Bishop v. US

Bishop v. US is a 2004-2013 federal court case originally requesting that Oklahoma's marriage ban (Art. 2, § 35 of the state constitution) and DOMA sections 2 and 3 be struck down.

The case was filed on November 3, 2004, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa. It was assigned to Judge Terence Kern under the case number 4:04-cv-00848.

Plaintiffs Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin wished to get a marriage license in Oklahoma. Plaintiffs Susan Barton and Gay Phillips had entered into a civil union in Vermont and wished to have their civil union recognized in Oklahoma.

As originally filed, the case named the State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Governor, the Oklahoma Attorney General, the United States of America, the American President, and the U.S. Attorney General as defendants. The state moved to have all state defendants removed from the case, and the trial court declined. After an appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, from September 21, 2006 through June 5, 2009, under case number 06-5188, the 10th Circuit determined that the trial court had failed to properly dismiss the state defendants and ordered that court to do so. Upon return of the case to the trial court, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, removing the Oklahoma Governor and Attorney General, replacing them with a county clerk as a defendant. (The amended complaint also removed the President from the case, leaving the U.S. Attorney General.) They did, however, leave the State of Oklahoma as a defendant in the amended complaint, so the trial court removed the state as a defendant.

Timeline:
 * 2004-11-03: #1: Complaint
 * 2004-12-08: #4: Motion to intervene by Thad Balkman & Oklahomans for Protection of Marriage Inc.
 * 2005-02-07: #37: Plaintiffs' response in opposition
 * 2005-02-18: #44: Reply to response by Thad Balkman & Oklahomans for Protection of Marriage Inc.
 * 2005-11-11: #71: Supplement from plaintiffs (multi-listed)
 * 2006-08-16: #90: Order denying motion to intervene (multi-listed)
 * 2004-12-15: #7: Motion to dismiss by Oklahoma defendants
 * 2005-02-10: #41: Plaintiffs' response in opposition
 * 2005-11-11: #71: Supplement from plaintiffs (multi-listed)
 * 2005-12-12: #77: Unopposed motion for leave to file response to supplement from Oklahoma defendants
 * 2005-12-14: #78: Supplement from Oklahoma defendants
 * 2005-12-14: #79: Plaintiffs' response in opposition to motion to file response
 * 2005-12-15: #80: Reply to response to motion to file response from Oklahoma defendants
 * 2006-01-04: #84: Response to supplement from Oklahoma defendants
 * 2006-08-16: #90: Order partially granting/denying motion to dismiss (multi-listed)
 * 2006-09-15: #95: Notice of appeal to Circuit Court by Oklahoma defendants
 * (See Tenth Circuit timeline, below)
 * 2005-01-07: #15: Motion to dismiss by US defendants
 * 2005-01-18: #21: Brief in support of motion
 * 2005-01-18: #22: Exhibits in support of motion
 * 2005-02-02: #33: Motion to strike document #22
 * 2005-02-14: #43: Response in opposition to motion to strike
 * 2006-08-16: #90: Order denying motion to strike document #22 (multi-listed)
 * 2005-02-04: #35: Plaintiffs' response in opposition
 * 2005-02-22: #47: Reply to response
 * 2005-11-11: #71: Supplement from plaintiffs (multi-listed)
 * 2006-01-04: #85: Response to supplement from US defendants
 * 2006-08-16: #90: Order partially granting/denying motion to dismiss (multi-listed)
 * 2005-06-17: #59: Notice of recent decision
 * 2006-08-02: #91: Answer from US defendants
 * 2006-08-03: #92: Answer from Oklahoma defendants
 * 2007-09-15: #97: Motion to stay proceedings pending appeal by Oklahoma defendants
 * 2007-10-02: #106: Response from US defendants
 * 2007-10-02: #107: Response in support of motion from plaintiffs
 * 2007-10-31: #109: Order granting stay
 * 2009-06-05: #114: Decision from the Circuit Court received
 * 2009-10-22: #140: Order lifting stay
 * 2009-08-10: #122: First amended complaint
 * 2009-08-19: #128: Motion to dismiss Governor Brad Henry and Attorney General W.A. drew Edmondson by State of Oklahoma
 * 2009-09-08: #131: Response in opposition from (???)
 * 2009-10-26: #142: Response in opposition from clerk defendant
 * 2009-10-30: #143: Reply from State of Oklahoma
 * 2009-11-24: #148: Order granting motion to dismiss State of Oklahoma
 * 2009-08-31: #130: Motion to dismiss by clerk defendant (withdrawn by #196)
 * 2009-09-18: #132: Response in opposition
 * 2009-10-13: #137: Motion to dismiss by US (withdrawn by #197)
 * 2009-10-13: #138: Brief in support
 * 2009-11-02: #144: Response in opposition from plaintiffs
 * 2011-01-21: #170: Notice of supplemental authorities
 * 2009-11-16: #147: Reply to response by US
 * 2011-02-25: #171: Notice by US
 * 2010-08-02: #167: Order directing supplemental briefing
 * 2010-08-11: #168: Response to order by plaintiffs
 * 2010-08-18: #169: Reply to response by US
 * 2010-03-15: #149, 151, 153, and 155: Motions for attorneys James A Campbell, Brian W Raum, Austin R Nimocks, and Dale M Schowengerdt to be admitted pro hac vice representing clerk defendant
 * 2010-03-28: #157: Response in opposition to motions
 * 2010-03-28: #158: Reply to response
 * 2010-04-01: #159-162: Orders granting motions
 * 2011-02-28: #172: Motion to convert response brief (#168) to motion for partial summary judgment
 * 2011-03-21: #173: Response in opposition by US
 * 2011-03-21: #174: Response in opposition by clerk defendant
 * 2011-03-25: #175: Order denying motion
 * 2011-08-22: #183: Response by US
 * 2011-09-12: #194: Answer by clerk defendant
 * 2011-09-28: #197: Motion for summary judgment and brief in support by plaintiffs
 * 2011-10-19: #213: Partial response in opposition by US
 * 2011-10-19: #216: Response in opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment by clerk defendant (multi-listed)
 * 2012-02-24: #236: Notice of supplemental authority by plaintiffs
 * 2012-03-14: #237: Response to notice by BLAG
 * 2012-06-06: #241: Notice of supplemental authority by plaintiffs
 * 2012-06-11: #242: Response to notice by BLAG
 * 2013-07-29: #262: Supplemental brief in support by plaintiffs
 * 2013-08-23: #266: [[Media:Bishop v. US Response to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (US).pdf|Response by US]]
 * 2013-08-23: #267: [[Media:Bishop v. US Response to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (clerk).pdf|Response by clerk defendant]] (multi-listed)
 * 2011-10-19: #211: Motion to dismiss by US
 * 2011-10-19: #212: Brief in support by US
 * 2011-11-18: #228: Response in opposition by plaintiffs
 * 2011-12-09: #234: Reply to response by BLAG
 * 2011-10-19: #214: Cross-motion for summary judgment by BLAG
 * 2011-10-19: #215: Brief in support by BLAG
 * 2011-11-18: #225: Response in opposition by US
 * 2011-11-18: #226: Response in opposition by plaintiffs
 * 2011-12-09: #233: Reply to response by BLAG
 * 2011-10-19: #216: Cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment by clerk defendant (multi-listed)
 * 2011-11-18: #227: Response in opposition by plaintiffs
 * 2011-12-09: #235: Reply to response by BLAG
 * 2012-03-27: #238: Notice of supplemental authority by clerk defendant
 * 2012-08-27: #246: Notice of supplemental authority by clerk defendant
 * 2013-08-23: #267: [[Media:Bishop v. US Response to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (clerk).pdf|Response by clerk defendant]] (multi-listed)
 * 2011-07-21: #178: Motion to intervene by BLAG
 * 2011-07-22: #179: Response in support by plaintiffs
 * 2011-08-05: #181: Order granting motion
 * 2013-01-04: #252: Notice of recent developments by BLAG
 * 2013-07-16: #253: Motion for leave to file supplemental briefs by plaintiffs
 * 2013-07-17: #255: Response in support by clerk defendant
 * 2013-07-26: #258: Response in support by US
 * 2013-07-29: #261: Order granting motion
 * 2013-07-26: #257: Motion for final judgment on DOMA §3 claims and brief in support by plaintiffs
 * 2013-08-16: #264: [[Media:Bishop v. US Response to motion for final judgment.pdf|Response in opposition by US]]
 * 2013-08-23: #265: [[Media:Bishop v. US Reply in support of final judgment.pdf|Reply to response by plaintiffs]]
 * 2013-08-02: #263: Unopposed motion to withdraw as intervenor by BLAG

Timeline in the Tenth Circuit, 06-5188:
 * 2006-09-15: Notice of appeal filed
 * 2006-11-06: [[Media:Bishop v. US Appeal - Appellants opening brief.pdf|Appellants' opening brief filed]]
 * 2006-12-11: Appellees' response brief original due date
 * 2006-12-29: Appellees' response brief extended due date (per request)
 * 2007-01-19: Appellees' response brief extended due date (Clerk ordered)
 * 2007-01-20: [[Media:Bishop v. US Appeal - Appellees response brief.pdf|Appellees' response brief filed]]
 * 2007-01-23: Response brief declared deficient: No statement in brief stating why oral argument is requested.
 * 2007-02-02: Appellees' corrected response brief original due date
 * 2007-02-20: Appellees' corrected response brief extended due date
 * 2007-12-18: [[Media:Bishop v. US Appeal - Submitted.pdf|Case submitted on the briefs]]
 * 2009-06-05: [[Media:Bishop v. US Appeal - Order and judgment.pdf|Reversed and remanded]]
 * 2009-07-28: Mandate issued
 * 2010-05-17: Case file closed

Other timeline events:
 * 2001-08-04: Plaintiffs Barton and Phillips enter into a Vermont civil union
 * 2004-10-02: State Question 711 passes at the ballot box