CALLIE V. S. GRANADE, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Enforcement of Injunction (Doc. 60), the Attorney General's Response in Opposition (Doc. 62), and Plaintiffs' Reply (Doc. 64). This Court previously enjoined the Attorney General and others in active concert and participation with him from enforcing the Alabama laws prohibiting same-sex marriage after ruling those laws are unconstitutional. (Doc. 29, p. 4).
The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs' position. After this Court issued orders declaring unconstitutional the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, Ala. Const. art. I, § 36.03, and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act, Ala. Code § 30-1-19, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court issued administrative orders directing Alabama probate judges to uphold those same laws. Then this Court ordered Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis to issue licenses to same-sex couples. (Doc. 55). Concurrently, two organizations, the Alabama Policy Institute and the Alabama Citizens Action Program, petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing all probate judges in Alabama to uphold the Marriage Amendment and the Marriage Protection Act.
Despite the potential procedural imbroglio, Plaintiffs do not explain in their motion what precisely entitles them to further relief against the Attorney General at this time. Plaintiffs are citizens of Mobile County, and this Court previously ordered the Mobile County Probate Court to issue marriage licenses to them. It is also unclear how any Alabama Supreme Court ruling may or may not harm Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have secured the injunctive relief they seek pursuant to a federal court order.
In addition to procedural concerns, Plaintiffs argue state law gives the Attorney General the authority to control all litigation concerning the interests of the State.
Plaintiffs, however, do not specifically show how the Attorney General is trying to get around this Court's injunction. The Attorney General does not appear to be in concert with the Alabama Policy Institute or the Alabama Citizens Action Program, nor is he advising them. The Attorney General attests he "did not authorize or encourage the Petitioners" to file the petition for writ of mandamus. (Doc. 62, p. 4). Although the Attorney General arguably could seek to control the mandamus action,
Plaintiffs further argue the Attorney General's action in permitting the writ of mandamus petition to proceed is akin to "improperly thwarting the denial of the State's request for a stay of this Court's orders by the Eleventh Circuit and the United States Supreme Court." (Doc. 60, p. 8). Yet again, Plaintiffs present no concrete link between the Attorney General's inaction and the state court action brought by two private entities. The Attorney General correctly observes that in this stage of the proceedings, the "injunctions forbid the Attorney General to take action; they do not compel action." (Doc. 62, p. 4).
Finally, the mandamus action does not create any immediate conflict with the previous orders of this Court. (Doc. 62, p. 3). Because the Alabama Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will even address the merits of the petition, any conflict is purely speculative at this point. Moreover, the Attorney General recognizes "[r]egardless of how the Alabama Supreme Court rules . . ., that ruling should not be an impediment to a person who is denied a marriage license from bringing a lawsuit against the Probate Judge who denied the license." (Doc. 62, p. 3). In other words, non-party probate judges could nevertheless issue same-sex marriage licenses if sued and ordered by a federal court to do so.
In sum, Plaintiffs have not shown that they have suffered harm as a result of the Attorney General's conduct that can be redressed through further relief against him. For these reasons, Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Enforcement of Injunction (Doc. 60) is