Nos. 12-15388 and 12-15409IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUITKAREN GOLINSKI,Plaintiff-Appellee, v.OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, ET AL.,Defendants-Appellants. On Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of California, Case No. 10-00257
BRIEF FOR THEOFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, ET AL.
__________________________________ STUART F. DELERY
Acting Assistant Attorney General
MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney
MICHAEL JAY SINGER (202) 514-5432 AUGUST E. FLENTJE(202) 514-3309HELEN L. GILBERT(202) 514-4826
Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Room 7228 Washington, DC 20530-0001
Case: 12-15409 07/03/2012 ID: 8236883 DktEntry: 76 Page: 1 of 63
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................................1STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE............................................................................................2STATUTORY PROVISION..................................................................................................2STATEMENT OF THE CASE.............................................................................................2STATEMENT OF THE FACTS...........................................................................................4I. Statutory Background........................................................................................4II. Facts and Prior Proceedings.............................................................................4SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT..............................................................................................9STANDARD OF REVIEW..................................................................................................11 ARGUMENT...........................................................................................................................11SECTION 3 OF DOMA VIOLATES EQUAL PROTECTION................................11I. Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Challenge to DOMA IsSubject to Heightened Scrutiny under SupremeCourt Precedent................................................................................................12 A.Circuit Precedent Applying Rational BasisReview to Classifications Based on SexualOrientation Is Incorrect and WarrantsReconsideration....................................................................................14B.Classifications Based on Sexual OrientationShould Be Subject to Heightened Scrutiny......................................181. Gay and Lesbian People Are a Suspect orQuasi-Suspect Class under the RelevantFactors Identified by the Supreme Court............................20
Case: 12-15409 07/03/2012 ID: 8236883 DktEntry: 76 Page: 2 of 63
i. Gay and Lesbian People Have BeenSubject to a History of Discrimination.....................20a. Discrimination by the FederalGovernment......................................................21b. Discrimination by State andLocal Governments..........................................24c. Discrimination by Private Parties..................29ii. Gay and Lesbian People ExhibitImmutable Characteristics thatDistinguish Them as a Group....................................30iii. Gay and Lesbian People Are Minorities with Limited Political Power......................................33iv.Sexual Orientation Bears No Relation toLegitimate Policy Objectives or Ability to Perform or Contribute to Society.........................36II. DOMA Fails Heightened Scrutiny................................................................38CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................46STATEMENT OF RELATED CASESCERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITHFED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)(B) AND NINTH CIRCUIT RULE 32-1CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEii
Case: 12-15409 07/03/2012 ID: 8236883 DktEntry: 76 Page: 3 of 63
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
