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
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Latest DOJ brief defending DOMA

Latest DOJ brief defending DOMA

Ratings: (0)|Views: 523 |Likes:
Published by JoeSudbay
DOJ brief defending DOMA in case brought by Mass. AG.
DOJ brief defending DOMA in case brought by Mass. AG.

More info:

Published by: JoeSudbay on Apr 30, 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

07/27/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
COMMONWEALTH OFMASSACHUSETTS,Plaintiff,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of theUnited States Department of Health andHuman Services; UNITED STATESDEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS;ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of the UnitedStates Department of Veterans Affairs; andthe UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Defendants.))))))))))))))))))Civ. A. No. 1:09-11156-JLT
CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND IN OPPOSITION TOPLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TONY WESTAssistant Attorney GeneralCARMEN M. ORTIZUnited States AttorneyARTHUR R. GOLDBERGAssistant Director, Federal Programs BranchCHRISTOPHER R. HALLD.C. Bar No. 468827Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of JusticeCivil Division, Federal Programs BranchP.O. Box 883Washington, D.C. 20044Telephone:(202) 514-4778Facsimile: (202) 616-8470Christopher.Hall@usdoj.gov 
Counsel for Defendants
Case 1:09-cv-11156-JLT Document 47 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 22
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION..............................................................1ARGUMENT..................................................................2I.DOMA Does Not Violate The Tenth Amendment.................................2II.DOMA Does Not Violate The Spending Clause...................................6III.Under The Law Of This Circuit, DOMA Is ConsistentWith The Equal Protection Clause..............................................8A.DOMA Is Subject to Rational Basis Review Under Controlling First CircuitPrecedent..........................................................81.This Court Is Bound by First Circuit Precedent Holding thatSexual Orientation Is Not a Suspect Classification......................92.DOMA Does Not Impinge on Any Right That Has BeenRecognized As Fundamental....................................11B.DOMA Satisfies Rational Basis Review...................................12C.The Rationales and Motives Recited by Congress and by IndividualCongressman in 1996 Do Not Render the Statute Unconstitutional ..............16IV.The Commonwealth Lacks Standing To Bring Purely Speculative ClaimsConcerning Its Possible Future Financial Loss....................................16CONCLUSION...............................................................19-i-
Case 1:09-cv-11156-JLT Document 47 Filed 04/30/10 Page 2 of 22
 
INTRODUCTION
As stated in defendants’ opening brief, this Administration believes the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) is discriminatory and should be repealed. Binding precedent in thisCircuit, however, requires that this Court find that section 3 of DOMA does not violate either theTenth Amendment or the Spending Clause.The Commonwealth asserts DOMA represents an intrusion into family law, an area of traditional state concern, and that this violates the Tenth Amendment. But DOMA does notregulate marriage, and same-sex couples are able to legally marry in Massachusetts. DOMAdeals with areas of quintessential federal concern: the meaning of federal laws and the uses of federal funds. Plaintiff’s Tenth Amendment allegations therefore fail to state a claim upon whichrelief may be granted.Likewise, plaintiff’s Spending Clause claim should also be dismissed. DOMA does not place an impermissible “condition” on federal funds as that term is understood by the SupremeCourt in the “unconstitutional conditions” context, i.e., where receipt of federal dollars isconditioned on the recipient’s doing something outside the scope of the relevant federal program.DOMA regulates how federal resources shall be used by helping to define the scope of federal programs that involve an individual’s marital status. Even if DOMA is viewed as imposing a“condition” on these federal programs, this condition defines their very scope and is thereforegermane.Plaintiff’s allegations that DOMA compels the Commonwealth to violate the equal protection rights of its citizens also fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.Binding precedent in this Circuit forecloses this Court from finding that DOMA involves a“suspect classification;” nor does the statute impinge upon any right that the courts have held to1
Case 1:09-cv-11156-JLT Document 47 Filed 04/30/10 Page 3 of 22

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Justice2 liked this
QLEX994 liked this
joesmith318 liked this
rennpc liked this
Amanda Sweat liked this

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)//-->