14-3251 - WBC 10th Circuit Brief

Appellate Case: 14-3251
Document: 01019361813
Date Filed: 12/29/2014
Page: 1
No. 14-3251
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________________
KAIL MARIE, et al.,

Plaintiffs/Appellees,
vs.
ROBERT MOSER, M.D., et al.,
Defendants/Appellees,
and
WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH, INC.,
Movant to Intervene/Appellant
___________________________________
Appeal from the District of Kansas
Trial Court Judge: Honorable Daniel D. Crabtree
District Court Docket Number 14-cv-2518
_________________________________________
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
Oral Argument Requested
Margie J. Phelps
P.O. Box 3725
Topeka, KS 66604
785.408.4598 (phone)
785.233.0766 (fax)
margie.phelps@cox.net
Attorney for Movant to Intervene/Appellant
Westboro Baptist Church, Inc.
Document: 01019361813
Page: 2
SUMMARY OF THE CASE

This is an appeal from an order of the Kansas trial court denying Westboro
Baptist Church, Inc. (WBC) a Kansas church with a 25+ year internationallyknown high-profile picketing ministry against homosexuality and same-sex
marriage intervention in an action challenging Kansas statutory and
constitutional prohibitions against same sex marriage.
WBC requests oral argument, because of the importance of the right of
churches, particularly those that are notorious in their opposition to same sex
marriage, to be protected by the courts from any intrusion into their religious
practices and worship by claims from same sex couples that they are entitled to
have their same sex marriages performed by said churches; and the resultant need
for such churches (or other religious organizations) to have a voice via intervention
in the flood of litigation across the country requesting both same sex marriage
licenses and an array of other new rights related to the same sex marriage.
Document: 01019361813
Page: 3
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. (WBC) hereby states pursuant to
Fed.R.App.P. Rule 26.1(a):
1. WBC does not have any parent corporation.
2. No publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of WBCs stock.
ii
Document: 01019361813
Page: 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF THE CASE .............................................................................................. I
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .................................................................. II
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................. III
TABLE OF CASES & AUTHORITIES ........................................................................... IV
Related appeals ........................................................................................................................................................iv
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ................................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ...................................................................................... 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE & FACTS ......................................................................... 2
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .......................................................................................... 4
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 6
Issue 1: The trial court erred in denying WBC intervention as a matter of right. ...............................................6
WBC Has Legal Interests in the Same Sex Marriage Litigation in Kansas .............................................................. 7
WBCs Legal Interests Will be Impaired in the Absence of Intervention ................................................................ 16
WBCs Legal Interests Are Not Adequately Represented by Existing Parties ........................................................ 19
Issue 2: The trial court abused its discretion in denying WBC permissive intervention. ................................... 23
CONCLUSION & PRECISE RELIEF SOUGHT ............................................................ 24

ATTACHMENT ............................................................................................................. 25
November 7, 2014, Memorandum and Order (denying WBC intervention). ......................................................... 25
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 28.1(E) OR 32(A) .............................. 25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................................................ 26
iii
Document: 01019361813
Page: 5
TABLE OF CASES & AUTHORITIES

Cases
City of Stilwell v. Ozarks Rural Elec. Coop, 79 F.3d 1038, 1043 (10th Cir. 1996) ...................... 23
Coalition of Ariz./NM v. Dept. of Interior, 100 F.3d 837, 840 (10th Cir. 1996) ............................. 6
Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014) ....................................................................... 8
Nalder v. West Park Hosp., 254 F.3d 1168, 1174 (10th Cir. 2001) .............................................. 23
National Farm Lines v. Interstate Commerce Commn, 564 F.2d 381, 383 (10th Cir. 1977) ...... 19
Planned Parenthood v. Citizens for Community Action, 558 F.2d 861 (8th Cir. 1977)................ 15
San Juan County v. U.S. Dept of Interior, 503 F.3d 1163. 1207 (10th Cir. 2007) ........................ 23
The New Mexico Off-Highway Vehicle Alliance v. U.S. Forest Serv., 540 Fed.Appx. 877, 2013
U.S.App. LEXIS 22678 at 6 (10th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) ..................................................... 16
United States v. Albert Investment Co., Inc., 585 F.3d 1386, 1391 (10th Cir. 2009) ...................... 6
United States v. Windsor, ---- U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2687-2688 186 L.Ed.2d 808 (2013) ..... 20
Utah Association of Counties v. Clinton, 255 F.3d 1246 10th Cir. 2001)..................................... 12
WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 573 F.3d 992, 994 (10th Cir. 2009) ............................ 1
Statutes
28 U.S.C. 1291 ............................................................................................................................. 1
28 U.S.C. 1331 ............................................................................................................................. 1
28 U.S.C. 1343 ............................................................................................................................. 1
28 U.S.C. 1651 ............................................................................................................................. 1
28 U.S.C. 2201 ............................................................................................................................. 1
42 U.S.C. 1983 ............................................................................................................................. 1
42 U.S.C. 1988 ............................................................................................................................. 1
Related appeals
Marie v. Moser, Appeal No. 14-3246 (appeal by state and county defendants from
order granting preliminary injunction)
Marie v. Moser, Appeal No. 14-3250 (appeal by Mr. and Mrs. Unruh from denial
of motion to intervene)
Marie v. Moser, Appeal No. 14-3276 (appeal by WBC from order denying second
intervention motion)
iv
Document: 01019361813
Page: 6
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. (WBC), movant to intervene below and
appellant before this Court, submits the following brief.
Jurisdictional Statement
(A)The basis for the district courts subject matter jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C.
1331, 1343 and 2201, and 42 U.S.C. 1983.
(B) The basis for jurisdiction on appeal: 28 U.S.C. 1291.
(C) The filing dates establishing the timeliness of the appeal: November 7,
2014, Memorandum and Order denying intervention; November 9, 2014,
Notice of Appeal.
(D)Statement establishing the Court of Appeals jurisdiction: This is an appeal
from an order denying intervention.
Because [a]n order denying
intervention is final and subject to immediate review if it prevents the

applicant from becoming a party to an action, Coalition of Ariz./N.M.
Counties for Stable Econ. Growth v. Dept of Interior, 100 F.3d 837, 839
(10th Cir. 1996) (Coalition), we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1291, WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 573 F.3d 992, 994 (10th
Cir. 2009).
Document: 01019361813
Page: 7
Statement of the Issues

1.
The trial court erred in denying WBC intervention as a matter of right.
2.
The trial court abused its discretion in denying WBC permissive
intervention.
Statement of the Case & Facts

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion by WBC to intervene in a
challenge to Kansas statutes and provisions of the Kansas constitution that prohibit
same sex marriage in Kansas.
WBC is an independent Bible-believing church located in Topeka, Kansas (since
1955), which has had a highly conspicuous public testimony against the proud ruinous
sins of this generation; including a 25+-year street ministry, engaging the state, nation
and world in a robust debate about its policies of sin, and the consequence of such
pervasive proud sin to the country and its people. Throughout its years of picketing,
WBC has warned Kansas that the sin of homosexuality, and particularly same sex
marriage, will bring great woe and harm to this state. Today the number one moral issue
facing this nation is same sex marriage. WBC has a vital interest in what the courts rule
regarding this issue, as it directly impacts their religious practices, beliefs, preachments,
picketing, association and speech, as well as the wellbeing of their fellow man. In
addition, WBC members strongly and conscientiously object to any participation in same
sex marriage and expect to be protected by the law and courts from being required to do
so.
Document: 01019361813
Page: 8
At the core of WBCs picketing is the Bible doctrine that a proper marriage is
between one man, one woman, for life; and it is a Scriptural symbol of the great mystery
of Christ and His Bride, the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Same sex marriage rips that
symbol to shreds, and is utterly contrary to Bible doctrine.
On October 10, 2014, two same sex couples filed suit in federal court in Kansas
asking that the statutory and constitutional provisions defining a marriage as between a
man and woman be found unconstitutional; seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; and
specifically asking that the State of Kansas be required to issue marriage licenses to same
sex couples, and change the marriage licensing scheme to accommodate same sex
couples. (See Complaint dated 10/10/14, docket number 1, at Docket Sheet, Aplt. App.
at 5.)
Sixteen days later, on October 26, 2014, WBC filed a Motion to Intervene, with a
proposed Answer; and a brief in support and request for hearing. (Aplt. App., at 18-55.)
The motion was unopposed, and thus per D. Kan. Rule 7.4(b), the court will consider
and decide the motion as an uncontested motion. Ordinarily, the court will grant the
motion without further notice.
Online at http://1.usa.gov/1tcbe0N (last visited
December 28, 2014).

Notwithstanding the motion being uncontested, on November 7, 2014, the trial
court entered its Memorandum and Order (Apt. App. At 11-17) denying intervention of
right on the grounds of adequate representation; and exercising its discretion to deny
permissive intervention, finding that granting WBC full-party status would clutter the
Document: 01019361813
Page: 9
litigation without providing any compensating benefit to the Court or the parties (Aplt.
App. at 17).
On November 9, 2014, WBC filed a Notice of Appeal (see Notice of Appeal dated
11/7/14, docket number 33, at Docket Sheet, Aplt. App. at 7). Further relevant facts will
be addressed in the arguments below.
Summary of Argument
Same sex marriage litigation is sweeping the land, and it came to Kansas.
Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. (WBC), is an independent Bible-believing church in
Topeka, Kansas, with a 25+ year street picketing and otherwise publishing ministry
that opposes sin, including very vocally opposing same sex marriage.
WBC
moved to intervene as a matter of right and permissively, sixteen days after the suit
was filed. WBC sought to assert its legal interest in protecting and preserving its
rights as a religious institution that objects to same sex marriage from being
required to participate in same sex marriage in any way; and to assert its legal
interest by virtue of its public advocacy against same sex marriage on Bible
grounds, to vigorously defend the constitutionality of the same sex marriage bans
in Kansas. The motion to intervene was unopposed by any party. The Kansas
Attorney General, who is defending the state and local officials first named in the
case (new parties have since been added; it remains to be seen who will defend
them), has never spoken a word in any filing or public statement about
Document: 01019361813
Page: 10
representing WBCs interests in this case. The trial court denied intervention for
the sole reason that it found that WBC did not demonstrate its interests were not
adequately represented by the Kansas Attorney General, in spite of this Courts
rule of law that by legal definition a government party cannot adequately represent
the private intervenors interest. Same sex marriage is rapidly gaining political and
popular appeal, and it is increasingly perilous for elected officials to vigorously
oppose same sex marriage. Further, the Kansas Attorney General is not in a
position to protect the religious rights of religious institutions to oppose same sex
marriage on Bible grounds, or to protect these religious institutions from claims by
plaintiffs-activists that churches and clergy should be mandated to participate in
same sex marriages. As such, the Kansas Attorney General is particularly unsuited
and unable to adequately represent WBCs interests. Same sex marriage is a
startling change in the moral landscape of this land. This Court has permitted
environmentalists to intervene as a matter of right to protect the environment.
Courts should be eager to afford the same level of legal interest to those who have
religious objection to and seek religious protection from participating in same sex
marriage. WBC seeks reversal of the order denying intervention and for this case
to be remanded so intervention can be allowed.
Document: 01019361813
Page: 11
Argument
Issue 1: The trial court erred in denying WBC intervention as a matter
of right.
Standard of Review: We review for an abuse of discretion a district courts
rulings on the timeliness of an application for intervention as of right, but we
review de novo a district courts rulings on the three remaining requirements under
Rule 24(a)(2), Coalition of Ariz./NM v. Dept. of Interior, 100 F.3d 837, 840 (10 th
Cir. 1996).
Where the Issue was raised in the Record: WBCs motion to intervene,
Aplt. App. at 18-43.
Contention/Reasons: The first requirement for intervention of right is (1) the
application is timely. WBC contends that there is no question of the timeliness of
its motion to intervene, given that it was filed slightly over two weeks after the
case was filed; that no party has suggested untimeliness; and the trial court did not
suggest or find untimeliness.
The other factors for intervention of right, are that (2) the applicant claims
an interest in the subject of the action; (3) the applicants interest may as a practical
matter be impaired or impeded; and (4) the applicants interest is not adequately
represented by an existing party. See United States v. Albert Investment Co., Inc.,
585 F.3d 1386, 1391 (10th Cir. 2009). The trial court found that WBC had not
Document: 01019361813
Page: 12
satisfied the fourth requirement, concluding that WBC had not demonstrated its
interests were not adequately represented.
This Court follows a somewhat liberal line in allowing intervention,
WildEarth Guardians, 573 F.3d at 995. And, [t]he central concern in deciding
whether intervention is proper is the practical effect of the litigation on the
applicant for intervention, ibid. To satisfy [the impairment] element of the
intervention test, a would-be intervenor must show only that impairment of its
substantial legal interest is possible if intervention is denied.
This burden is
minimal, ibid.
It is WBCs position that since the motion was unopposed, and since the trial
court found only that WBCs interests could be adequately represented by the
Kansas Attorney Generals office, that it is undisputed that WBC has a legal
interest in the case, and that WBCs legal interest in the case will be impaired
without intervention. Thus, no further discussion on those two elements should be
necessary. However, out of an abundance of caution, WBC will address those
elements in this brief, and does so without waiving its position that those issues are
not in dispute, and have been resolved on this record in WBCs favor.
WBC Has Legal Interests in the Same Sex Marriage Litigation in Kansas
Here WBC will discuss the issue of its legal interest, because although the
trial court denied intervention of right only based on its conclusion that WBC has
7
Document: 01019361813
Page: 13
not carried its burden to show that the current defendants will not represent its
interest adequately (without reaching the remaining factors), Aplt. App. at 12; this
Court is reviewing the question of intervention of right de novo; plus the trial court
later in its order addressed WBCs interest in the litigation [t]o determine whether
WBCs interests align with the existing defendants interests, Aplt. App. at 14.
The subject of the litigation is creating and granting new rights to same sex
couples, including the right to have a marriage license issued, and related benefits.
This Court addressed the very important issue of protecting those with religious
objections to same sex marriage, especially religious institutions (including
churches), when affirming a finding that Utahs ban on same sex marriage was
unconstitutional, in Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014). There this
Court addressed the fourth government interest Utah offered in support of
Amendment 3 limiting marriage licenses to marriages between a man and a woman,
to wit, Accommodating religious freedom and reducing the potential for civil
strife, 755 F.3d at 1226. The Court rejected this interest as a basis for upholding
the ban, but hastened to add:
We emphasize that todays decision relates solely to civil
marriage [and] does not mandate any change for religious
institutions, which may continue to express their own moral
viewpoints and define their own traditions about marriage.
[R]eligious institutions remain as free as they always have been
to practice their sacraments and traditions as they see fit.
[W]e continue to recognize the right of the various religions to
define marriage according to their moral, historical, and ethical
8
Document: 01019361813
Page: 14
precepts. Our opinion does not intrude into that domain or the
exercise of religious principles in this arena. The right of an
officiant to perform or decline to perform a religious ceremony
is unaffected by todays ruling.
755 F.3d at 1227-1228; emphasis added. This Court recognized a right of religious
institutions to not be forced to participate in same sex marriage. That right was
expressly recognized in the context of a case where plaintiffs sought the right to
marriage licenses for same sex couples, as well as related benefits.1
The trial court described this right identified by this Court as WBCs
concern, which the trial court concluded was too remote and speculative to be
addressed through WBCs intervention, saying that at the point in time of its order,
there is no evidence that Kansas officials would require WBC to participate,
Aplt. App. at 14. Further, the trial court concluded, WBC could initiate a separate
lawsuit to protect its right to religious expression, ibid.
We respectfully submit thereby the trial court missed the point. It is not
state officials against whom WBC seeks to protect its right not to participate in
See, for instance, Kitchen, 755 F.3d at 1199-1200, 1226, where various other
related benefits (under the recognize their marriage umbrella), beyond the
license itself were discussed. Please note the First Amended Complaint filed in
this case (see First Amended Complaint dated 11/26/14, docket number 52, at
Docket Sheet, Aplt. App. at 9), where additional rights are asserted beyond the
marriage license, including the right to have drivers licenses changed; the right to
file joint tax returns; the right to be included on state health insurance which led
to a second motion to intervene by WBC, which denial is the topic of a related
appeal by WBC in Appeal No. 14-3276.
Document: 01019361813
Page: 15
same sex marriage ceremonies or any activity related thereto. It is as to these

plaintiffs that WBC seeks protection. The subject of the litigation is same sex
marriage; WBC seeks to be protected from same sex marriage. If WBC has an
interest in the subject of this litigation, it is not an adequate remedy to refer WBC
to future or separate litigation.2
Remember, as noted by this Court in Kitchen, 755 F.3d at 1198, When the
seed of [the question of the validity of same-sex marriage bans] was initially
presented to the United States Supreme Court in 1972, the Court did not consider
the matter of such substantial moment as to present a justiciable federal question.
Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 64 (1972) (per curiam).
Since that date, the seed has grown, however. A few short decades ago it was
remote and speculative that the government would be required to issue same sex
marriage licenses. Now it is not. The lightning speed with which same sex
marriage advocates are litigating, coupled with the nearly-rabid vilification of
anyone who opposes same sex marriage in every branch of our society, strongly
indicates that it is the opposite of remote and speculative to say that religious
institutions will be pursued next.
Any more than it is a remedy to refer WBC to amicus status as its relief. [T]he
right to file a brief as amicus curiae is no substitute for the right to intervene as a
party in the action under Rule 24(a)(2), Coalition, 100 F.3d 837 at 844.
2
10
Document: 01019361813
Page: 16
In addition, WBC has a unique interest in upholding the constitution and

laws of Kansas that limit marriage to a man and a woman. The trial court noted
this interest, saying it is a closer call whether WBCs public advocacy against
homosexuality creates a protectable interest in upholding the ban against same sex
marriage, Aplt. App. at 14. From there, the trial court imposed an artificial
requirement that WBC demonstrate it had taken a specific (yet undefined) role in
shaping or implementing Kansas same-sex marriage ban, apart from its general
advocacy against homosexuality, Aplt. App. at 15.
We respectfully submit this was error by the trial court, first, because
WBCs advocacy has not been generically against homosexuality; rather it has
included sustained daily advocacy specifically against same sex marriage, in
Kansas and in the nation.
WBC so alleged, in great detail in its motion to
intervene; and the motion stands uncontested.
Further, WBCs Same Sex
Marriage Dooms Nation picket signs; and similar related picket signs, e.g.,
Christians Caused Fag Marriage, Soldiers Die 4 Fag Marriage, Fags Cant
Wed, etc., together with other publications beyond picketing of similar messages
including through social media, twice weekly video news releases, parodies, and
otherwise; are so ubiquitous and well known that this Court can take judicial notice
of the same. There is likely no church more notorious and high profile in the state
of Kansas or the nation for its opposition to same sex marriage.
11
Document: 01019361813
Page: 17
Second, the law does not support imposing some specific formal, official,
political or other such form of advocacy, related solely to some specific piece of
legislation or constitutional amendment, for an entity to have a legal interest.
While it is the case that in some cases an intervenor has been involved in some
manner such as through campaigning for the passage of a law, appearing in an
administrative proceeding, or even litigating over issues such as environmental
issues; the language of the cases of this Court does not support the conclusion that
such a formal method of advocacy is required for a legal interest to be found.
In Utah Association of Counties v. Clinton, 255 F.3d 1246 10 th Cir. 2001),
the trial court denied intervention by various would-be intervenors in an action by
the Utah Association of Counties to enjoin and have declared illegal the
Presidential Proclamation establishing the Grand Staircase Escalante National
Monument. Plaintiffs in that case alleged that the creation of the monument was
an illegal attempt by the Secretary of the Interior to prevent a proposed
underground coal mine. The intervenors sought leave to represent the interests
of public interest organizations and individuals whose goals include protecting the
nations public lands and assuring their continued integrity in perpetuity, 255
F.3d at 1249. The trial court denied intervention, saying the case was not about the
environment; not about property rights or interests in the monument; but was only
about the legality of the presidents action in creating the monument.
12
Thus,
Document: 01019361813
Page: 18
apparently that trial court, like our trial court here, felt the intervenors interests
would clutter the case.
This Court reversed, saying that the interest of the
intervenor is not measured by the particular issue before the court but instead by
whether the interest of the intervenor claims is related to the subject of the action,
see 255 F.3d at 1252.
Under Rule 24(a)(2), the intervenors must claim [] an interest
relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the
action. The property that is the subject of plaintiffs lawsuit is
the monument itself. The intervenors claim they have an interest
in the continued existence of the monument and its reservation
from public entry, both on the basis of their financial stake in the
tourism the monument has created and on the basis of their
desire to further their environmental and conservationist goals by
preserving the undeveloped nature of the lands encompassed by
the monument. They point out that they were vocal and
outspoken champions and advocates for the creation of the
monument, they have regularly commented on and participated
in the governments monument land management plan, and they
regularly visit the monument for aesthetic, scientific and
recreational purposes.
255 F.3d at 1252; emphasis added.
Further, in Coalition, 100 F.3d 837, the trial court denied intervention to an
applicant in an action against the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and various government officials challenging a decision to protect
the Mexican Spotted Owl under the Endangered Species Act, alleging that the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service had failed to follow proper procedures and lacked data
sufficient to list the Owl as threatened. Dr. Robin Silver sought intervention
13
Document: 01019361813
Page: 19
because he had photographed and studied the Owl in the wild; and he was
instrumental in the Fish and Wildlife Services decision to protect the Owl under
the Act. The order denying intervention was reversed by this Court, saying that the
interest test is primarily a practical guide to disposing of lawsuits by involving as
many apparently concerned persons as is compatible with efficiency and due
process. The Court noted that Dr. Silver has been directly involved with the Owl
as a wildlife photographer, an amateur biologist, and a naturalist who has
photographed and studied the Owl in its natural environment, id. at 841. In sum,
we hold that Dr. Silvers involvement with the Owl in the wild and his persistent
record of advocacy for its protection amounts to a direct and substantial interest in
the listing of the Owl for the purpose of intervention as of right, even though Dr.
Silver has little economic interest in the Owl itself, ibid.
Certainly if environmentalists have legal interests sufficient for intervention
in cases that may impact the environment, flowing from advocacy for protecting
the environment (with or without a significant economic interest), a church of
Bible-believers has a legal interest sufficient for intervention in a case that
addresses the single most important moral issue of this generation, flowing from
25+ years of advocating for this nation, and in particular the state of Kansas where
the case arises, to follow Gods view on the moral issue for the health, welfare and
wellbeing of the citizens. Further, the same church has an interest in protecting its
14
Document: 01019361813
Page: 20
right to continue following the Bible on this matter without any risk of interference
with its ability to do so.
Certainly this Court is not of the view that an
environmentalist is worthy of greater protection of its save-the-environment

interest than a religious objector is of its save-the-soul-of-the-nation interest.
WBC would refer the Court to Planned Parenthood v. Citizens for
Community Action, 558 F.2d 861 (8th Cir. 1977), referenced and relied on by this
Court in Coalition, 100 F.3d at 842. There, Planned Parenthood challenged an
ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota that placed a moratorium on building new
abortion clinics after the public protested against an expanded facility by Planned
Parenthood. A neighborhood association and two couples who owned property in
the vicinity of the proposed facility, moved to intervene, asserting an interest in
property values and to insure that abortion facilities did not affect the health,
welfare and safety of the citizens. The trial court denied intervention, of right and
permissive.
The Eighth Circuit reversed, without any requirement that the
applicants demonstrate they were directly or specifically involved in the passage of

the ordinance being defended.
Thus, WBC submits it has satisfied the requirement of demonstrating a legal
interest in the subject matter of this litigation, first and foremost in protecting its
right not to participate in same sex marriage; and also in protecting its interest in
upholding a prohibition against same sex marriage in Kansas for which WBC has
15
Document: 01019361813
Page: 21
so vigorously, faithfully and zealously advocated in every lawful way in Kansas

for 25+ years.
WBCs Legal Interests Will be Impaired in the Absence of Intervention
Now to the question of whether this legal interest will be impaired without
intervention.
The second element, the impairment element, places a minimal
burden on the environmental groups to show that impairment of
their interests is possible if leave to intervene is not granted. See
id. [WildEarth Guardians, 604 F.3d 1192] at 1199 [10th Cir.
2010]. As is the case here, intervention may be based on an
interest that is contingent upon the outcome of the litigation,
San Juan Cnty., 503 F.3d [1163] at 1203 [(10th Cir. 2007) (en
banc)] (internal quotation marks omitted); see also WildEarth
Guardians, 604 F.3d [1192] at 1199 [(10th Cir. 2010)] ***.
The New Mexico Off-Highway Vehicle Alliance v. U.S. Forest Serv., 540
Fed.Appx. 877, 2013 U.S.App. LEXIS 22678 at 6 (10th Cir. 2013) (unpublished);
emphasis added.
WBCs legal interest to have the courts recognize and protect its right not to
participate in same sex marriage is at risk in this case, and if WBC is not allowed
to intervene and protect this legal interest, it will be impaired. (The risk increases
as the number of new claims/rights asserted by the plaintiff increase, as will be
addressed further in WBCs related appeal, Appeal No. 14-3276, from an order
denying a second motion to intervene, after plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint expanding the parties and claims one might say significantly
16
Document: 01019361813
Page: 22
cluttering the record with many more issues.) WBC is particularly vulnerable in
the protection of its right not to be required to participate in same sex marriage
ceremonies is because of its notorious and controversial often-dissenting alwaysdescribed-as-extreme and almost-always-vilified advocacy against same sex
marriage.
In Kitchen, 755 F.3d at 1229, this Court said:
Lastly, appellants express concern that a ruling in plaintiffs
favor will unnecessarily brand those who oppose same-sex
marriage as intolerant. We in no way endorse such a view and
actively discourage any such reading of todays opinion.
Although a majoritys traditional[] view [of] a particular
practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law
prohibiting the practice, [citation omitted], for many
individuals, religious precepts concerning intimate choices
constitute profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical
and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus
determine the course of their lives, id. at 571. Courts do not sit
in judgment of the hearts and minds of the citizenry. Our
conclusion that plaintiffs possess a fundamental right to marry
and to have their marriages recognized in no way impugns the
integrity of the good-faith beliefs of those who supported
Amendment 3.
While expressly reserving our disagreement with the Courts conclusion that
viewing same sex relationships as immoral on Bible grounds in a Christian nation
is an inadequate basis for prohibiting the same, WBC would urge the Court to
consider that this view is not the view or position of same sex marriage advocates.
To the contrary, it is utterly commonplace for these advocates (in all walks,
including among homosexual activists, in churches, in the media, in the
17
Document: 01019361813
Page: 23
entertainment industry, in the schools, etc.) to launch blistering attacks against, and
take all manner of steps to try to silence, any voice that opposes same sex
marriage.3
Particularly an uncompromising, unapologetic, effective, sustained
voice like WBCs. Every measure will be used to portray WBC as intolerant over
her refusal to participate in same sex marriage; and it is absolutely predictable that
WBC will be the first church targeted to try to strip away the right of religious
institutions not to participate.
If WBC is not allowed to intervene and protect its right to refuse to
participate in same sex marriages and related activities, that legal interest will be
impaired.
If WBC is not allowed to intervene and vigorously defend the
constitutionality of Kansas bans on same sex marriages, its interest in upholding

those bans will be impaired.
Aside from 25+ years of its members being on the streets and in the public
airwaves, hearing every form of criticism and being called every form and
type of intolerant bigot that the human heart can imagine, WBC would refer
the Court to just one brief example, in a quote in the Topeka, Kansas
newspaper of a Topeka lawyer who is vocal against WBCs position and for
same sex marriage and other pro-homosexual issues, made in the wake of the
preliminary injunction being granted by the trial court in this case, and when
in the aftermath new claims/complaints were made when those same sex
couples who were married (in and out of Kansas) were unable to promptly
get a changed drivers licenses, etc., wherein he stated: It is my hope that in
the very near future, the stain on our Kansas Constitution that was the
product of bigotry wrapped in prayer will soon be removed. Online:
http://bit.ly/1BfgR2P (last visited December 29, 2014).
3
18
Document: 01019361813
Page: 24
WBCs Legal Interests Are Not Adequately Represented by Existing Parties

The basis upon which the trial court denied intervention was a finding that
WBCs legal interests are adequately represented by the Kansas Attorney General
(whose office is defending the original defendants, the Secretary of the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment, whose Vital Statistics division administers
marriage licenses, along with two local county clerks). (It is WBCs position that
the trial court thereby conceded that WBC has legal interests in the case that might
be impaired, by not making any findings to the contrary on WBCs uncontested
motion.) While WBC has the burden to show that representation by an existing
party is inadequate, that burden is minimal, Coalition, 100 F.3d at 844, quoting
National Farm Lines v. Interstate Commerce Commn, 564 F.2d 381, 383 (10 th
Cir. 1977). Further, an intervenor need only show the possibility of inadequate
representation, WildEarth Guardians, 573 F.3d at 996, quoting Utah Assn of
Counties, 255 F.3d at 1254; emphasis added by the Court in WildEarth.
WBC maintains that the Kansas Attorney General is not able to adequately
represent its interests, because of political pressure; because that office is not in
fact defending the constitutionality of the existing statutes or constitution by
asserting government interests supporting those provisions; and because it is not
the role of the government to assert religious interests. It takes little imagination to
understand and believe that the last thing on this earth the Kansas Attorney General
19
Document: 01019361813
Page: 25
intends to do is defend WBCs religious position; and in fact he has painstakingly

avoided promising to do so. A cursory review of the pleadings filed by the Kansas
Attorney General with the trial court show that they focus on issues such as
abstention, standing, immunity and whether the right parties have been sued.
There is no discussion of the governments compelling interests in laws banning
same sex marriage. (WBC recognizes that this Court has ruled that bans on same
sex marriage are unconstitutional. But WBC also submits that for the sake of the
citizens of Kansas the Kansas Attorney General should be arguing for a change in
the law; should be arguing to have the issues resolved by the United States
Supreme Court, and preserving the record regarding all government interests with
robust evidentiary submissions and legal arguments; and should be vigorously
mounting a defense in favor of the ban, particularly given that is was voted for by
the citizens of Kansas.4) And, more important, the Kansas Attorney General has
WBC as an intervenor insuring a vigorous defense is mounted as to the

constitutionality of the Kansas ban on same sex marriage would be good for
everyone, including the citizens, and including by ensuring that there is an actual
case or controversy in this matter, above and beyond protecting WBCs legal
interest in upholding the ban. We refer the Court to the language of the United
States Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor, ---- U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2675,
2687-2688 186 L.Ed.2d 808 (2013) (ruling on the threshold question of whether
there was an actual case and controversy where the President informed Congress
that the United States Department of Justice would not defend the federal Defense
of Marriage Act, which was challenged in Windsor, and where the Bipartisan
Legal Advisory Group [BLAG] was permitted to intervene to defend the law): In
the case now before the Court the attorneys for BLAG present a substantial
argument for the constitutionality of 3 of DOMA. BLAGs sharp adversarial
20
Document: 01019361813
Page: 26
not said one word about the right of religious institutions not to participate. The
Kansas Attorney Generals silence on any intent to defend [WBCs] special
interests is deafening, Utah Association of Counties, 255 F.3d at 1256.
On repeated occasions we have recognized that it is impossible for a
government agency to protect both the publics interests and the would-be
intervenors private interests. Indeed, [w]here a government agency may be
placed in the position of defending both public and private interests, the burden of
showing inadequacy of representation is satisfied, New Mexico Off-Highway,
2013 U.S.App. LEXIS 22678 at 7, quoting from WildEarth Guardians, 604 F.3d at
1200.
We have here the familiar situation in which the government agency is
seeking to protect not only the interest of the public but also the private interest of
the petitioners in intervention, a task which is on its face impossible. The cases
correctly hold that this kind of a conflict satisfies the minimal burden of showing
inadequacy of representation, Coalition, 100 F.3d at 845, quoting from National
Farm Lines, 564 F.2d at 384.
presentation of the issues satisfies the prudential concerns that otherwise might
counsel against hearing an appeal from a decision with which the principal parties
agree. As same sex marriage litigation sweeps this land, it is advisable for courts
to permit interested religious organizations to intervene, to ensure there is an actual
defense of the existing bans, given the political pressure on every elected official to
yield the floor to same sex marriage.
21
Document: 01019361813
Page: 27
We have held that the intervenors showing is easily made

when the party upon which the intervenor must rely is the
government, whose obligation is to represent not only the interest
of the intervenor but the public interest generally, and who may
not view that interest as coextensive with the intervenors
particular interest, Utah Assn of Counties, 255 F.3d at 1254.
As we have explained,
The governments representation of the public interest
generally cannot be assumed to be identical to the
individual parochial interest of a particular member of
the public merely because both entities occupy the same
posture in the litigation. In litigating on behalf of the
general public, the government is obligated to consider a
broad spectrum of views, many of which may conflict
with the particular interest of the would-be intervenor.
Id. at 1255-56; see also Utahns for Better Transp., 295 F.3d at
1117; Coalition, 100 F.3d at 845.
Moreover, we have
recognized that government policy may shift. See Utah Assn of
Counties, 255 F.3d at 1256. *** We are convinced that MCC has
established a possibility of inadequate representation.
WildEarth Guardians, 573 F.3d at 996-997.
This Court has established a rule of law which was ignored by the trial court,
that the government cannot, as a matter of law, adequately represent the interests of
a private intervenor. That rule of law has particular applicability here, where WBC
is seeking to protect its right to religiously object to same sex marriage; and its
right to advocate for the upholding of the ban on same sex marriage on religious
grounds. The government is required to remain neutral on matters of religion. So
even if he did not feel his hands were tied by political restraints; or that his hands
were tied by this Courts holding in Kitchen and Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070
22
Document: 01019361813
Page: 28
(10th Cir. 2014), cert. den., Smith v. Bishop, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 6054 (U.S. Oct. 6,
2014); the reality of this situation is that the Kansas Attorney General even if he
wanted to (and didnt viscerally disagree with WBCs religious doctrines and
public preachments) is not permitted to assert these religious interests. It is
impossible for the Kansas Attorney General to adequately represent WBCs
interests here, and finding that he is able to adequately represent WBCs interests,
violated the rule of law established by this Court.
Issue 2: The trial court abused its discretion in denying WBC
permissive intervention.
Standard of Review: Permissive intervention lies within the discretion of the
trial court, so the standard of review is abuse of discretion, see San Juan County v.
U.S. Dept of Interior, 503 F.3d 1163. 1207 (10th Cir. 2007); City of Stilwell v.
Ozarks Rural Elec. Coop, 79 F.3d 1038, 1043 (10th Cir. 1996).
Where the Issue was raised in the Record: WBCs motion to intervene, Aplt.
App. at 18-43.
Contentions/Reasons:
WBC recognizes that permissive intervention is
within the discretion of the trial court, and that WBC must show that the decision
was arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or manifestly unreasonable. See Nalder v.
West Park Hosp., 254 F.3d 1168, 1174 (10th Cir. 2001) (defining abuse of
discretion review). In this case, WBC submits that because the trial court rested its
decision on the erroneous conclusion that the Kansas Attorney General could
23
Document: 01019361813
Page: 29
adequately represent WBCs interest, contrary to the rule of law of this Court that
the government cannot as a matter of law adequately represent the interest of a
private intervenor, that abuse of discretion is shown. Further, there is no basis for
suggesting that WBCs involvement will delay these proceedings or prejudice any
party. No party has come forth claiming prejudice; WBC has promptly filed all
necessary documents, well ahead of any relevant deadlines; WBCs counsel are
experienced in federal court litigation; and if WBC has legal interests in the subject
of this case, even if some level of delay was occasioned by reviewing their legal
interests, such is the nature of intervention, and should not serve as the reason for
denying intervention. The issues in this case are growing; they are unique in the
grand scheme of jurisprudence; and they have the potential to run roughshod over
religious beliefs and practices of many Americans. The courts should bend over
backwards to allow the voice of religious objection in the room when undertaking
to require that all of America accept same sex marriage and all its attendant
requests.
Conclusion & Precise Relief Sought

WBC submits that it is entitled to intervene in the case below, both as a
matter of right, and permissively. The relief sought is reversal of the trial courts
order denying intervention, and remand with an order that WBC be allowed to
intervene.
24
Document: 01019361813
Page: 30
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Margie J. Phelps
_________________________________
Margie J. Phelps
P.O. Box 3725
Topeka, KS 66604
785.408.4598 (phone)
785.233.0766 (fax)
margie.phelps@cox.net
Attorney for Movant to Intervene/Appellant
Westboro Baptist Church, Inc.
Attachment
November 7, 2014, Memorandum and Order (denying WBC intervention).
Certificate of Compliance with Rule 28.1(e) or 32(a)

1.
This brief complies with the type-volume limitations of Fed.R.App.P.
28.1(e)(2) or 32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 4,342 words, excluding the
parts of the brief exempted by Fed.R.App.P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii), as counted by the
word-processor used to prepare this brief.
2.
This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed.R.App.P. 32(a)(5)
and the type style requirements of Fed.R.App.P. 32(a)(6) because this brief has
been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2003
using 14-point Times New Roman font.
3.
This brief was prepared using Microsoft Word Office Home and Business
2013.
_____________________________________
Margie J. Phelps
25
Document: 01019361813
Page: 31
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that the foregoing Brief of Appellant was served as follows:
On December 29, 2014, an electronic copy was filed through the Courts
ECF/CM system;
On December 29, 2014, a copy was emailed together with a copy of the
Appendix to all counsel of record.
On December 29, 2014, seven (7) copies, together with two (2) copies of the
Appendix, were mailed to: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, Office of the Clerk, Byron White US Courthouse, 1823 Stout Street,
Denver, Colorado 80257.
_____________________________________
Margie J. Phelps
26
Case 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ Document 35 Filed 11/07/14 Page 1 of 7

Document: 01019361814
Page: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KAIL MARIE et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 14-cv-02518-DDC/TJJ
ROBERT MOSER, M.D. et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) has filed a Motion to Intervene a defendant in this
case (Doc. 19). After considering the arguments contained in its motion, the Court denies
WBCs Motion to Intervene for the reasons set forth below. The Court will permit WBC to file
an amicus brief asserting any arguments it would like the Court to consider.
Analysis
WBC is an independent church located in Topeka, Kansas. For nearly 25 years, WBC
members have engaged in picketing, protesting, and other visible forms of public testimony
against what they consider to be the proud ruinous sins of this generation, including
homosexuality. WBC asserts an interest in preventing the State of Kansas from affording
respect, dignity and social approval to same-sex marriages. It also claims an interest in
preventing the state of Kansas from requiring it to participate in and honor same-sex marriages.
Accordingly, WBC seeks to intervene as a defendant in this lawsuit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)
and (b).

Document: 01019361814
Page: 2
A. Intervention of Right
Rule 24 recognizes two types of intervention: intervention as a matter of right and
permissive intervention. Intervention of right under Rule 24(a) is mandatory when a federal
statute gives the applicant for intervention an unconditional right to intervene, or when the
applicant satisfies each of four conditions: (1) the applicant has timely moved for intervention;
(2) the applicant has a significantly protectable interest relating to the property or transaction that
is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant is situated such that the disposition of the action may
impair or impede the partys ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicants interest is not
represented adequately by existing parties. Alameda Water & Sanitation Dist. v. Browner, 9
F.3d 88, 90 (10th Cir. 1993). Failure to satisfy any one of the requirements is fatal to the
application, and [the Court] need not reach the remaining elements if one of the elements is not
satisfied. Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 950 (9th Cir. 2009).
Because the Court concludes that WBC has not carried its burden to show that the current
defendants will not represent its interest adequately, the Court denies WBC motion to intervene
as a matter of right without reaching the remaining factors.
The Kansas Attorney Generals Office represents both the Clerk defendants and
Secretary Moser. The defendants cannot adequately represent WBC, it argues, because the
Attorney Generals Office is unable and unwilling to advance the religiously based arguments
WBC seeks to put before the Court. WBC claims that none of the defendants briefing includes
any religious arguments, and that the Constitution prohibits the Kansas Attorney Generals
Office from asserting religious-based arguments to support the law. The Court agrees with the
premise of WBCs argument that the existing defendants will not represent WBCs religious

Document: 01019361814
Page: 3
viewpoint. But that conclusion does not also require the Court to conclude WBC interest are not
adequately represented by the existing defendants.
WBC has not identified any differences between the defendants ultimate objective in the
litigation and its own. Nor can the Court identify anyboth seek to uphold Kansas
constitutional and statutory prohibitions against same-sex marriage. A shared ultimate objective
between an existing party and an applicant for intervention triggers a presumption of adequate
representation. Hodes & Nauser, MDs, P.A. v. Moser, No. 2:11-CV-02365-CM-KMH, 2011 WL
4553061, at *3 (D. Kan. Sept. 29, 2011). An applicant may defeat this presumption only by
making a compelling showing to the contrary. Perry, 587 F.3d at 952 (citation omitted).
WBC asserts a number of reasons why the Kansas Attorney Generals Office cannot or will not
adequately represent their interest. The Court has considered each of these arguments, and
concludes that they fail to make the compelling showing required to overcome the presumption
of adequate representation.
First, WBC claims that defendants will not represent its interest because of past
disagreements between WBC and the Kansas Attorney General. WBC cites negative comments
Attorney General Derek Schmidt made about WBC in the press and when he testified before the
state legislature about a proposed funeral picketing law. However, [a]n earlier adverse
relationship with the government does not automatically make for a present adverse
relationship. San Juan Cnty., Utah v. United States, 503 F.3d 1163, 1206 (10th Cir. 2007)
(citing Maine v. Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 262 F.3d 13, 20 (1st Cir. 2001). That
WBC and the Kansas Attorney Generals office have had rifts in the past does not automatically
mean that their interests will differ in this particular litigation.

Document: 01019361814
Page: 4
To determine whether WBCs interests align with the existing defendants interests, the
Court must decipher the precise interests that WBC claims are at risk in this case. WBC asserts
that their own legal interests are at stake in this case for two reasons: (1) it has an interest in
protecting itself from the waves of litigation that have ensued where same sex marriage is
recognized, with homosexual activists trying to force others to participate, from bakers, to florist,
to clergy; and (2) it has a protectable interest in upholding Kansas same-sex marriage ban
because of its public advocacy against homosexuality.
WBCs concern about having to participate in same-sex marriages is too speculative to
support intervention as a matter of right. An applicant for intervention must demonstrate an
interest that will be adversely impacted and that is not wholly remote and speculative. Hodes &
Nauser, 2011 WL 4553061, at *1. At this point, there is no evidence that Kansas officials would
require WBC to participate in same-sex marriages or otherwise require WBC to tolerate samesex marriages in their ministry. Permitting WBC to intervene to litigate a non-existent
controversy only would clutter and confuse the issues needlessly. Should Kansas actually
enforce or credibly threaten to enforce a requirement that WBC conduct and accept same-sex
marriages, WBC is free to file a separate lawsuit seeking to protect its right to religious
expression.
It is a closer call whether WBCs public advocacy against homosexuality creates a
protectable interest in upholding the ban against same-sex marriage. In general, [a] public
interest group is entitled as a matter of right to intervene in an action challenging the legality of a
measure it has supported. Idaho Farm Bureau Fedn v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392, 1397 (9th Cir.
1995) (upholding intervention as of right by conservation group that had participated in the
listing of endangered species in suit alleging violations of the Endangered Species). On one

Document: 01019361814
Page: 5
hand, WBC has engaged in extensive public advocacy against recognition and acceptance of
homosexuality. However, unlike the conservation group in Babbit, WBC does not allege that it
was active in creating, implementing or campaigning for the specific Kansas laws challenged in
this case. WBCs interest in preserving Kansas ban against same-sex marriage is therefore
indistinguishable from any other Kansas voters who supported the laws.
WBC cites New Mexico Off-Highway Vehicle Alliance v. United States Forest Serv.
(NMOHVA), 540 F. Appx 877, 878 (10th Cir. 2013), where the Tenth Circuit vacated an
order denying intervention by two environmental interest groups. The case involved a challenge
to the United State Forest Services final agency action implementing a Travel Management Plan
for the Santa Fe National Forest. Id. at 879. The district court denied two environmental groups
motions to intervene because it concluded that the Forest Service would represent the groups
interests adequately. The Tenth Circuit disagreed and allowed to the groups to intervene. The
court identified three factors that favored intervention: (1) the environmental groups has already
fought aspects of the Forest Services environmental impact statement in an administrative
proceeding; (2) there was uncertainty about what a modified plan would entail if the district
court enjoined the original Travel Management Plan; and (3) the USDA had not given any
indication that it would represent the environmental groups interest. Id. at 881-82.
As discussed above, WBC does not allege that it had any role in shaping or implementing
Kansas same-sex marriage ban, apart from its general advocacy against homosexuality.
Moreover, in NMOHVA, there existed the possibility that the district court would enjoin or
modify the Travel Management Plan only in part. Id. at 881-82. Here, there is not a continuum
of possible outcomes along which WBCs interest and the existing defendants interest may
diverge. Rather there are only two possible outcomes: either the Court permits Kansas to

Document: 01019361814
Page: 6
continue enforcing its same-sex marriage ban, or the Court enjoins Kansas from enforcing the
ban. WBC and the existing defendants both seek the former result.
Finally, counsel from the Kansas Attorney Generals Office have vigorously defended the
challenged laws at the motion hearing, and have represented that they will continue to do so.
After this Court granted a plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, defendants promptly
requested en banc review of the Order before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Doc. 30.
Significantly, the Kansas Attorney general is obligated by statute to defend Kansas laws when
they are challenged as unconstitutional. K.S.A. 75-702. Thus, in contrast to the situation
NMOHVA, there is no reason to believe that the interest of the existing defendants and the
interest of WBC in upholding the Kansas same-sex marriage ban will diverge.
In sum, the differences in interests that WBC identifies only amount to differences in
arguments that WBC would like to assert. This is an insufficient basis to conclude WBCs
interests are not adequately represented by the existing defendants. An applicant for intervention
by a party who wishes only to assert different arguments than the government can do so just as
effectively by participating as an amicus curiae. San Juan Cnty., 503 F.3d at 1206 (citing Maine
v. Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 262 F.3d 13, 18-20 (1st Cir. 2001) (affirming denial of
intervention where prospective intervenors would present an argument that the government was
highly unlikely to make because they could present the arguments in capacity of amicus curiae).
The Court, therefore, denies WBCs motion for intervention of right.
B. Permissive Intervention
WBC also seeks permissive intervention. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b), the Court, in its
discretion, may permit an applicant to intervene if the applicant is given a conditional right to
intervene by federal statute or has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a

Document: 01019361814
Page: 7
common question of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(A)-(B); Arney v. Finney, 967 F.2d
418, 421 (10th Cir. 1992) (Permissive intervention is a matter within the sound discretion of the
district court. (quotations omitted)).
The Court, in its discretion, declines to grant permissive intervention here because
allowing WBC to intervene with full-party status would clutter the litigation without providing
any compensating benefit to the Court or the parties. WBC can make their arguments to the
Court just as effectively by filing an amicus brief. This method will permit WBC to place its
arguments before the Court while avoiding any procedural complications that might result if the
Court granted it full-party status.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT that WBCs Motion to
Intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) and (b) is denied (Doc. 19). The Court also denies WBCs
request for oral argument on their Motion to Intervene because it finds that WBC skillfully and
comprehensively presented its argument in its motion papers. If WBC wishes to file an amicus
brief with the Court on any future motions, it must do so by filing them on defendants due date,
as it applies to that motion. The amicus brief shall conform to D. Kan. Rule 7.6.
The Court advises WBC that it already has reviewed the merits-based arguments asserted
in their Motion to Intervene and the attached Answer. (Docs. 19, 19-1). Their future amicus
filings, should WBC decide to file them, need not repeat those arguments.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7th day of November, 2014, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge

14-3251 - WBC 10th Circuit Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

14-3251 - WBC 10th Circuit Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

KAIL MARIE, et al.,

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

SUMMARY OF THE CASE

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ................................................................................... 1

CONCLUSION & PRECISE RELIEF SOUGHT ............................................................ 24

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 28.1(E) OR 32(A) .............................. 25

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

TABLE OF CASES & AUTHORITIES

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

Because [a]n order denying

intervention is final and subject to immediate review if it prevents the

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

Statement of the Issues

The trial court erred in denying WBC intervention as a matter of right.

The trial court abused its discretion in denying WBC permissive

Statement of the Case & Facts

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

Online at http://1.usa.gov/1tcbe0N (last visited

December 28, 2014).

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

same sex marriage ceremonies or any activity related thereto. It is as to these

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

In addition, WBC has a unique interest in upholding the constitution and

WBC so alleged, in great detail in its motion to

intervene; and the motion stands uncontested.

Further, WBCs Same Sex

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

This Court reversed, saying that the interest of the

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

Appellate Case: 14-3251

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

Certainly this Court is not of the view that an

environmentalist is worthy of greater protection of its save-the-environment

The Eighth Circuit reversed, without any requirement that the