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 or section
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
DOMA -- Request for Summary Judgment

DOMA -- Request for Summary Judgment

Ratings: (0)|Views: 76 |Likes:
Published by Trueace
Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts, filed a motion for Summary Judgment to bypass any hearing in her effort to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the Federal Government setting social policy that the U.S. Constitution leaves to the States.
Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts, filed a motion for Summary Judgment to bypass any hearing in her effort to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the Federal Government setting social policy that the U.S. Constitution leaves to the States.

More info:

Published by: Trueace on Feb 20, 2010
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

01/18/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,Plaintiff,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHAND HUMAN SERVICES; KATHLEENSEBELIUS, in her official capacity as the Secretaryof the United States Department of Health andHuman Services; UNITED STATESDEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ERICK. SHINSEKI, in his official capacity as theSecretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; and the UNITED STATES OFAMERICA,Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-11156-JLTMEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AND IN SUPPORT OFCOMMONWEALTH’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTSATTORNEY GENERALMARTHA COAKLEYMaura T. Healey, BBO No. 640856Jonathan B. Miller, BBO No. 663012Christopher K. Barry-Smith, BBO No. 565698Assistant Attorneys GeneralOne Ashburton PlaceBoston, MA 02108Tel: (617) 727-2200Fax: 617-727-5762Maura.Healey@state.ma.usJonathan.Miller@state.ma.usCBarry-Smith@state.ma.us
Case 1:09-cv-11156-JLT Document 28 Filed 02/18/2010 Page 1 of 57
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1STATEMENT OF FACTS..............................................................................................................5LEGAL STANDARD....................................................................................................................15ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................15I. DOMA EXCEEDS THE SCOPE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER...................................15A. The Definition and Regulation of Marital Status Is a Sovereign Power Reserved to theStates and Protected from Federal Interference.................................................................15B. DOMA is an Improper Federal Interference with the Commonwealth’s SovereignAuthority to Define and Regulate Marital Status..............................................................18II. DOMA VIOLATES THE SPENDING CLAUSE.................................................................22A. DOMA’s Requirement that the Commonwealth Discriminate Against IndividualsMarried to Someone of the Same Sex Is Independently Barred by the Equal ProtectionClause.................................................................................................................................231. The Commonwealth Must Disregard the Marriages of Same-Sex Couples to MaintainFederal Funding................................................................................................................232. Defendants’ Proffered Justifications for DOMA Cannot Satisfy Rational Basis Review25a) Continuing to Discriminate Against Married Same-Sex Couples Is Not a LegitimateInterest.......................................................................................................................26b) DOMA Is Not Incremental, nor Is Incrementalism a Legitimate Interest................28c) DOMA Destroys, Rather than Creates, Uniformity in Distribution of Marriage-Based Benefits, and Uniformity Does Not Justify the Classification.......................283. Congress’s Contemporaneous Justifications for DOMA Confirm that DOMA Is Animus-Based, Which Further Shows Its Lack of a Rational Basis..............................................294. The Court Should Apply Heightened Scrutiny to Classifications Based on SexualOrientation........................................................................................................................31a) Gay and Lesbian People Have Suffered from a Long History of DiscriminationUnrelated to Their Ability to Contribute to Society.................................................33b) Sexual Orientation Is Immutable and Is an Integral Part of Identity........................35
Case 1:09-cv-11156-JLT Document 28 Filed 02/18/2010 Page 2 of 57
 
 - ii -c) Gay and Lesbian People Are a Minority Group and Lack Political Power Comparedto Other Groups that Receive Heightened Scrutiny..................................................35B. DOMA’s Treatment of Same-Sex Couples Is Unrelated to the Purposes of Medicaid orthe State Cemetery Grants Program...................................................................................36III. THE COMMONWEALTH HAS STANDING TO PURSUE ITS CLAIMS........................39CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................43
Case 1:09-cv-11156-JLT Document 28 Filed 02/18/2010 Page 3 of 57

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)//-->