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
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Windsor: Amicus Brief of GLAD and Lambda Legal

Windsor: Amicus Brief of GLAD and Lambda Legal

Ratings: (0)|Views: 10|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
United States v. Windsor: Amicus brief of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., in support of Plaintiff
United States v. Windsor: Amicus brief of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and Lambda Legal Defense & Education 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

03/02/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 No. 12-307
I
N THE
 
Supreme Court of the United States
 _________ 
U
NITED
S
TATES OF
 A 
MERICA 
,
Petitioner 
,v.E
DITH
S
CHLAIN
W
INDSOR AND
B
IPARTISAN
L
EGAL
 A 
DVISORY 
G
ROUP OF THE
U
NITED
S
TATES
H
OUSE OF
R
EPRESENTATIVES
,
Respondents 
. ________ 
On Writ of Certiorari to the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 ________  Amicus Curiae Brief of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defendersand Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc. in Support of Edith Windsor and the United States Addressing the Meritsand Supporting Affirmance
 ________ 
G
 AY 
&
 
L
ESBIAN
 A 
DVOCATES
&
 
D
EFENDERS
 Gary D. BuseckMary L. Bonauto Vickie L. HenryJanson Wu30 Winter Street, Suite 800Boston, MA 02108(617) 426-1350L
 AMBDA 
L
EGAL
D
EFENSE
&
 
E
DUCATION
F
UND
,
 
I
NC
.Susan L. SommerJon W. DavidsonTara L. BorelliShelbi D. Day120 Wall Street, 19th FloorNew York, NY 10005(212) 809-8585J
ENNER
&
 
B
LOCK LLP
 Paul M. Smith*Luke C. PlatzerMelissa A. Cox1099 New York Ave., NW,Suite 900Washington, DC 20001(202) 639-6000psmith@jenner.com
*Counsel of Record 
 
 Attorneys for Amici Curiae 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii
 
INTEREST OF AMICI ................................................1
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....................................3
 
 ARGUMENT ...............................................................5
 
I.
 
RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW IS CONTEXT-DEPENDENT. .......................................................5
 
 A.
 
Rational Basis Review Takes Into AccountWhether a Law Targets a HistoricallyDisfavored Group. .............................................7
 
B.
 
Rational Basis Review Takes Into AccountWhether a Law Implicates ImportantPersonal Interests, Even Indirectly. ................9
 
C.
 
Rational Basis Review Takes Into AccountWhether a Law Is Historically Anomalous. .. 12
 
D.
 
DOMA Is the Paradigmatic Law Calling forClose Attention Under Rational BasisReview. ............................................................13
 
II.
 
THE “LEGITIMACY” ELEMENT OF THERATIONAL BASIS TEST IS A MEANINGFUL LIMITATION ON CLASS-BASED ENACTMENTS. .....................................15
 
 A.
 
Measures May Not Privilege PreferredGroups or Disadvantage Disfavored Groupsfor the Purpose of Favoritism or Animus Alone. ..............................................................16
 
B.
 
 An Interest’s “Legitimacy” Is NotEvaluated in the Abstract, but RatherBased on the Scope of Authority of theEntity Asserting It. .........................................19
 
 
iiC.
 
The “Legitimacy” Element of the RationalBasis Test Sharply Limits theJustifications that Can Permissibly Be Asserted on Behalf of DOMA. ........................ 21
 
III.THE “FIT” ELEMENT OF THE RATIONALBASIS TEST IS ATTENTIVE TOPRETEXTUAL EXPLANATIONS FORIMPERMISSIBLE DISCRIMINATION. .............25
 
 A.
 
Broad Legislation Imposing Multiple, Varied and Unrelated DisadvantagesRaises an Inference that No LegitimatePolicy Purpose Exists. .................................... 27
 
B.
 
Burdens on the Targeted ClassDisproportionate or Excessive to theClaimed Interest Suggest Pretext.................. 28
 
C.
 
Declining to Extend to Majority orPreferred Groups the Same Burdens Borneby the Targeted Group Undercuts thePlausibility of Explanations for DisparateTreatment. ......................................................29
 
D.
 
Factual Justifications for DisparateTreatment Cannot Be Imaginary. .................32
 
E.
 
DOMA Bears All the Classic Indicia of Pretextual Discrimination..............................34
 
CONCLUSION ..........................................................39
 

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)//-->