All who want to continue to be informed should see AAC's related web page at: 
    http://pages.prodigy.com/adoptreform/tncomp.htm for more detailed 
information on Tennessee's New Access To Records Laws being challenged in 
Court.
============= BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE ============
> Date: 27 Sep 96 
> From: "Jane C. Nast" 
> To:  Jim Kelly ,
> Subject: New Tennessee Adoption Act Halted Again
>          *** Please read and distribute freely *** 
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed September 26, 

PROMISE DOE; JANE ROE; KIMBERLY C. DOE; RUSS C. DOE; SMALL WORLD 
MINISTRIES,INC. Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
v.
DON SUNDQUIST, Governor of the State of Tennessee, in his official 
capacity;CHARLES W. BUSON,  AttorneyGgeneral of the State of Tennessee, in 
his official capacity; LINDA RUDOLPH, in her official capacity as the 
Commissioner of the Department of Human Services for the State of Tennessee,  
Defendants-Appellees
Before: MARTIN, CONTIE, and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges.
     In this action challenging the constitutionality of T.C.A. 36-1-127(c), 
a statute providing for limited disclosure of adoption records, the 
plaintiffs appeal the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction 
seeking to enjoin the defendants from enforcing that statute.  The Plaintiffs 
now move to stay the enforcement of T.C.A.   36-1-127(c) pending this appeal. 
The defendants oppose the motion.  Parties permitted to participate as amici 
curiae in the district court move for leave to flie a response to the stay 
motion.  The court hereby grants the motion and considers the amici curiae's 
response in opposition.
     The district court denied a similar motion for a stay pending appeal on 
September 4, 1996.  On September 11, 1996, this court granted a temporary 
stay to permit the consideration of the stay motion by a three-judge panel of 
the court.
     The factors to be considered by the court in determining whether a stay 
or injunction pending appeal should issue are: 1) whether the applicant has 
demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merit  2) whether the applicant 
will be irreparably injured absent a stay;  3) whether issuance of the stay 
will substantially injure the other interested parties;  and 4) where the 
public interest lies.   See Michigan Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, 
Inc. v Griepentrog, 945, F 2d 150, 153 (6th Cir. 1991). these factors are to 
be balanced and are not prerequisites to be met.  See In re DeLorean Motor 
Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 1228-29 (6th Cir. 1985).
     Upon review of the materials presented, we conclude that the motion for 
a stay pending appeal should be granted.  The plaintiffs have raised 
questions with respect to the merits of the district court's ruling and have 
demonstrated irreparable harm.  Although the defendants and the amici curiae 
argue that a stay may harm many individials by depriving them of access to 
medical information contained in adoption records, state law provides for 
court-ordered release of information from adoption and sealed records upon a 
showing of medical need.  See T.C.A. 36-1-138.  In order to minimize any harm 
or inconvenience cause by the stay, the court will consider the appeal on an 
expedited basis.
     It therefore is ORDERED that the plaintiffs' motion for a stay is 
granted,and the enforcement of T.C.A. 36-1-127(c) is stayed pending appeal.  
The motion of the amici curiae for leave to file a response to the stay 
motion is granted. The clerk is directed to expedite the appeal for briefing 
and submission to the court.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT (signed) Leonard Green, Clerk
NOTE: the following briefing schedule is:
Appellants' proof brief - October 18
Appellees' proof brief - November 1
Reply proof brief - November 8
Joint appendix and final briefs - November 15
=========END FORWARDED MESSAGE=========
--- Maximus/2 3.01
1:153/920)
---------------