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
DOMA Cases - Motion to Consolidate Appeals

DOMA Cases - Motion to Consolidate Appeals

Ratings: (0)|Views: 334 |Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
Unopposed to Motion to Consolidate Appeals for Purposes of Briefing and Argument and to Modify Briefing Schedules. Filed by DOJ 11/18/2010
AND TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULES
Unopposed to Motion to Consolidate Appeals for Purposes of Briefing and Argument and to Modify Briefing Schedules. Filed by DOJ 11/18/2010
AND TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULES

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Dec 14, 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

12/14/2010

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FIRST CIRCUITCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS)Plaintiff-Appellee,))No. 10-2204v.))UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH)AND HUMAN RESOURCES, et al.,)Defendants-Appellants.)))DEAN HARA,)Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,)) NANCY GILL, et al.,)Plaintiffs-Appellees))Nos. 10-2207;v.) 10-2214)OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al.,)Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.))
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE APPEALSFOR PURPOSES OF BRIEFING AND ARGUMENTAND TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULES
For the reasons set forth below, the federal government appellants – UnitedStates Department of Health and Human Resources, et al., and the Office of PersonnelManagement, et al. – respectfully request that these related appeals be consolidatedfor purposes of briefing and argument. Currently, the Court has established separate briefing schedules for these cases, with the federal appellants’ opening brief due in
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116137445 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2010 Entry ID: 5505288
 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Resources
,
et 
 
al.
, No. 10-2204, on December 13, 2010, and in
 Nancy Gill, et al. v.Office of Personnel Management 
,
et 
 
al.
, No. 10-2207, on December 27, 2010. Bothcases present challenges to the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7; and
 Dean Hara v. Office of Personnel Management 
,
et al.
, No. 10-2214, is a cross-appeal in
Gill 
. To conserve resources for the Court andfacilitate the orderly and efficient presentation, consideration and resolution of thesecases, the federal appellants respectfully request that the Court enter the followingconsolidated briefing schedule for the appeals in
Gill 
and
 Massachusetts
, and thecross-appeal in
 Hara
. We further request that the Court schedule argument for theseappeals before the same panel on the same day.1. Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) defines, for the purposes of any federal law, the word “marriage” as a “legal union between one manand one woman” and the word “spouse” as “a person of the opposite sex who is ahusband or a wife.” 1 U.S.C. § 7. In
Gill 
, No. 10-2207, plaintiffs are same-sexcouples who are married under Massachusetts law. They are seeking federal benefitsthat they assert are available to opposite-sex married couples but by operation of Section 3 of DOMA are not available to them. Plaintiffs challenged the2
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116137445 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/18/2010 Entry ID: 5505288
 
constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, arguing that the statute denies them equal protection of the law.The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs, holding that Section3 of DOMA violates equal protection because it is not rationally related to alegitimate government interest. The district court enjoined application of Section 3of DOMA to plaintiffs but, upon joint motion of the parties, stayed this injunction pending appeal. Defendants appealed this judgment in No. 10-2207. One plaintiff,Dean Hara, in No. 10-2214, cross-appealed the district court’s dismissal of one of hisclaims for lack of standing.2. In
 Massachusetts
, No. 10-2207, Massachusetts challenged the applicationof Section 3 of DOMA to programs where it receives funding from the federalgovernment, arguing that the statute violates the Spending Clause and the TenthAmendment.The district court granted summary judgment to Massachusetts, holding thatSection 3 of DOMA violates the Spending Clause by requiring the state to engage inunconstitutional discrimination against its own citizens in administering federallyfunded programs. In so doing, the district court referenced its opinion in
Gill 
, and
Gill 
’s holding on equal protection was the sole basis for the Spending Clause ruling3
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116137445 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/18/2010 Entry ID: 5505288

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

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)//-->