Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571, 14-574
In the Supreme Court of the United States
On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
J
AMES
O
BERGEFELL
,
et al.
,
Petitioners,
V
.R
ICHARD
H
ODGES
, D
IRECTOR
, O
HIO
D
EPARTMENT
O
F
H
EALTH
,
et al., Respondents.
BRIEF OF 167 MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND 44 U.S. SENATORS AS
AMICI CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
J
OSEPH
F. T
RINGALI
Counsel of Record
J
OSHUA
C. P
OLSTER
E
LISA
Y. L
EE
A
IDAN
T. G
RANO
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 (212) 455-2000 jtringali@stblaw.com
H
EATHER
C. S
AWYER
House Committee on the Judiciary Minority Counsel to Ranking Members John Conyers, Jr. and Jerrold Nadler B-336 Rayburn Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-6906Counsel for Amici Curiae
A
(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859
258055
A complete list of the
167 Members of the House of Representatives and 44 U.S. Senators participating as
amici
is provided in an appendix to this brief. Among them are: N
ANCY
P
ELOSI
H
ARRY
R
EID
House Democratic Leader Senate Democratic Leader
R
EP
. J
ERROLD
N
ADLER
S
EN
. D
IANNE
F
EINSTEIN
Lead Sponsors, Respect for Marriage Act
S
TENY
H. H
OYER
R
ICHARD
J. D
URBIN
House Democratic Whip Senate Assistant Democratic Leader
J
AMES
E. C
LYBURN
C
HARLES
E. S
CHUMER
House Assistant
Vice Chair, Senate Democratic Leader Democratic Conference
P
ATTY
M
URRAY
Secretary, Senate Democratic Conference
J
OHN
C
ONYERS
, J
R
. P
ATRICK
L
EAHY
Ranking Member, House Ranking Member,Committee on the Judiciary Senate Committee on the Judiciary
J
ARED
P
OLIS
, D
AVID
N. C
ICILLINE
, S
EAN
P
ATRICK
M
ALONEY
, M
ARK
P
OCAN
, K
YRSTEN
S
INEMA
, and M
ARK
T
AKANO
House LGBT Equality Caucus Co-Chairs
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iTABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iiiINTEREST OF THE
AMICI CURIAE
. . . . . . . . . . . . .1INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4I. The Constitution Applies with Equal Force to State Regulation of Marriage.. . . . . . . .4II. State Marriage Bans Should Be Subject to Heightened Scrutiny. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7III. No Matter the Standard, State Marriage Bans Violate the Equal Protection Clause and Impair Federal Interests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 A. State Marriage Bans Deny Equal Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13B. Like DOMA, State Marriage Bans Have a Profound Federal Impact on Same-Sex Couples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14C. State Marriage Bans Undermine Federal Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15