IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

F e b r u a r y 13, 2015
1140460 - Ex p a r t e S t a t e o f Alabama ex r e l . Alabama P o l i c y
I n s t i t u t e and Alabama C i t i z e n s A c t i o n Program
(In r e : A l a n L. K i n g , i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y as Judge Of
P r o b a t e f o r J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama, e t a l . )
P e t i t i o n f o r W r i t o f Mandamus
ORDER

The respondents a r e o r d e r e d t o f i l e answers and, i f t h e y

choose

t o do s o , b r i e f s ,

petition, including,

addressing issues raised

by the

b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o , any i s s u e r e l a t i n g t o

standing o r otherwise r e l a t i n g t o t h i s Court's subject-matter

j u r i s d i c t i o n , and any i s s u e r e l a t i n g t o t h e showing n e c e s s a r y
for

temporary

relief

as r e q u e s t e d

i n the p e t i t i o n .

Such

answers and b r i e f s s h a l l be f i l e d by 5:00 p.m. on F e b r u a r y 18,

2015.

Thereafter, the p e t i t i o n e r s

may f i l e t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e

r e p l i e s no l a t e r t h a n 5:00 p.m. on F e b r u a r y 20, 2015.

Stuart,

Bolin,

P a r k e r , Murdock, Wise, and Bryan,

JJ. ,

concur.
Shaw and Main, J J . , d i s s e n t .

I, Julia Jordan Weiler, as Clerk of the Supreme Court

of Alabama, do hereby certify that the foregoing is
a full, true and correct copy of the lnstnjment(s)
herewith set out as same appear(s) of record in said
Court.
Witness my hand thisl2ilcJay tif-7-ebru^^9n
Cleric, sfijprem Court of Alabama

SHAW, J u s t i c e

(dissenting).

Two i n t e r e s t groups have f i l e d an o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n f o r

a w r i t o f mandamus i n t h i s Court a l l e g i n g t h a t c e r t a i n p r o b a t e
c o u r t s a r e , p u r p o r t e d l y i n response
court

decision,

Alabama law.
dissent

from

issuing

marriage

to a federal

licenses

district

i n v i o l a t i o n of

Based on t h e p e t i t i o n b e f o r e us, I r e s p e c t f u l l y
this

Court's

order

calling

f o r answers and

briefs.
I n i t i a l l y , I note t h a t t h i s e n t i r e m a t t e r i s p r o c e d u r a l l y
unusual.

B e f o r e us i s an unprecedented

attempt

to control

s e v e r a l p r o b a t e c o u r t s by means o f a r a r e o r i g i n a l
s e e k i n g a w r i t o f mandamus i s s u e d by t h i s C o u r t .

petition

T h i s Court

i n t h e p a s t has r e f u s e d t o hear t h i s k i n d o f p e t i t i o n .
e.g.,

Ex p a r t e Morgan. 259 A l a . 649, 67 So. 2d 889 (1953).

Additionally,
that

See,

i t does

I note t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n
not set f o r t h

evidence

i s n o t v e r i f i e d and
or other

n e c e s s a r y f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f any f a c t u a l i s s u e s .
2 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( E ) , A l a . R. App. P.

materials
See R u l e

F u r t h e r , i t i s n o t c l e a r t o me

whether t h e p e t i t i o n e r s have t h e n e c e s s a r y s t a n d i n g t o seek

the r e l i e f t h e y r e q u e s t .
In o r d e r t o g r a n t r e l i e f t o t h e p e t i t i o n e r s , t h i s Court
w i l l have t o c o n c l u d e t h a t a p r o b a t e c o u r t i s f o r b i d d e n from
f o l l o w i n g an Alabama f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on t h e

constitutionality

of

the

ministerial

acts

a probate

court

performs, w h i c h r u l i n g b o t h a f e d e r a l a p p e l l a t e c o u r t and
Supreme

Court

of

pending a p p e a l .

the

United

States

have

refused

to

the
stay

I n my view, the p e t i t i o n does not p r o v i d e an

adequate f o u n d a t i o n f o r r e a c h i n g such a c o n c l u s i o n .
A l t h o u g h I have concerns r e g a r d i n g the p r o c e d u r a l a s p e c t s
of the p e t i t i o n b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , I express no o p i n i o n as t o
the c o r r e c t n e s s o f the f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s r u l i n g .
petition

will

Alabama's

not

laws

decide

the

prohibiting

same-sex

United States C o n s t i t u t i o n .
conclusively
States.
would

decided

by

dispositive

issue--whether

marriage

violate

restraint

the

and

the

That i s s u e w i l l i n s t e a d soon be
Supreme

Court

of

W i t h the i s s u e i n i t s p r e s e n t j u r i d i c a l
urge

This

would

urge

this

the

United

posture,

Court

not

I
to

i n t e r j e c t more c o n f u s i o n i n t o what i s a l r e a d y a v e r y c o n f u s i n g
situation,
probate

which confusion could r e s u l t

judges i n f e d e r a l

litigation.

i n e m b r o i l i n g more

MAIN, J u s t i c e ( d i s s e n t i n g ) .
The

filing

petition

directly

without

with

has,

C o u r t of

evidentiary materials

mandamus i s h i g h l y u n u s u a l .
Court

this

with

rare

an u n v e r i f i e d

seeking

writ

A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n the p a s t ,

exception,

rejected

petitions

of
this

filed

d i r e c t l y w i t h t h i s Court f o r f a i l u r e t o f i r s t seek r e l i e f i n
the c i r c u i t c o u r t .
67 So. 2d 889
180

Ex p a r t e Morgan, 259 A l a .

parte

Barger.

243

Ala.

627,

My concerns are w i t h the p r o c e d u r a l

petition,
issues

e.g.,

(1953); Ex p a r t e P r i c e , 252 A l a . 517,

(1949) ; Ex

(1942).

See,

and

raised.

I e x p r e s s no
I

find

the

opinion

as

petition

11

649,

41 So.

So.

aspects

2d
of

2d
359

this

to

the d i s p o s i t i v e

to

be

improper; t h e r e f o r e , I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t .

procedurally