UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________)EDITH SCHLAIN WINDSOR, in her )capacity as executor of the estate of )THEA CLARA SPYER, ))Plaintiff, ))v. ) Civil Action No. 10-CV-8435 (BSJ)(JCF))THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))Defendant. )____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT’SOPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Paul D. ClementH. Christopher BartolomucciConor B. DuganNicholas J. NelsonBANCROFT PLLC1919 M Street, Northwest, Suite 470Washington, District of Columbia 20036
Counsel for the Bipartisan Legal AdvisoryGroup of the U.S. House of Representatives
OF COUNSEL:Kerry W. Kircher, General CounselChristine Davenport, Senior Assistant CounselKatherine E. McCarron, Assistant CounselWilliam Pittard, Assistant CounselKirsten W. Konar, Assistant CounselOFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSELU.S. House of Representatives219 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, District of Columbia 20515
Case 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ -JCF Document 50 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 35
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................iiINTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................2STANDARD OF REVIEW...................................................................................................2ARGUMENT.........................................................................................................................5I.
THE
CLASSIFICATION
AT
ISSUE
IN
DOMA
IS
NOT
SUBJECT
TO
ANY
FORM
OF
HEIGHTENED
SCRUTINY.
...............................................5A.
Persuasive Authority Unequivocally Supports the ConclusionThat Homosexuals Are Not a Suspect Class. .......................................5B.
Based on the Traditional Criteria Used to Determine Suspector Quasi-Suspect Classes, Homosexuals Clearly Are Nota Suspect or Quasi-Suspect Class. .......................................................71. History of Discrimination. ....................................................82. Ability to Participate in or Contribute to Society. ................93. Immutability. .........................................................................104. Political Powerlessness. ........................................................12II.
PLAINTIFF’S
ADDITIONAL
ARGUMENTS
ALSO
FAIL.
.........................21A.
The Federal Government Has Involved Itself in Marriage Law inCircumstances of Deviation from the Traditional Definition. .............21B.
Plaintiff Misstates the Science on Same-Sex Parenting. .....................23III.
PLAINTIFF
HAS
FAILED
TO
ESTABLISH
THAT
HER
SAME-SEX
MARRIAGE
WAS
VALID
FOR
THE
TAX
YEAR
IN
QUESTION.
.............24CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................25
Case 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ -JCF Document 50 Filed 08/01/11 Page 2 of 35
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.
, 398 U.S. 144 (1970)....................................................3
Ben-Shalom v. Marsh
, 881 F.2d 454 (7th Cir. 1989).................................................6, 19
Citizens for Equal Prot. v. Bruning
, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006)...........................5, 6
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.
, 473 U.S. 432 (1985)................................
passim
Clark v. Jeter
, 486 U.S. 456 (2008)...........................................................................3 n.1
Cook v. Gates
, 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008),
cert. denied sub. nom.
,
Pietrangelo v. Gates
, 129 S. Ct. 2763 (2009)............................................................5-6
F.C.C. v. Beach Commnc’ns, Inc.
, 508 U.S. 307 (1993)...........................................4, 21
Frontiero v. Richardson
, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)..........................................................7, 9, 11
Dandridge v. Williams
, 397 U.S. 471 (1970)............................................................4
Disabled Am. Veterans v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs
, 962 F.2d 136(2d Cir. 1992).............................................................................................................10, 20
Giannullo v. City of New York
, 322 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2003)....................................3
Heller v. Doe
, 509 U.S. 312 (1993)...........................................................................4, 21 n.35
Hernandez v. Robles
, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006).......................................................25
High Tech Gays v. Def. Indus. Sec. Clearance Office
, 895 F.2d 563(9th Cir. 1990)............................................................................................................6, 12, 19
In re Kandu
, 315 B.R. 123 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2004).............................................6
Johnson v. Robison
, 415 U.S. 361 (1974)..................................................................20
Joyce v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.
, 171 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 1999)....................................2
Kadrmas v. Dickinson Pub. Schs.
, 487 U.S. 450 (1988)...........................................3
Lawrence v. Texas
, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)...................................................................5, 7, 8
Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co.
, 410 U.S. 356 (1973)..............................4
Leib v. Hillsborough Cnty. Pub. Transp. Comm’n
, 558 F.3d 1301(11th Cir. 2009)..........................................................................................................21 n.35
Case 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ -JCF Document 50 Filed 08/01/11 Page 3 of 35
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Boehner/Clement Oppose Summ. Judgment in DOMA case
Boehner lays out his antii-gay case
2.2K
Reads
0
Readcasts
1.5K
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
