You are on page 1of 12

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91 Filed 02/22/13 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:1808

1 JOSEPH J. LEVIN, JR. (Pro Hac Vice) joe.levin@splcenter.org 2 CHRISTINE P. SUN (SBN 218701) christine.sun@splcenter.org 3 CAREN E. SHORT (Pro Hac Vice) caren.short@splcenter.org 4 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue 5 Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 6 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 7 (Caption Continued on Next Page) 8 9 10
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90071

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:12-CV-887-CBM-AJW Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall

11 TRACEY COOPER-HARRIS and 12 MAGGIE COOPER-HARRIS, 13 14 15 16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official 17 capacity as Attorney General; and 18 ERIC K. SHINSEKI, in his official capacity as Secretary of Veterans 19 Affairs, 20 21 22 BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE U.S. HOUSE 23 OF REPRESENTATIVES, 24 Intervenor-Defendant. 25 26 27 28 Defendants, vs. Plaintiffs,

WilmerHale

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY RE: FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91 Filed 02/22/13 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:1809

1 Randall R. Lee (SBN 152672) randall.lee@wilmerhale.com 2 Matthew Benedetto (SBN 252379) matthew.benedetto@wilmerhale.com 3 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100 4 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-5300 5 Facsimile: (213) 443-5400 6 Adam P. Romero (Pro Hac Vice) adam.romero@wilmerhale.com 7 Rubina Ali (Pro Hac Vice) rubina.ali@wilmerhale.com 8 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 9 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 10 Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90071

11 Eugene Marder (SBN 275762) eugene.marder@wilmerhale.com 12 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road 13 Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 14 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
2

WilmerHale

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91 Filed 02/22/13 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:1810

1

Plaintiffs respectfully advise this Court of a recent decision of the United States

2 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that is relevant to Federal Defendants’ Motion 3 to Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (ECF No. 68-1) and Plaintiffs’ 4 opposition thereto (ECF No. 79). The motion is scheduled to be heard by the Court 5 on Monday, February 25, 2013 at 2 p.m. 6 As Plaintiffs contend in their opposition, the Veterans Judicial Review Act

7 (“VJRA”) does not preclude this Court from hearing Plaintiffs’ constitutional 8 challenge to the definition of spouse as established by Congress in Title 38 and 9 Section 3 of DOMA. (ECF No. 79). After Plaintiffs filed their opposition papers, the 10 Ninth Circuit issued Recinto v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, No. 11-16341, — F.3d 11 —, 2013 WL 458252 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2013). On facts identical by all relevant
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90071

12 measures to those here, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that the VJRA “d[oes] not bar 13 jurisdiction over a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute because review 14 of that challenge would not require consideration of ‘decisions’ affecting the 15 provision of benefits to any individual claimant[].” Id. at *4 (alteration in original; 16 internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 17 678 F.3d 1013, 1034 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc)). 18 In Recinto, the plaintiffs brought a facial equal protection claim against a

WilmerHale

19 federal statute that they argued discriminated against a class of veterans who served in 20 World War II. Id. at *4-5. In overruling the district court’s dismissal of the claim for 21 lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit explained that the “evaluation of 22 that claim only requires us to look at the text of the [challenged statute], nothing 23 more.” Id. at *4. Although the plaintiffs’ claim related to veterans benefits and if 24 successful, would have had the practical effect of ultimately providing benefits to 25 some veterans, the Ninth Circuit recognized that the VJRA did not bar jurisdiction 26 because “[t]o assess this claim we need not assess whether individual claimants have a 27 right to veterans benefits.” Id. 28 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
3

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91 Filed 02/22/13 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:1811

1

Here, as in Recinto, the assessment of Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims against

2 Title 38 and DOMA requires “nothing more” than reviewing those statutes. 3 Accordingly, Ninth Circuit precedent mandates a denial of Federal Defendants’ 4 Motion to Dismiss. 5 Federal Defendants’ attempt to distinguish Plaintiffs’ claims from the equal

6 protection claim in Recinto fails. (ECF No. 81 at 6 n.2.) Adjudication of Plaintiffs’ 7 claims would not, as Federal Defendants assert, “plainly require the Court to decide 8 whether they are entitled to VA benefits.” Id. The Complaint does not ask for an 9 award of benefits at all, either prospectively or retroactively, but instead asks for 10 declaratory and injunctive relief against two acts of Congress: Title 38 and DOMA. 11 (ECF No. 1 at 18.) Moreover, contrary to Federal Defendants’ suggestion, the fact
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90071

12 that certain of the plaintiffs in Recinto had not submitted claims for compensation to 13 the VA played absolutely no part in the Ninth Circuit’s analysis and conclusion that 14 the court had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ facial equal protection claim. Recinto, 15 2013 WL 458252 at *4. 16 17 18 DATE: February 22, 2013 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
4

WilmerHale

A copy of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Recinto is attached as Exhibit A.

Respectfully Submitted, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER BY: /s/ Christine P. Sun CHRISTINE P. SUN 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36104 christine.sun@splcenter.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91 Filed 02/22/13 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:1812

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on February 22, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which provided an electronic notice and electronic link of the same to the following attorneys of record through the Court’s CM/ECF system: Paul D. Clement, pclement@bancroftpllc.com H. Christopher Bartolomucci, cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com Nicholas J. Nelson, nnelson@bancroftpllc.com Michael H. McGinley, mmcginley@bancroftpllc.com BANCROFT PLLC 1919 M Street, N.W., Suite 470 Washington, D.C. 20036 Kerry W. Kircher, Kerry.Kircher@mail.house.gov William Pittard, William.Pittard@mail.house.gov Christine Davenport, Christine.Davenport@mail.house.gov Todd B. Tatelman, Todd.Tatelman@mail.house.gov Mary Beth Walker, MaryBeth.Walker@mail.house.gov Eleni M. Roumel, Eleni.Roumel@mail.house.gov OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Jean Lin, jean.lin@usdoj.gov U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division - Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, Northwest Washington, District of Columbia 20530

/s/ Adam P. Romero Adam P. Romero

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91-1 Filed 02/22/13 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:1813

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91-1 Filed 02/22/13 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:1814

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91-1 Filed 02/22/13 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:1815

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91-1 Filed 02/22/13 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:1816

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91-1 Filed 02/22/13 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:1817

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91-1 Filed 02/22/13 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:1818

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91-1 Filed 02/22/13 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:1819