GLAD, ACLU File Lawsuits Challenging DOMA

Suzanne & Geraldine Ardis are married and
raising three boys in Clinton, CT.

Interesting news on the civil rights front. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) arefiling lawsuits today challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on behalf of same-sex married couples from New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and New York.

The New York Times reports in ("Gay Couples To Sue U.S. Over Marriage Law"):

The two new lawsuits, which involve plaintiffs from New York, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire, expand the attack geographically and also encompass more of the 1,138 federal laws and regulations that the Defense of Marriage Act potentially affects — including the insurance costs amounting to several hundred dollars a month in the case of Ms. Pedersen and Ms. Meitzen, and a $350,0000 estate tax payment in the A.C.L.U. case.

The civil liberties union filed suit on behalf of Edith S. Windsor, whose spouse, Thea C. Spyer, died last year of aortic stenosis. The two women, New Yorkers who had been together for 44 years, married in Toronto in 2007. New York officially recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states. Had the two been man and wife, there would have been no federal estate tax to pay.

“It’s just so unfair,” said Ms. Windsor, who is 81.

Taken together, said Mary Bonauto, the director of the Civil Rights Project for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the cases show same-sex couples “are falling through the safety net other people count on.”

Traditionally, Ms. Bonauto noted, the federal government has left the definition of marriage to the states. “The federal government has respected those determinations, except in the instance of gay and lesbian couples marrying,” she said. The result, she said, is a violation of constitutional guarantees of equal protection.

GLAD does not play. Many people expect them to win their other lawsuit challenging DOMA, Gill v. OPM,  which is currently before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals with GLAD winning at the circuit court level. That lawsuit was on behalf of same-sex couples who have been married in Massachusetts for at least 5 years.

DOJ Appeals Rulings Against DOMA To 1st U.S.Circuit

As expected, the Department of Justice announced yesterday that it would appeal two federal district court rulings striking down the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The two cases are Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services where federal judge Joseph L. Tauro declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional this summer.

As Chris Geidner of PoliGlot reports:

In a move expected by most legal observers, the U.S. Department of Justice this afternoon filed notices of appeal in two cases striking down the federal definition of marriage, contained in the Defense of Marriage Act, as unconstitutional.

[...]

The White House issued no comment on the filing and directed questions to DOJ.

The filing of the notice means that the record of the trial court case will be sent to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Once the record is complete, DOJ will have 40 days to file its brief. GLAD or Massachusetts, depending on the case, will then have 30 days to file its brief. The government then has 14 days to file a reply brief.

The full statement by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) is:

Today, the Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal in the case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the challenge brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Representing seven married same-sex couples and three widowers, GLAD filed Gill in March 2009.  The case was heard in May 2010 by U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro, who issued a decision finding DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional on July 8, 2010.

“We fully expected an appeal and are more than ready to meet it head on,” said Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director.  “DOMA brings harm to families like our plaintiffs every day, denying married couples and their children basic protections like health insurance, pensions, and Social Security benefits.  We are confident in the strength of our case.”

The case is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The next step will be for the government to file its brief to that court arguing that Judge Tauro’s ruling was wrong.  GLAD will then file its brief in opposition to the government, and finally the government will file a reply brief.  At that point, the appeal will be scheduled for oral argument.  Briefing could be concluded by the spring of 2011 with oral argument to follow by the fall of 2011.

The government also today filed its notice of appeal in the related case Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Department of Health and Human Services.

Co-counsel in the Gill case are attorneys from the firms Foley Hoag LLP, Sullivan & Worcester LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.

MadProfessah supports the appeal by the Administration and fully expects GLAD to be successful at the 1st Circuit appellate level and U.S. Supreme Court.

READ Gill v. OPM Decision Striking Down DOMA

A big day for supporters of marriage equality today! A federal judge struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in two cases, Gill v. OPM and Massachusetts v. DHHS today. The first case was filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) on behalf of seven same-sex couples who are married in Massachusetts and would like the federal government to recognize that status. The second case was filed by former Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Here's the text of the Gill decision:

2010-07-08 Gill v. OPM Case Striking Down DOMA Sec. 3

Here's the text of the Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services case:

DOMA decision in Mass AG case

DOMA Section 3 Struck Down By Federal Judge

GLAD is tweeting it has won its case in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management:

http://twitter.com/GLADLaw/status/18060773570

Great news! U.S. District Court held that #DOMA "violates ... equal
protection principles." Decision will be posted shortly. Please
retweet!

More later....

Federal Court Hears Challenge To DOMA

Today, federal judge Joseph Tauro is hearing oral arguments in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, a constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which purports to disallow any federal benefits to any marriage which does not consist of one man and woman.

Cue the press release:

Federal Court Hears Arguments in DOMA Challenge

This morning in Boston, six years after the first same-sex couples in the country started marrying in Massachusetts, eight married same-sex couples and three widowers went to Federal District Court to hear arguments in their challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA defines marriage as only between a man and a woman for all purposes under federal law.

Represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the plaintiffs in Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, all married in Massachusetts, have each been harmed by DOMA treating them as unmarried.

“This is a classic equal protection issue. The Constitution applies to gay and lesbian citizens, and married ones, too,” Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director, told the Court. “What governmental purpose does the US have as an employer in treating some of its married employees, retirees and surviving annuitants differently from other married persons, such that Nancy Gill pays for a self and family plan like some of her married colleagues, but the plan doesn’t cover her own spouse?”

Bonauto presented a three-pronged legal argument: By singling out only the marriages of same-sex couples, DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution; DOMA represents an unprecedented intrusion of the federal government into marriage law, which for 230 years has been legislated by states; and by denying federal protections to families, DOMA burdens the marriages of same-sex couples and their right to maintain family integrity.

U.S. District Court Judge, Joseph L. Tauro, vigorously questioned plaintiffs and defendants in a courtroom packed with supporters and media. Judge Tauro heard GLAD’s motion for summary judgment as well as the federal government’s motion to dismiss. The hearing addressed the core issue of whether DOMA Section 3 is constitutional six years after the first same-sex couples in the country started marrying in Massachusetts, the result of GLAD’s groundbreaking marriage case, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

As a result of DOMA, passed by Congress in 1996, plaintiffs in GLAD’s lawsuit have been denied survivor benefits on a deceased spouse’s pension; denied health insurance coverage for a spouse on a federal family plan; denied Social Security spousal, death, and widower benefits; and denied the ability to file federal income taxes jointly as married.

“DOMA means that our country doesn’t treat our family or our marriage as equal to our friends’ and coworkers’ families,” said plaintiff Nancy Gill after the hearing. A U.S. Postal Service employee, Gill, with her spouse Marcelle Letourneau, is raising two children in Brockton. “Under DOMA, we are not married, and my federal employer must deny Marcelle my health benefits. Under DOMA Marcelle won’t receive the federal health benefit given to surviving spouses. She’ll also be denied my pension benefits.”

Gill was filed on March 3, 2009, and has been called the case with the greatest potential for national impact by the National Law Journal. The Gill legal team is led by Bonauto and GLAD Legal Director Gary Buseck, and staff attorneys Nima Eshghi, Janson Wu, and Samuel Bickett. Co-operating counsel on the case include Foley Hoag LLP (Boston), Sullivan & Worcester LLP (Boston), Jenner & Block LLP (Washington, DC) and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC (Washington, DC).

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.

Information about the case, the plaintiffs, and the attorneys representing them can be found at www.glad.org/doma.

This lawsuit has a very good chance of succeeding, even with a court with Scalia on it.