Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
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 __________________________________________ CORRECTED BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. __________________________________________  TONY WEST 
 Assistant Attorney General 
CARMEN M. ORTIZ 
United States Attorney 
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 Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Room 7261 Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 ______________________________________________________________________________
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116160305 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2011 Entry ID: 5520069
ALSO filed in Cases 10-2207, 10-2214
 
 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: 10-2204 Document: 00116160305 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2011 Entry ID: 5520069
 
 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: 10-2204 Document: 00116160305 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/19/2011 Entry ID: 5520069
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more