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
DOJbrief

DOJbrief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 519 |Likes:
Published by A.w. Towle

More info:

Published by: A.w. Towle on Jan 14, 2011
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

01/14/2011

pdf

text

original

 
Nos. 10-2204, 10-2207, and 10-2214IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ______________________ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,Plaintiff-Appellee, v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,Defendants-Appellants. __________________________________________ DEAN HARA,Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,NANCY GILL, et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al.,Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. __________________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS __________________________________________ BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. __________________________________________  TONY WEST 
 Assistant Attorney General 
CARMEN M. ORTIZ 
United States Attorne
ROBERT E. KOPP(202) 514-3311MICHAEL JAY SINGER (202) 514-5432 AUGUST E. FLENTJE(202) 514-3309BENJAMIN S. KINGSLEY (202) 353-8253
 Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil DivisioU.S. Department of Justic950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Room 7261Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
Case: 10-2207 Document: 00116158289 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2011 Entry ID: 5518694
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................................................... 1STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES.......................................................................................... 2STATUTES AND REGULATIONS.................................................................................... 2STATEMENT OF THE CASE. ............................................................................................ 2STATEMENT OF THE FACTS........................................................................................... 3I. Statutory Background. ............................................................................................... 3II. Facts and Prior Proceedings. .................................................................................. 6 A.
Gill v. Office of Personnel Management 
. ............................................................ 61. Factual Background........................................................................... 62. Prior Proceedings............................................................................. 12B.
 Massachusetts v. HHS 
. ................................................................................... 151. Factual Background......................................................................... 152. Prior Proceedings............................................................................. 20SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. ........................................................................................... 23STANDARD OF REVIEW.................................................................................................. 24 ARGUMENT........................................................................................................................... 24I. DOMA Does Not Violate Equal Protection underthis Circuit’s Binding Precedent. ................................................................... 24
Case: 10-2207 Document: 00116158289 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2011 Entry ID: 5518694
 
 A. Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Challenge to DOMAIs Subject to Rational Basis Review under this Circuit’sBinding Precedent. ............................................................................... 25B. Rational Basis Review Is Highly Deferential................................... 26C. DOMA Satisfies Rational Basis Scrutiny. ........................................ 291. Congress Could Have Rationally Concluded ThatDOMA Promotes A Legitimate Interest in Preserving a National Status Quo at the Federal Level While StatesEngage in a Period of Evaluation of and Experience with Opening Marriage to Same-Sex Couples. ................... 322. Congress Could Reasonably Conclude ThatDOMA Serves a Legitimate Federal Interestin Uniform Application of Federal Law Withinand Across States During a Period WhenImportant State Laws Differ. ................................................. 423. Congress Could Reasonably Have Believed That by Maintaining the Status Quo, DOMAServes the General Federal Interest of Respecting Policy Development among the States WhilePreserving the Authority of Each Sovereign toChoose its Own Course. ......................................................... 51II. DOMA Represents a Valid Exercise of Congressional Authority under the Spending Clause........................................................... 55III. DOMA Does Not Violate the Tenth Amendment.................................... 58CONCLUSION. ...................................................................................................................... 63CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ADDENDUM
- ii -
Case: 10-2207 Document: 00116158289 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/13/2011 Entry ID: 5518694

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)//-->