Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management

Last updated

Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management
US DC NorCal.svg
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Full case nameKaren Golinski,
Plaintiff,
v.
Office of Personnel Management, et al.,
Defendants.
DecidedFebruary 22, 2012
Citation(s) 824 F. Supp. 2d 968
Case history
Subsequent action(s)On appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Nos. 12-15388 and 12-15409); Petition for certiorari before judgment in the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 12-16), denied June 27, 2013
Related action(s)
Holding
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act does not substantially relate to an important government interest or rationally relate to a legitimate government end.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Jeffrey White
Keywords
Fifth Amendment, Equal protection, Defense of Marriage Act, Same-sex marriage

Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, 824 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2012), 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.

Contents

On February 22, 2012, the District Court held section 3 unconstitutional. The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Department of Justice (DOJ), on July 3, 2012, asked the Supreme Court to take the case before the Ninth Circuit decided it, so it could be heard with two other DOMA-related cases, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services .

The Ninth Circuit delayed oral argument pending action by the Supreme Court. Following that Court's decision in United States v. Windsor , the appeal was dismissed on July 23, 2013.

Background

In 2008, when California first extended marriage to same-sex couples, Karen Golinski, an attorney and 19-year employee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, married Amy Cunninghis. [1] Golinski subsequently applied for family medical insurance coverage through her employer. When the application was denied, she filed a complaint under the Ninth Circuit's Employment Dispute Resolution Plan. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, in his administrative capacity, ruled in 2009 that she was entitled to spousal health benefits, [2] but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced that it would not comply with the ruling.

Trial proceedings

In January 2010, Golinski filed suit against the OPM in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to enforce Kozinski's order. [3] On March 17, 2011, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White dismissed the suit on procedural grounds but invited Golinski to amend her suit to argue the unconstitutionality of DOMA Section 3, [4] which she did on April 14. [5]

On February 23, 2011, while the court was still considering the original petition, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would no longer defend DOMA, but would help ensure Congress had a fair opportunity to defend the law. [6] In response, the U.S. House of Representatives formed the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to defend DOMA in this case, as well as Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services . On BLAG's behalf, former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a motion to dismiss, raising arguments previously avoided by the Department of Justice that DOMA's definition of marriage is valid "because only a man and a woman can beget a child together, and because historical experience has shown that a family consisting of a married father and mother is an effective social structure for raising children". [7] [8] On July 1, 2011, the DOJ filed a brief in support of Golinski's suit, in which it detailed for the first time its case for heightened scrutiny based on "a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities" and its arguments that DOMA Section 3 fails to meet that standard. [9] [10]

A September 20, 2011, letter from New York Roman Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan, which included a three-page analysis by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, cited the brief as evidence that the DOJ "has shifted ... to actively attacking DOMA's constitutionality". Dolan predicted current federal actions would "precipitate a national conflict between church and state of enormous proportions and to the detriment of both institutions." [11]

White offered to make a video recording of the hearing unless any of the parties objected, which BLAG did. [12]

On February 22, 2012, White ruled for Golinski finding DOMA "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." He wrote that Section 3 of DOMA could not pass the "heightened scrutiny" or the "rational basis" test. He wrote, [13]

The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.

He ordered that Golinski's wife be allowed to enroll for health care insurance as Golinski's spouse. Tara Borelli, the lead attorney for Lambda Legal, who represented Golinski, said "This ruling ... spells doom for DOMA". [13]

Appeals

On February 24, BLAG filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. [14] Based on White's ruling and absent a request to the contrary from BLAG, on March 9 the OPM notified Golinski's insurer that it no longer objected to Golinski's wife enrolling in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, the point at issue in Golinski's complaint. [15] On March 26, the DOJ, with the support of Golinski's attorneys, asked the Ninth Circuit to expedite the case by granting en banc review, eliminating the usual review by a three-judge panel. [16] On May 22, 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition. [17]

On July 3, the DOJ filed its response to the Ninth Circuit appeal and at the same time asked the Supreme Court to review the case before the Ninth Circuit decides it (a writ of certiorari before judgment), so it can be heard together with two other cases in which DOMA Section 3 was held unconstitutional, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services . [18] Two weeks later, on July 16, a writ for certiorari before judgment was filed in another DOMA case, Windsor v. United States . Golinski's attorneys supported the DOJ's request for certiorari on July 23. [19] On July 27, 2012, the Ninth Circuit canceled the oral argument scheduled for September 10 and put the case in abeyance pending action by the Supreme Court on the DOJ's certiorari petition. [20] BLAG on July 30 asked for extension of the August 2 deadline for its responses to the DOJ petition in this case and in Massachusetts to August 31, which request was granted. [21] [n 5]

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Windsor that found Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, on July 23, with the consent of all parties, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeals. [24]

Amicus briefs (9th Circuit)

In June 2012, two former Republican Attorneys General, Edwin Meese and John Ashcroft, filed an amicus brief ("friend of the court") in the Golinski. It called the DOJ's decision not to defend DOMA section 3 "an unprecedented and ill-advised departure from over two centuries of Executive Branch practice" and "an extreme and unprecedented deviation from the historical norm". Two similar briefs in defense of DOMA were filed by a group of ten Republican senators and the attorneys general of 14 states. [25]

Several amici curiae briefs were filed in support of the plaintiffs. One filed by 135 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, dissenting members of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, argued that the DOMA was not an act of rational, impartial, or constitutional lawmaking. [26] Seventy business, professional, and municipal employers [n 6] argued that DOMA burdens employers because it creates a conflict between federal and state regulation of same-sex spousal benefits. [27]

Family and child welfare law professors [n 7] argued that DOMA inconsistently and unconstitutionally singles out same-sex couples for discrimination, despite family law tradition to the contrary. [28] [29] Historians from Harvard, Princeton, USC, NYU, Stanford, Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Rutgers argued that DOMA encroached upon the state's domain by inconsistently denying same-sex couples the right to marry while historically allowing states to determine every other requirement for marriage. [30] The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari before judgment on June 27, following its decision in Windsor. [31] On July 11, the court asked the parties to advise it how to proceed in light of the decision in Windsor by July 25. [32]

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. ↑ In Pedersen, a district court held section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional. It is still pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari before judgment that sought to bypass that court, filed under docket number 12-231, on June 27, 2013, following its decision in Windsor.
  4. ↑ The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims stayed Cardona, which challenges the constitutionality of section 3 of DOMA and certain federal regulations, pending resolution of Windsor.
  5. ↑ The deadline for a response to the Commonwealth's conditional counter-petition in Massachusetts is August 23, [22] and the BLAG request did not mention that petition. [23]
  6. ↑ These include Google, Microsoft, eBay, CBS, Viacom, Levi-Strauss, McGraw-Hill, Starbucks, Xerox, Goodwin Procter LLP, and Baker & McKenzie LLP, and the cities of San Francisco, Boston, Los Angeles, Seattle, and New York City
  7. ↑ Their institutional affiliations include Chicago-Kent College of Law, Columbia University, UPenn, Cornell University, George Washington University, Boston University, Emory University, Stanford University, Harvard University, and public state schools from Arizona, California (Los Angeles, Berkeley, Davis), Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington.

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">American Foundation for Equal Rights</span> American nonprofit organization

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) was a nonprofit organization active in the United States from 2009 through 2015. The organization was established to support the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a federal lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. AFER retained former United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to lead the legal team representing the plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8.

Hollingsworth v. Perry was a series of United States federal court cases that re-legalized same-sex marriage in the state of California. The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively. As Hollingsworth v. Perry, it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.

<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.

Mary L. Bonauto is an American lawyer and civil rights advocate who has worked to eradicate discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and has been referred to by US Representative Barney Frank as "our Thurgood Marshall." She began working with the Massachusetts-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, now named GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) organization in 1990. A resident of Portland, Maine, Bonauto was one of the leaders who both worked with the Maine legislature to pass a same-sex marriage law and to defend it at the ballot in a narrow loss during the 2009 election campaign. These efforts were successful when, in the 2012 election, Maine voters approved the measure, making it the first state to allow same-sex marriage licenses via ballot vote. Bonauto is best known for being lead counsel in the case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health which made Massachusetts the first state in which same-sex couples could marry in 2004. She is also responsible for leading the first strategic challenges to section three of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

<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."

<i>Diaz v. Brewer</i> Lawsuit regarding healthcare benefits

Diaz v. Brewer, originally Collins v. Brewer No. 2:09-cv-02402-JWS (Az.Dist.Ct.), is a lawsuit heard on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed a lower court's issuance of a preliminary injunction that prevented Arizona from implementing its 2009 statute that would have terminated the eligibility for healthcare benefits of any state employee's same-sex domestic partner.

<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>Sevcik v. Sandoval</i>

Sevcik v. Sandoval is the lead case that successfully challenged Nevada's denial of same-sex marriage as mandated by that state's constitution and statutory law. The plaintiffs' complaint was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on April 10, 2012, on behalf of several couples denied marriage licenses. These couples challenged the denial on the basis of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection.

<i>Cardona v. Shinseki</i>

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. 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. 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. Cardona subsequently received full payment of her spousal benefits, retroactive to her date of application.

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.

Same-sex marriage in Oklahoma has been legal since October 6, 2014, following the resolution of a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. On that day, following the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to review Bishop v. Smith, a case that had found the ban unconstitutional, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Oklahoma to recognize same-sex marriages. On January 14, 2014, Judge Terence C. Kern of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma declared the state's statutory and constitutional same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. The case, Bishop v. Smith, was stayed pending appeal. On July 18, 2014, a panel of the Tenth Circuit upheld Kern's ruling overturning Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban. However, the panel put its ruling on hold pending disposition of a petition for certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the request for review, leaving the Tenth Circuit Court's ruling in place. State officials responded by implementing the Tenth Circuit's ruling, recognizing same-sex marriage in the state.

<i>Kitchen v. Herbert</i>

Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181, affirmed, 755 F.3d 1193 ; stay granted, 134 S.Ct. 893 (2014); petition for certiorari denied, No. 14-124, 2014 WL 3841263, is the federal case that successfully challenged Utah's constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples and similar statutes. Three same-sex couples filed suit in March 2013, naming as defendants Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert, Attorney General John Swallow, and Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen in their official capacities.

On June 25, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling striking down Utah's same-sex marriage ban, setting a precedent in other states under the Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction. In addition, on July 18, 2014, the same panel of the Tenth Circuit invalidated Oklahoma's ban as well. Both Circuit Court rulings were stayed pending certiorari review from the Supreme Court of the United States. The Tenth Circuit consists of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. New Mexico is the only state in the circuit where same-sex marriage was legal prior to the decisions. Utah is the only state in the circuit where same-sex marriage was temporarily legal after its ban was struck down. A ruling requiring the state of Utah to recognize same-sex marriages performed within the state was temporarily stayed and was originally set to expire on July 21, 2014, at 8:00 a.m. The Supreme Court of the United States extended the stay on July 18, 2014.

In Brenner v. Scott and its companion case, Grimsley v. Scott, a U.S. district court found Florida's constitutional and statutory same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. On August 21, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents that state from enforcing its bans and then stayed its injunction until stays are lifted in the three same-sex marriage cases then petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court–Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen–and for 91 days thereafter. When the district court's preliminary injunction took effect on January 6, 2015, enforcement of Florida's bans on same-sex marriage ended.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

The history of same-sex marriage in the United States dates from the early 1970s, when the first lawsuits seeking legal recognition of same-sex relationships brought the question of civil marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples to public attention though they proved unsuccessful. However marriage wasn't a request for the LGBTQ movement until the Second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Washington (1987). The subject became increasingly prominent in U.S. politics following the 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in Baehr v. Miike that suggested the possibility that the state's prohibition might be unconstitutional. That decision was met by actions at both the federal and state level to restrict marriage to male-female couples, notably the enactment at the federal level of the Defense of Marriage Act.

References

  1. ↑ "Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management," Lambda Legal, accessed 22 October 2013.
  2. ↑ Pear, Robert (March 12, 2009). "Obama on Spot Over a Benefit to Gay Couples". New York Times. Retrieved March 1, 2011.
  3. ↑ Geidner, Chris (February 28, 2011). "More DOMA Fallout: DOJ Tackles How DOMA Decision Impacts Judicial Benefits Case". Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on March 4, 2011. Retrieved March 1, 2011.
  4. ↑ Levine, Dan (March 16, 2011). "Lesbian U.S. employee set back in benefits fight". Reuters. Retrieved March 17, 2011.
  5. ↑ Golinski v. OPM, Second Amended Complaint. April 14, 2011. Retrieved June 8, 2011
  6. ↑ Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act, February 23, 2011. Retrieved July 5, 2012.
  7. ↑ Geidner, Chris (June 10, 2011). "House GOP Leadership Defends 'Traditional' Marriage From Being 'Radically Redefined'". Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on June 12, 2011. Retrieved June 13, 2011.
  8. ↑ Golinski v. OPM, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint Archived May 7, 2012, at the Wayback Machine . June 3, 2011. Retrieved July 4, 2012.
  9. ↑ Geidner, Chris (July 1, 2011). "DOJ: Court Should Not Dismiss Karen Golinski's Health Benefits Claim, Should Instead Find DOMA Unconstitutional". Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on July 3, 2011. Retrieved July 2, 2011.
  10. ↑ Golinski v. OPM, Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss Archived May 7, 2012, at the Wayback Machine . July 1, 2011. Retrieved July 2, 2011.
  11. ↑ "Fight against federal law will undermine marriage, says archbishop". Catholic News Services. September 22, 2011. Archived from the original on January 2, 2013. Retrieved September 27, 2011.
  12. ↑ Geidner, Chris (September 12, 2011). "House General Counsel Opposes Recording of Golinski DOMA Challenge". Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on July 19, 2012. Retrieved July 9, 2012.
  13. 1 2 Geidner, Chris (February 22, 2012). "DOMA's Federal Definition of Marriage Unconstitutional, Judge Rules in Golinski Case". Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on February 23, 2012. Retrieved February 22, 2012.
  14. ↑ "House leaders to appeal Calif. gay marriage ruling". Boston Globe. Associated Press. February 24, 2012. Retrieved February 25, 2012.
  15. ↑ Davidson, Joe (March 26, 2012). "Obama administration allows health coverage for same-sex spouse". Washington Post. Retrieved March 27, 2012.
  16. ↑ Egelko, Bob (March 27, 2012). "U.S. wants faster review of DOMA gay-rights case". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 27, 2012.
  17. ↑ Golinski v. OPM, Order denying petition for initial hearing en banc, Entered May 22, 2012. Retrieved June 19, 2012.
  18. ↑ Geidner, Chris (July 3, 2012). "DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Take Two DOMA Cases, Maintains Law Is Unconstitutional". Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on July 4, 2012. Retrieved July 3, 2012.
  19. ↑ Thomaston, Scottie. "Golinski v. OPM, plaintiff files brief in support of Supreme Court hearing her case". Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Retrieved July 24, 2012.
  20. ↑ Golinski v. OPM, Order Vacating Oral Argument, Entered July 27, 2012. Retrieved July 30, 2012.
  21. ↑ Geidner, Chris (July 31, 2012). "Supreme Court Delays DOMA Deadline". BuzzFeed. Retrieved August 3, 2012.
  22. ↑ "Docket No. 12-97: Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services". Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved August 3, 2012.
  23. ↑ Paul Clement (July 30, 2012). "Letter to the Clerk of the Supreme Court requesting an extension" . Retrieved August 3, 2012.
  24. ↑ "Order: Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management". Lambda Legal. Retrieved July 23, 2013.
  25. ↑ Geidner, Chris (June 11, 2012). "Former AGs Meese, Ashcroft Call Obama Move on DOMA 'Extreme' in Appeals Court Filing". Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on June 17, 2012. Retrieved July 12, 2012.
  26. ↑ "Brief of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives" (PDF). Lambda Legal . Retrieved July 11, 2012.
  27. ↑ "Brief of 70 Business, Professional, and Municipal Employers" (PDF). Lambda Legal . Retrieved July 11, 2012.
  28. ↑ "Brief of Family Law Professors" (PDF). Lambda Legal . Retrieved July 11, 2012.
  29. ↑ "Brief of Child Welfare Law Professors" (PDF). Lambda Legal . Retrieved July 11, 2012.
  30. ↑ "Brief of History Professors" (PDF). Lambda Legal . Retrieved July 11, 2012.
  31. ↑ Docket 12-16, accessed July 18, 2013
  32. ↑ Thomaston, Scottie (July 18, 2013). "DOMA cases continue to wind their way through the courts". Equality on Trial. Retrieved July 18, 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.