g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 1 Overview: The Six Current DOMA Lawsuits
March 01, 2011 5:54 pm ET by Carlos Maza
In the wake of the Obama administration's decision not to defend the
constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in
federal court, Equality Matters spotlights the six main DOMA lawsuits
currently working their way through the legal system. | g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 2 Massachusetts v. United States Department Of HHS et al
and Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al.
The Cases: Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department Of
Health And Human Services et al.: On July 8, 2009, the Massachusetts
Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a lawsuit challenging the
constitutionality of section three of DOMA, arguing that it "codified an
animus towards gay and lesbian people" as well as undermining each state's
right to recognize marriages between same-sex couples.
A U.S. District Court Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that
section three violates the Tenth Amendment and falls outside of Congress'
authority under the Spending Clause.
Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al.: On March 3, 2009, Gay
& Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts'
federal district court challenging section three of DOMA, arguing that the
federal government should maintain deference to state interpretations of "
marriage."
The same U.S. District Court Judge ruled for the plaintiffs, explaining that
Section 3 of DOMA lacks a rational basis for discriminating against gay and
lesbian couples.
The Circuit: Eventually, the two cases were consolidated. They were both
appealed and sent to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
Latest Action: On February 25, the Department of Justice notified the First
Circuit Court of Appeals that it would "cease to defend" DOMA in both cases.
Congress now has the opportunity to defend section three in either of the
cases. | g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 3 Dragovich v. US Department of the Treasury
The Case: In 2010, The Legal Aid Society filed a lawsuit for several
California public employees who were unable to include their spouses in
their long-term pension and health care benefit plans due to Section 3 of
DOMA.
On January 18, 2011, Ninth Circuit Federal Judge Claudia Wilkin rejected the
federal government's motion to dismiss the case in a response that left
some believing she would eventually find Section 3 of DOMA to be
unconstitutional.
The Circuit: Dragovich was filed in the Ninth Circuit.
Latest Action: The Obama administration did not directly mention Dragovich
in its announcement about DOMA, though it now seems more likely that Judge
Wilkin will find Section 3 to be unconstitutional. | g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 4 Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management
The Case: In 2008, Karen Golinski, an employee of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, requested that her wife be added to her family health insurance
plan. When the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) refused, citing DOMA,
Golinski filed a lawsuit in the Ninth U.S. Circuit. She won her case, but
the OPM refused to abide by the order. Golinski eventually sued again in
order to force the OPM to comply with the decision.
The Circuit: Golinski was filed in the Ninth Circuit.
Latest Action: Despite the Obama administration's decision not to defend
Section 3's constitutionality, it recently insisted that the law itself must
be enforced until it is repealed by Congress or ruled unconstitutional. | g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 5 Pedersen et al v. Office of Personnel Management et al.
The Case:
On November 9, 2010, GLAD filed a lawsuit against Section 3 of DOMA in the U
.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. GLAD again argued that
Section 3 violated the Fifth Amendment and the federal government's history
of deference to the states on marriage issues.
The Circuit: Pedersen et al. was filed in the Second Circuit.
Latest Action: On February 25, the Department of Justice informed the Second
Circuit that it would not be defending Section 3 of DOMA in Pedersen.
Congress still has the opportunity to defend Section 3 in the case. | g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 6 Windsor v. United States
The Case: On November 9, 2010, Edith Windsor filed a lawsuit against the
federal government for refusing to recognize her marriage to her partner of
44 years, Thea Spyer. When Thea passed away in 2009, Edith was forced to pay
more than $350,000 in federal estates taxes that she would not have had to
pay if the government had recognized her marriage to Thea. The lawsuit was
filed in New York's District Court and claimed Section 3 violated the equal
protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution.
The Circuit: Windsor v. United States was filed in the Second Circuit, along
with Pedersen.
Latest Action: On February 25, the Department of Justice informed the Second
Circuit that it would not be defending Section 3 of DOMA in Windsor.
Congress still has the opportunity to defend Section 3 in the case. |
|
