High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728TONY WESTAssistant Attorney GeneralJAMES J. GILLIGANAssistant DirectorW. SCOTT SIMPSONSenior Trial CounselDepartment of JusticeCivil Division, Room 7210Federal Programs BranchPost Office Box 883Washington, D.C. 20044Telephone: (202) 514-3495Fax: (202) 616-8470E-mail: scott.simpson@usdoj.govATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTUNITED STATES OF AMERICA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASOUTHERN DIVISION
ARTHUR SMELT and)CHRISTOPHER HAMMER,) CASE NO. SACV09-00286 DOC (MLGx))Plaintiffs,))
DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF
v.)
AMERICA'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
)
MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,)
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and)
IN SUPPORT THEREOF
DOES 1 through 1,000,))Defendants.) Date: August 3, 2009) Time: 8:30 a.m.PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Monday, August 3, 2009, at 8:30 a.m., or as soonthereafter as counsel may be heard, the defendant United States of America, by its undersignedcounsel, will move for dismissal of this action. The hearing will take place before United StatesDistrict Judge David O. Carter, in Courtroom 9D of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S.Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, California.The defendant United States of America will move to dismiss all of plaintiffs' claims againstthe federal Defense of Marriage Act, under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the
Case 8:09-cv-00286-DOC-MLG Document 25 Filed 06/11/2009 Page 1 of 54
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282grounds that this Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims against the United States, given thatthe State court from which this action was removed lacked such jurisdiction; that plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims against the United States; and that plaintiffs have failed to state aclaim on which relief can be granted.The motion of the United States will be based on this Notice, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings and files in this action, such matters of which the Court maytake judicial notice, and such oral argument as may take place at the time of the hearing.This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3 which took place on June 4, 2009.Dated: June 11, 2009 Respectfully submitted,TONY WESTAssistant Attorney GeneralJAMES J. GILLIGANAssistant Director /s/ W. Scott Simpson____________________________W. SCOTT SIMPSONSenior Trial CounselAttorneys, Department of JusticeFederal Programs BranchCivil Division, Room 7210Post Office Box 883Washington, D.C. 20044Telephone: (202) 514-3495Fax: (202) 616-8470E-mail: scott.simpson@usdoj.govCOUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTUNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case 8:09-cv-00286-DOC-MLG Document 25 Filed 06/11/2009 Page 2 of 54
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728i
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OFDEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'SMOTION TO DISMISS
TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION................................................................1STATUTORY BACKGROUND.....................................................5PROCEDURAL HISTORY.........................................................7ARGUMENT....................................................................9I.This Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs' Claims Againstthe United States Because the State Court Lacked Jurisdiction .................9II.Plaintiffs' Claims and Allegations Against the United StatesMust Be Dismissed for Lack of Standing .................................10A.The Case or Controversy Requirement of Article III..................11B.Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Challenge DOMA's Reservationof the States' Authority Regarding Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages Performed in Other States......................12C.Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Challenge the Definitionsof "Marriage" and "Spouse" Under Federal Law.....................13D.Plaintiffs Cannot Establish Standing to Seek CertainSweeping Relief Requested in Their Complaint......................14III.DOMA Is a Valid Exercise of Congress's Powerunder the Full Faith and Credit Clause...................................16A.Section 2 is Consistent With Common Law Conflicts Principles.........16B.Section 2 Was Enacted Under Congress's Authority to Prescribethe "Effect" of One State's Acts in Other States......................19IV.DOMA Cannot Be Said to Violate an Asserted "Right to Travel"..............21V.DOMA Is Consistent with Equal Protection and Due Process Principles.........22A.Federal Courts Have Unanimously Upheld theConstitutionality of DOMA......................................23
Case 8:09-cv-00286-DOC-MLG Document 25 Filed 06/11/2009 Page 3 of 54
Add a Comment
Paul Defoeleft a comment
Aslan Özcanleft a comment
Alev Bulutleft a comment
Paul Defoeleft a comment
obamatruthsleft a comment