Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Mass_DOMA_Appeals #5554692

Mass_DOMA_Appeals #5554692

Ratings: (0)|Views: 25|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #5554692
Doc #5554692

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Jun 20, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FIRST CIRCUITCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS)Plaintiff-Appellee,))No. 10-2204v.))UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH)AND HUMAN SERVICES, 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.))
These consolidated cases present challenges to the constitutionality of Section3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7. On February 23, 2011,the President and the Attorney General of the United States announced their determination that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to same-sex couples who arelegally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the FifthAmendment. By letter of February 24, 2011, which has been filed in these
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116215466 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2011 Entry ID: 5554692
ALSO filed in Cases 10-2207, 10-2214
consolidated cases, we formally advised this Court of this development and attacheda copy of the letter submitted by the Attorney General of the United States to theSpeaker of the House of Representatives, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 530D(a)(2),reporting to Congress that the Executive Branch will cease to defend theconstitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA. Subsequently, by Order of March 30, 2011,
this Court directed the Executive Branch to file a status report by June 1, 2011, thataddresses “(1) whether and, if so, when the Attorney General submitted a report to both houses of Congress, under 28 U.S.C. § 530D(a)(2); (2) what action, if any, has been taken by the required recipients in response to any such report; and (3) anyinformation as to the timing of proposed submissions to the court on behalf of theCongress or either house thereof.”1. In response to the Court’s first question, and as noted above, the AttorneyGeneral submitted, on February 23, 2011, a report to both houses of Congress pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D(a)(2). That report, a copy of which was filed with thisCourt on February 24, 2011, was issued in the context of two cases pending in federaldistrict courts in New York and Connecticut. On February 25, 2011, the Departmentof Justice submitted a follow-up report to all of the required Congressional recipients,Identical reports were also submitted to all of the other officials of the
House and Senate identified as required recipients under the statute.2
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116215466 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2011 Entry ID: 5554692
 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D(a)(2), listing “those pending cases where Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act has been challenged and where the Department of Justice will cease its defense of Section 3.”
See, e.g.
, Letter of February 25, 2011,from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to Speaker of the House John A.Boehner (copy attached in addendum). The above-captioned consolidated appeals,now pending before this Court, are included on that list.2. In response to the Court’s second question, the Bipartisan Legal AdvisoryGroup of the U.S. House of Representatives (“BLAG”), which represents theinstitutional interests of the House in judicial proceedings, has moved to intervene inthese consolidated appeals.
Motion for Leave to Intervene of the BLAG(submitted and served on May 20, 2011). As that motion indicates, the federaldefendants-appellants do not oppose the motion to intervene for purposes of  presenting arguments in support of the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, butwe will be filing a response to the motion to explain the position of the United States.
BLAG Motion to Intervene, at 2-3.The United States Senate has taken no action in response to the Section530D(a)(2) reports of which we are aware.3. In response to the Court’s third question, BLAG’s pending motion tointervene includes a proposed briefing schedule under which its opening brief as an3
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116215466 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/01/2011 Entry ID: 5554692

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->