Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2:12-cv-00887 #91

2:12-cv-00887 #91

Ratings: (0)|Views: 23|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #91 - Plaintiffs' supplemental authority re: opposition to DOJ's motion to dismiss
Doc #91 - Plaintiffs' supplemental authority re: opposition to DOJ's motion to dismiss

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Feb 27, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/03/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 
   W   i   l  m  e  r   H  a   l  e
   3   5   0   S  o  u   t   h   G  r  a  n   d   A  v  e  n  u  e ,   S  u   i   t  e   2   1   0   0   L  o  s   A  n  e   l  e  s   C   A    9   0   0   7   1
JOSEPH J. LEVIN, JR.
Pro Hac Vice
) joe.levin@splcenter.orgCHRISTINE P. SUN (SBN 218701)christine.sun@splcenter.orgCAREN E. SHORT (
Pro Hac Vice
)caren.short@splcenter.orgSOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington AvenueMontgomery, AL 36104Telephone: (334) 956-8200Facsimile: (334) 956-8481(
Caption Continued on Next Page
)
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAWESTERN DIVISION
TRACEY COOPER-HARRIS and )MAGGIE COOPER-HARRIS, ))Plaintiffs, ))vs. ))UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; )ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official )capacity as Attorney General; and )ERIC K. SHINSEKI, in his official )capacity as Secretary of Veterans )Affairs, ))Defendants, ))BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY )GROUP OF THE U.S. HOUSE )OF REPRESENTATIVES, ))Intervenor-Defendant. )  No. 2:12-CV-887-CBM-AJWHon. Consuelo B. Marshall
NOTICE OFSUPPLEMENTALAUTHORITY RE: FEDERALDEFENDANTS’ MOTION TODISMISS FOR LACK OFSUBJECT MATTERJURISDICTION
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91 Filed 02/22/13 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:1808
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 
 N
OTICE
O
F
S
UPPLEMENTAL
A
UTHORITY
 
2
   W   i   l  m  e  r   H  a   l  e
   3   5   0   S  o  u   t   h   G  r  a  n   d   A  v  e  n  u  e ,   S  u   i   t  e   2   1   0   0   L  o  s   A  n  e   l  e  s ,   C   A    9   0   0   7   1
 Randall R. Lee (SBN 152672)randall.lee@wilmerhale.comMatthew Benedetto (SBN 252379)matthew.benedetto@wilmerhale.comWILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100Los Angeles, CA 90071Telephone: (213) 443-5300Facsimile: (213) 443-5400Adam P. Romero (
Pro Hac Vice
)adam.romero@wilmerhale.comRubina Ali (
Pro Hac Vice
)rubina.ali@wilmerhale.comWILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP7 World Trade Center  New York, NY 10007Telephone: (212) 230-8800Facsimile: (212) 230-8888Eugene Marder (SBN 275762)eugene.marder@wilmerhale.comWILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304Telephone: (650) 858-6000Facsimile: (650) 858-6100Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91 Filed 02/22/13 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:1809
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 
 N
OTICE
O
F
S
UPPLEMENTAL
A
UTHORITY
 
3
   W   i   l  m  e  r   H  a   l  e
   3   5   0   S  o  u   t   h   G  r  a  n   d   A  v  e  n  u  e ,   S  u   i   t  e   2   1   0   0   L  o  s   A  n  e   l  e  s ,   C   A    9   0   0   7   1
Plaintiffs respectfully advise this Court of a recent decision of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that is relevant to Federal Defendants’ Motionto Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (ECF No. 68-1) and Plaintiffs’opposition thereto (ECF No. 79). The motion is scheduled to be heard by the Courton Monday, February 25, 2013 at 2 p.m.As Plaintiffs contend in their opposition, the Veterans Judicial Review Act(“VJRA”) does not preclude this Court from hearing Plaintiffs’ constitutionalchallenge to the definition of spouse as established by Congress in Title 38 and Section 3 of DOMA. (ECF No. 79). After Plaintiffs filed their opposition papers, the Ninth Circuit issued 
 Recinto v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs
, No. 11-16341, — F.3d  —, 2013 WL 458252 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2013). On facts identical by all relevantmeasures to those here, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that the VJRA “d[oes] not bar  jurisdiction over a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute because reviewof that challenge would not require consideration of ‘decisions’ affecting the provision of benefits to any individual claimant[].”
 Id.
at *4 (alteration in original;internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki
,678 F.3d 1013, 1034 (9th Cir. 2012) (
en banc
)).In
 Recinto
,
 
the plaintiffs brought a facial equal protection claim against afederal statute that they argued discriminated against a class of veterans who served inWorld War II.
 Id.
at *4-5. In overruling the district court’s dismissal of the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit explained that the “evaluation of that claim only requires us to look at the text of the [challenged statute], nothingmore.”
 Id.
at *4. Although the plaintiffs’ claim related to veterans benefits and if successful, would have had the practical effect of ultimately providing benefits tosome veterans, the Ninth Circuit recognized that the VJRA did not bar jurisdiction because “[t]o assess this claim we need not assess whether individual claimants have aright to veterans benefits.”
 Id.
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91 Filed 02/22/13 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:1810

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->