state.

5

 Protection. This court has determined in another case, Searcy v. Strange, SDAL
Civil Action No. 14-00208-CG-N, that Alabama’s marriage sanctity laws prohibiting
and refusing to recognize same-sex marriage violate the Due Process Clause and
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. In Searcy, this court found that those laws restrict the Plaintiffs’
fundamental marriage right and do not serve a compelling state interest. Although
the Plaintiffs in this case seek to marry in Alabama, rather than have their
marriage in another state recognized in Alabama, the Court, as it previously did in
issuing the preliminary injunction against Attorney General Strange, adopts the
reasoning expressed in the Searcy case and finds that Alabama’s laws violate the
Plaintiffs’ rights for the same reasons. Alabama’s marriage sanctity laws violate
Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by prohibiting same-sex
marriage. Said laws are unconstitutional.
After considering the circumstances of this case and in light of the court’s
conclusion that the laws in question are unconstitutional, the court finds that
Plaintiffs have met the preliminary injunction factors. Plaintiffs’ inability to
(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a
woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is
present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which
is recognized by the state as a civil contract.
(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to
parties of the same sex.
(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of
parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred
as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a
marriage license was issued.
ALA. CODE § 30-1-19.
6

 exercise their fundamental right to marry has caused them irreparable harm that
outweighs any injury to defendant2. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S.Ct.
2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (holding that deprivation of constitutional rights
“unquestionably constitutes irreparable harm.”). Moreover, the Plaintiffs in this
case have submitted declarations attesting to the specific reasons why their
inability to become legally married in Alabama presents a substantial threat of
irreparable injury. Additionally, “it is always in the public interest to protect
constitutional rights.” Phelps–Roper v. Nixon, 545 F.3d 685, 690 (8th Cir. 2008).
Therefore, the Plaintiffs have met their burden for issuance of a preliminary
injunction against the enforcement of state marriage laws prohibiting same-sex
marriage.
Accordingly, the Court once again makes the following declaration:
It is ORDERED and DECLARED that ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006)
and ALA. CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are unconstitutional because they violate the Due
Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Probate Judge Don Davis is hereby ENJOINED from refusing to issue
marriage licenses to plaintiffs due to the Alabama laws which prohibit same-sex
marriage. If Plaintiffs take all steps that are required in the normal course of
business as a prerequisite to issuing a marriage license to opposite-sex couples,
Judge Davis may not deny them a license on the ground that Plaintiffs constitute
same-sex couples or because it is prohibited by the Sanctity of Marriage
Indeed, at the hearing on the motion, counsel for Judge Davis made no assertion of
any injury to the Judge in his official capacity that might result from the issuance of
an injunction.
2

7

 Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act or by any other Alabama
law or Order pertaining to same-sex marriage. This injunction binds Judge Don
Davis and all his officers, agents, servants and employees, and others in active
concert or participation with any of them, who would seek to enforce the marriage
laws of Alabama which prohibit or fail to recognize same-sex marriage.
DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2015.
/s/ Callie V. S. Granade
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8