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
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Windsor: Amicus Brief of NAACP

Windsor: Amicus Brief of NAACP

Ratings: (0)|Views: 22|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
United States v. Windsor: Amicus brief of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., in support of Plaintiff
United States v. Windsor: Amicus brief of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., in support of Plaintiff

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Mar 01, 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

03/04/2013

pdf

text

original

 
No. 12-307
I
N
T
HE
Supreme Court of the United States
U
NITED
S
TATES OF
 A 
MERICA 
,
Petitioner 
,
 v.
E
DITH
S
CHLAIN
W
INDSOR
,
 
in her capacity as Executorof the estate of T
HEA 
C
LARA 
S
PYER
,
 
ET AL
.,
Respondents 
.
 
On Writ of Certiorari to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAENAACP LEGAL DEFENSE &EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT WINDSOR
 
(Equal Protection Guarantee)
S
HERRILYN
I
FILL
 Director-CounselE
LISE
C.
 
B
ODDIE
 
Counsel of Record 
R
 ACHEL
M.
 
LEINMAN
 R
IA 
T
 ABACCO
M
 AR
 NAACP
 
L
EGAL
D
EFENSE
&
 
E
DUCATIONAL
F
UND
,
 
I
NC
.99 Hudson Street,16th FloorNew York, NY 10013(212) 965-2200eboddie@naacpldf.orgJ
OSHUA 
C
IVIN
 NAACP
 
L
EGAL
D
EFENSE
&
 
E
DUCATIONAL
F
UND
,
 
I
NC
.1444 I Street, NW,10th FloorWashington, DC 20005
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageTABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................iiINTEREST OF AMICUS............................................1SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT............................2 ARGUMENT...............................................................4I. An essential function of equal protection lawis to guard against government action thatsubordinates historically marginalizedgroups.....................................................................4 A. The antisubordination principle devel-oped as a tool to expose and invalidatethe legacy of America’s racial caste sys-tem.....................................................................5B. The antisubordination principle helpedto cabin the expansion of heightenedscrutiny...........................................................10II. The role of the courts is to safeguard therights of historically subordinated groups byapplying heightened scrutiny to laws, likeDOMA, that disadvantage them as a class.........13CONCLUSION..........................................................16
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases
Page(s)
 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
, 515 U.S. 200(1995)........................................................................10
 Anderson v. King County
, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash.2006).........................................................................13
  Baehr v. Lewin
, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993)...................14
  Bolling v. Sharpe
, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).........................9
  Brown v. Board of Education
, 347 U.S. 483(1954)..............................................................1, 5, 6, 9
Califano v. Webster
, 430 U.S. 313 (1977)......................9
 Conaway v. Deane
, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007)..........1, 13
 Craig v. Boren
, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)..............................3
 Frontiero v. Richardson
, 411 U.S. 677 (1973).......13, 15
 Hernandez v. Robles
, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006)...........1
 Hernandez v. Texas
, 347 U.S. 475 (1954)................7, 10
 In re Marriage Cases
, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008)...........1
Lawrence v. Texas
, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)......................12
 Loving v. Virginia
, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)..................2, 8, 15
 McLaughlin v. Florida
, 379 U.S. 184 (1964).........1, 7-8
 McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for HigherEducation
, 339 U.S. 637 (1950).............................1, 5
 Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada
, 305 U.S. 337(1938)......................................................................1, 5
 Nixon v. Condon
, 286 U.S. 73 (1932)..........................14
Oyama v. California
, 332 U.S. 633 (1948)....................2
 

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)//-->