Natasha Jackson v. Neil Abercrombie

MEMORANDUM

After the district court issued its decision in this case, and while these appeals were pending, Hawaii enacted the Marriage Equality Act of 2013 (“MEA”), Act 1 (S.B.l), Laws 2013, 2d Sp. Sess.; Haw. Rev.Stat. § 572-1 (2013), allowing same-sex couples to get married in the state. Plaintiffs have subsequently married their same-sex partners in Hawaii. Because MEA gave Plaintiffs “‘everything [they] hoped to achieve’ by [their] lawsuit,” this case is now moot. Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 658 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam) (quoting Chem. Prod. & Distribs. v. Helliker, 463 F.3d 871 , 876 (9th Cir.2006)). “[A] case is moot when the challenged statute is repealed, expires or is amended to remove the challenged language.” Id. “Where intervening legislation has settled a controversy involving only injunctive or declaratory relief, the controversy has become moot.” Helliker, 463 F.3d at 875 (quoting Bunker Ltd. P’ship v. United States, 820 F.2d 308, 311 (9th Cir.1987)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Contrary to Intervenor Hawaii Family Forum (“HFF’O’s claim, the mere fact that someone has challenged MEA in independent litigation does not defeat…