Cardona v. Shinseki

Last updated

Cardona v. Shinseki
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Full case nameCarmen J. Cardona,
Appellant,
v.
Eric K. Shinseki,
Appellee.
Citation(s)CAVC Case Number 11-3083
Case history
Appealed from Board of Veterans' Appeals Decision, Docket Number 11-01 921 (August 30, 2011)
Related action(s)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Bruce E. Kasold
Keywords
Defense of Marriage Act, Fifth Amendment, Equal protection, Tenth Amendment, Bill of Attainder, Same-sex marriage

Cardona v. Shinseki was an appeal brought in the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) of a decision by the Board of Veterans' Appeals upholding the denial of service-connected disability benefits for the dependent wife of a female veteran. [1] The United States Department of Veterans Affairs denied the disability benefits based on the definition of "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex" under federal statute. [2] On March 11, 2014, the CAVC dismissed the case as moot after the Secretary of Veterans Affairs advised the Court that he would neither defend nor enforce the federal statute. [3] Cardona subsequently received full payment of her spousal benefits, retroactive to her date of application. [4]

Contents

Proceedings in the Department of Veterans Affairs

Carmen Cardona, a veteran of the United States Navy, applied in 2010 for service-connected disability benefits for her dependent wife. [5]

The Veterans' Affairs Regional Office in Hartford, Connecticut, declined to recognize Cardona's marriage. Title 38 of the United States Code, which relates to veterans' benefits, defines a "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a wife or husband". [6] The federal regulation that tracks and implements Title 38 defines "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex" who meets certain requirements. [7]

Cardona appealed the decision to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA), which confirmed the denial of disability benefits based on its conclusion that Cardona's wife is not a "spouse" for purposes of veterans' benefits even though their marriage is valid under Connecticut law. [8] The BVA did not reach the constitutional issues raised by Cardona's legal counsel because it claimed lack of jurisdiction and legal authority. [8]

Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

On October 13, 2011, Cardona, represented by the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School, [9] filed an appeal in the CAVC against Eric K. Shinseki, the United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Attorney General Eric Holder informed Congress on February 17, 2012, of his conclusion that the definition of "spouse" in Title 38 of the United States Code violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [10] Holder explained that neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) had identified any justifications that would warrant treating Title 38 differently from Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which he previously concluded violates equal protection. [10]

On April 19, 2012, Cardona filed a brief with the court, arguing that Title 38 and Section 3 of DOMA are unconstitutional because they violate the Tenth Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Cardona also argued that the statutes are unconstitutional bills of attainder. [11]

In a May 4 letter, DVA informed the speaker of the house that it would not defend the denial of benefits to veterans married to same-sex spouses on equal protection grounds. [12] On May 21, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the U.S. house of representatives filed an unopposed motion to intervene in the case, which the court granted on May 21. [13] and on August 31 filed a brief defending the constitutionality of the statutes. [14]

Oral argument was originally scheduled for November 29, 2012. [15] On November 8, BLAG requested it be postponed for forty-five days, pending the U.S. Supreme Court's disposition of petitions for writs of certiorari in several other cases challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA ( Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services , Gill v. Office of Personnel Management , Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management , Windsor v. United States , and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management ). [16] The court granted the delay over Cardona's objections. [17] On December 18, 2012, the court, sua sponte, ordered the case "stayed pending resolution of Windsor or until further order of the Court." [18]

On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in United States v. Windsor declaring Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional "as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment." [19] Nine months later, the CAVC dismissed the appeal in Cardona v. Shinseki as moot after the Secretary of Veterans Affairs advised the Court that he would neither defend nor enforce 38 U.S.C. § 101(31). [20] Cardona subsequently received full payment of her spousal benefits, retroactive to her date of application. [4]

Amicus briefs

Six amicus ("friend of the court") briefs were filed in the case, all in support of Cardona. [21]

The Connecticut attorney general argued that the federal statutes and regulations violate the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by intruding on the state's sovereign authority to determine the marital status of its citizens and to guarantee all married couples equal rights and benefits under the law. [22]

Vietnam Veterans of America, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Service Women's Action Network, Vets4Vets, and Connecticut Veterans Legal Center argued that the federal statutes and regulations violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. They also argued that the interpretation of them by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Board of Veterans' Appeals was inconsistent with the intent of Congress. [23]

Briefs were also filed by retired military officers, [24] disability rights advocates, [25] law professors, [26] and 15 public interest and legal services organizations. [27] [n 4]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Gill and Massachusetts were decided in separate opinions in the District Court by the same judge on the same day and a single opinion in the Court of Appeals, which found section 3 unconstitutional. The Supreme Court denied three petitions for certiorari in these cases, docket numbers 12-13, 12-15, and 12-97, on June 27, 2013, following its decision in Windsor.
  2. ↑ The Supreme Court decided Windsor on June 26, 2013, finding section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
  3. 1 2 Pedersen and Golinski are cases in which district courts held section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional. The Supreme Court denied petitions for certiorari before judgment that sought to bypass the courts of appeals in these cases, filed under docket numbers 12-231, and 12-16, on June 27, 2013, following its decision in Windsor. Pedersen is still pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, while the Ninth Circuit dismissed Golinski on July 23 with the consent of all parties.
  4. ↑ The 15 organizations are the American Civil Liberties Union, the Asian American Justice Center, The Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the Equality Federation, the Equal Justice Society, the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the Human Rights Campaign, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Legal Momentum, the National Black Justice Coalition, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Women's Law Center, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defense of Marriage Act</span> 1996 US law defining marriage for federal purposes; overturned in the 2010s

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. All of the act's provisions, except those relating to its short title, were ruled unconstitutional or legally devoid by Supreme Court decisions in the cases of United States v. Windsor (2013) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which invalidated the law and any enforcement it had.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in the United States</span> Marriage between members of the same gender within the United States of America

The availability of legally recognized same-sex marriage in the United States expanded from one state (Massachusetts) in 2004 to all fifty states in 2015 through various court rulings, state legislation, and direct popular votes. States each have separate marriage laws, which must adhere to rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States that recognize marriage as a fundamental right guaranteed by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as first established in the 1967 landmark civil rights case of Loving v. Virginia.

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights were a key issue in the debate over federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal government was prohibited from recognizing same-sex couples who were lawfully married under the laws of their state. The conflict between this definition and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution led the U.S. Supreme Court to rule DOMA unconstitutional on June 26, 2013, in the case of United States v. Windsor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims</span> Specialized federal appeals court

The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is a federal court of record that was established under Article I of the United States Constitution, and is thus referred to as an Article I tribunal (court). The court has exclusive national jurisdiction to provide independent federal judicial oversight and review of final decisions of the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stolen Valor Act of 2005</span> U.S. law regarding unauthorized wear, manufacture, or sale of any military decorations and medals

The Stolen Valor Act of 2005, signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 20, 2006, was a U.S. law that broadened the provisions of previous U.S. law addressing the unauthorized wear, manufacture, or sale of any military decorations and medals. The law made it a federal misdemeanor to falsely represent oneself as having received any U.S. military decoration or medal. If convicted, defendants might have been imprisoned for up to six months, unless the decoration lied about is the Medal of Honor, in which case imprisonment could have been up to one year. In United States v. Alvarez (2012), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech under the First Amendment–striking down the law in a 6 to 3 decision.

Same-sex marriage in Nevada has been legally recognized since October 9, 2014, when a federal district court judge issued an injunction against Nevada's enforcement of its same-sex marriage ban, acting on order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had ruled two days earlier that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage was previously banned by an amendment to the Constitution of Nevada adopted in 2002. The statutory and constitutional bans were repealed in 2017 and 2020, respectively.

<i>Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services</i>

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services 682 F.3d 1 is a United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision that affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the terms "marriage" as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Both courts found DOMA to be unconstitutional, though for different reasons. The trial court held that DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment and Spending Clause. In a companion case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the same judge held that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause. On May 31, 2012, the First Circuit held the act violates the Equal Protection Clause, while federalism concerns affect the equal protection analysis, DOMA does not violate the Spending Clause or Tenth Amendment.

Lawrence Bain Hagel was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims by President George W. Bush in December 2003. He became Chief Judge in August 2015. His 13-year term expired in December 2016.

The United States military formerly excluded gay men, bisexuals, and lesbians from service. In 1993, the United States Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed a law instituting the policy commonly referred to as "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) which allowed gay, lesbian, and bisexual people to serve as long as they did not reveal their sexual orientation. Although there were isolated instances in which service personnel were met with limited success through lawsuits, efforts to end the ban on openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual people serving either legislatively, or through the courts initially proved unsuccessful.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mary J. Schoelen</span> American judge

Mary Jeannette Schoelen is a Senior judge of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

<i>Gill v. Office of Personnel Management</i>

Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, 682 F.3d 1 is a United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision that affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the term "marriage" as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">OutServe-SLDN</span> Non-profit organisation in the USA

OutServe-SLDN was a network of LGBT military personnel, formed as a result of the merger between OutServe and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. OutServe-SLDN was one of the largest LGBT employee resource groups in the world. OutServe was founded by a 2009 graduate of the US Air Force Academy, Josh Seefried and Ty Walrod. There were over 7,000 members and 80 chapters worldwide.

Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management is a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, Section 3, which defined the federal definition of marriage to be a union of a man and a woman, entirely excluding legally married same-sex couples. The District Court that originally heard the case ruled Section 3 unconstitutional. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, and denied appeal of Pedersen the next day.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case concerning same-sex marriage. The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) has been a standing body of the U.S. House of Representatives since 1993 that directs the activities of the House Office of General Counsel. BLAG can direct the General Counsel to participate in litigation or file an amicus curiae brief in cases involving the interests of the House or BLAG can call for legislation or a House resolution authorizing the General Counsel to represent the House itself. BLAG comprises five members of House leadership:

<i>Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management</i> Lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, 824 F. Supp. 2d 968, was a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, Karen Golinski, challenged the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined, for the purposes of federal law, marriage as being between one man and one woman, and spouse as a husband or wife of the opposite sex.

Same-sex immigration policy in the United States denied couples in same-sex relationships the same rights and privileges afforded different-sex couples based on several court decisions and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Board of Veterans' Appeals</span> Administrative tribunal within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

The Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) is an administrative tribunal within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), located in Washington, D.C. Established by Executive Order on July 28, 1933, it determines whether U.S. military veterans are entitled to claimed veterans' benefits and services. The Board's mission is to conduct hearings and decide appeals properly before the Board in a timely manner. The Board's jurisdiction extends to all questions in matters involving a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects a provision of benefits by the Secretary to Veterans, their dependents, or their Survivors. Final decision on such appeals are made by the Board based on the entire record in the proceedings and upon consideration of all evidence and applicable provisions of law and regulation. The Board's review is de novo.

Garden State Equality v. Dow, 82 A. 3d 336 is a New Jersey Superior Court case holding that New Jersey's marriage laws violated the rights of same-sex couples to equal protection of the law under the New Jersey State Constitution. The ruling was issued on September 27, 2013. The Superior Court and the Superior Court, Appellate Division refused the State's request for a stay of the trial court's order, and the New Jersey Supreme Court refused to do so on a 7-0 vote. The ruling took effect on October 21, 2013. On the same day, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie dropped the State's plans to appeal, ending the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples in New Jersey.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Margaret Bartley</span> American judge

Margaret Bartley is an American lawyer and judge from Maryland. She is the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

References

  1. ↑ Miller, Joshua Rhett (October 13, 2011). "Disabled Navy Veteran in Same-Sex Marriage to Sue for Benefits". FoxNews.com.
  2. ↑ Dao, James (October 12, 2011). "Denied Veterans Benefits Over Same-Sex Marriage, Ex-Sailor Challenges Law". New York Times.
  3. ↑ "Cardona v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 472 (2014)" (PDF). March 11, 2014. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 5, 2014. Retrieved November 30, 2014.
  4. 1 2 "Cardona v. Shinseki, Yale Law School Veterans Legal Services Clinic" . Retrieved November 30, 2014.
  5. ↑ Gideon, Gavan; Daniel Sisgoreo (October 14, 2011). "Law students aid veteran's appeal". Yale Daily News. Archived from the original on November 11, 2011.
  6. ↑ 38 U.S.C.   § 101(31)
  7. ↑ "38 C.F.R. § 3.50". Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved November 1, 2013.
  8. 1 2 "In the appeal of Carmen J. Cardona, Board of Veterans' Appeals, Department of Veterans Affairs, Docket Number 11-01 921, August 30, 2011" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 3, 2013. Retrieved November 1, 2013.
  9. ↑ "Pending Cases Challenging the Defense of Marriage Act - GLAD" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 24, 2012. Retrieved March 22, 2013.
  10. 1 2 "Letter from Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney General, to John A. Boehner, Speaker, U. S. House of Representatives, February 17, 2012" (PDF). Retrieved November 1, 2013.
  11. ↑ "Appellant's Principal Brief, Carmen Cardona v. Erik K. Shinseki, United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Vet. App. No. 11-3083, April 19, 2012" . Retrieved November 1, 2013.
  12. ↑ Dao, James (May 11, 2012). "Secretary of Veterans Affairs Sides With Veteran in DOMA Case". New York Times. Retrieved July 15, 2013.
  13. ↑ Motion of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives for Access to the Record Before the Agency, Cardona v. Shinseki, No. 11-3083 (Vet. App.) (June 26, 2012) Archived November 3, 2013, at the Wayback Machine , accessed July 15, 2013
  14. ↑ "Brief of Intervenor-Appellee Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives, Carmen Cardona v. Erik K. Shinseki, United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Vet. App. No. 11-3083, August 31, 2012" . Retrieved November 1, 2013.
  15. ↑ "Order, Carmen Cardona v. Erik K. Shinseki, United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Vet. App. No. 11-3083, October 17, 2012" . Retrieved November 1, 2013.
  16. ↑ "Intervenor-Appellee's Motion to Postpone November 29, 2012 Oral Argument for Good Cause Pending U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Eight Petitions for Writ of Certiorari, Carmen Cardona v. Erik K. Shinseki, United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Vet. App. No. 11-3083, November 8, 2012" . Retrieved November 1, 2013.
  17. ↑ "Order, Carmen Cardona v. Erik K. Shinseki, United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Vet. App. No. 11-3083, November 15, 2012" . Retrieved November 1, 2013.
  18. ↑ "Order, Carmen Cardona v. Erik K. Shinseki, United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Vet. App. No. 11-3083, December 18, 2012" . Retrieved November 1, 2013.
  19. ↑ United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307 , 570 U.S. ___(June 26, 2013). Retrieved June 26, 2013.
  20. ↑ "Cardona v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 472 (2014)" (PDF). March 11, 2014. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 5, 2014. Retrieved November 30, 2014.
  21. ↑ O'Leary, Mary E. (April 28, 2012). "Disabled veteran, denied spousal benefit, finds support". Torrington Register Citizen.[ permanent dead link ]
  22. ↑ "Brief of the State of Connecticut as Amicus Curaie in Support of the Appellant, Carmen Cardona, Carmen Cardona v. Erik K. Shinseki, United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Vet. App. No. 11-3083, April 25, 2012" . Retrieved November 1, 2013.
  23. ↑ "Brief of National Veterans' Service Organizations as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant Carmen J. Cardona, Carmen Cardona v. Erik K. Shinseki, United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Vet. App. No. 11-3083, April 26, 2012" . Retrieved November 1, 2013.
  24. ↑ "Brief for Amici Curiae Retired Military Officers Supporting Appellant, Carmen Cardona v. Erik K. Shinseki, United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Vet. App. No. 11-3083, April 26, 2012" . Retrieved November 1, 2013.
  25. ↑ "Brief of Disability Rights Advocates as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant, Carmen Cardona v. Erik K. Shinseki, United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Vet. App. No. 11-3083, April 26, 2012" . Retrieved November 1, 2013.
  26. ↑ "Brief of Amici Curiae United States Constitutional and Family Law Professors in Support of Appellant, Carmen Cardona v. Erik K. Shinseki, United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Vet. App. No. 11-3083, April 25, 2012" . Retrieved November 1, 2013.
  27. ↑ "Brief of Amici Curiae 15 Public-Interest Organizations and Legal Service Organizations in Support of Appellant, Carmen Cardona v. Erik K. Shinseki, United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Vet. App. No. 11-3083, April 26, 2012" . Retrieved November 1, 2013.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.