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
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
12-307 Shalala Sullivan West Apfel Etc.

12-307 Shalala Sullivan West Apfel Etc.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 23,596|Likes:
Published by Chris Geidner
Former Cabinet and agency officials' brief in support of Windsor
Former Cabinet and agency officials' brief in support of Windsor

More info:

Published by: Chris Geidner 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

03/01/2013

pdf

text

original

 
No. 12-307
W
ILSON
-E
PES
P
RINTING
C
O
.,
 
I
NC
.
 
 
(202)
 
789-0096
 
 
W
ASHINGTON
,
 
D.
 
C.
 
20002
 
I
N
T
HE
 
Supreme Court of the United States
————T
HE
U
NITED
S
TATES OF
 A 
MERICA 
,
 Petitioner
, v.E
DITH
S
CHLAIN
W
INDSOR
, in her capacity asExecutor of the estate of T
HEA 
C
LARA 
S
PYER
,
 Respondent
.————
On Writ of Certiorari to theUnited States Court of Appealsfor the Second Circuit
————
BRIEF OF DR. DONNA E. SHALALA,DR. LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, TOGO D. WEST JR.,KENNETH S. APFEL, SHELDON S. COHEN,RUDY F. DELEON, JAMIE S. GORELICK,MICHAEL J. GRAETZ, DR. JOHN J. HAMRE,BENJAMIN W. HEINEMAN JR.,KATHRYN O. HIGGINS, CONSTANCE BERRY NEWMAN, AND HARRIET S. RABB AS AMICICURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
————
 A 
RA 
B
ETH
G
ERSHENGORN
 C
 ATHERINE
C.
 
D
ENEKE
 F
OLEY 
H
OAG
LLPSeaport West155 Seaport BoulevardBoston, MA 02210(617) 832-1000agershengorn@ foleyhoag.comL
ISA 
S.
 
B
LATT
 C
HRISTOPHER
S.
 
R
HEE
 
Counsel of Record
Z
 ACHAR
B.
 
 A 
LLEN
  A 
RNOLD
&
 
P
ORTER
LLP555 12th Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20004(202) 942-5000christopher.rhee@ aporter.com
Counsel for Amici Curiae
 
(i)TABLE OF CONTENTSPageTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ iiiINTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ........................ 1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................. 1 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 3I. FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE NEVER APPLIED A UNIFORM DEFINITIONOF MARRIAGE. ....................................... 3 A. Marriage is regulated and defined atthe state level. ..................................... 5B. Federal agencies look to state mar-riage law when administering federalprograms. ............................................. 71. When federal law includes choiceof law provisions, agencies applythe law of a particular state. ......... 82. When federal law is silent,agencies still apply state law. ........ 10II. FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE EXPERI-ENCE NAVIGATING SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION IN STATE MARRIAGELAW. .......................................................... 13 A. Federal agencies have addressed sig-nificant differences regarding inter-racial marriage. ................................... 15
 
iiTABLE OF CONTENTS—ContinuedPageB. Federal agencies have addressedsignificant differences regarding divorce. ................................................. 18C. Federal agencies have addressedsignificant differences regarding common law marriage. ........................ 23D. Federal agencies have addressedother significant differences among state marriage laws. ............................ 27III. FEDERAL AGENCIES MAKE OTHERDETERMINATIONS THAT AREFAR MORE BURDENSOME THAN APPLYING STATE MARRIAGE LAW. ... 29CONCLUSION .................................................... 35 APPENDIX  AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OFRESPONDENT............................................. 1a

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)//-->