Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2:12-cv-00887 #135

2:12-cv-00887 #135

Ratings: (0)|Views: 31 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 135 - Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplementary Authority, notifying the Court of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases.
Doc 135 - Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplementary Authority, notifying the Court of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Jul 08, 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

07/11/2013

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.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
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 135 Filed 07/08/13 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:3488
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 Plaintiffs’ Notice Of Supplemental Authority2
   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 135 Filed 07/08/13 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:3489
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 Plaintiffs’ Notice Of Supplemental Authority3
   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 two recent decisions from the United States Supreme Court that bear on Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor-Defendant BLAG’s cross motions for summary judgment pending before this Court. The cross motionsfor summary judgment present the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7 (“DOMA”), and 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(3) & (31) (“Title 38”).These statutes separately prohibit the federal government from treating PlaintiffsTracey and Maggie Cooper-Harris, who are in a valid same-sex marriage, equally tosimilarly situated different-sex spouses. Specifically, these statutes bar theDepartment of Veterans Affairs from providing Tracey and Maggie benefits thatveterans and their different-sex spouses routinely receive.
A.
United States v. Windsor
 
On June 26, 2013, in
United States v. Windsor 
, the Supreme Court held thatSection 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection principles guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
See United States v. Windsor 
, 570U.S. __, No. 12-307, slip op. at 20-26 (June 26, 2013) (attached hereto as Exhibit A).Examining the legislative history of DOMA, the Court concluded that “the avowed  purpose and practical effect of [DOMA] are to impose a disadvantage, a separatestatus, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by theunquestioned authority of the States.”
 Id.
at 21. This bare desire to harm same-sexspouses is impermissible, the Court held, and no legitimate purpose, such as“governmental efficiency,” could save the statute.
 Id.
at 22. “[DOMA] is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injurethose whom [New York], by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.”
 Id.
at 25-26;
see also id 
. at 20 (“The Constitution’s guarantee of equality‘must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular groupcannot’ justify disparate treatment of that group.” (quoting
 Dep’t of Agriculture v. Moreno
, 413 U.S. 528, 534-35 (1973))). Because “DOMA seeks to injure the veryclass New York seeks to protect . . . it violates basic [liberty] and equal protection
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 135 Filed 07/08/13 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:3490

You're Reading a Free Preview

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