Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

Last updated
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Full case name Commonwealth of Massachusetts v.United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al.
ArguedApril 4 2012
DecidedMay 31 2012
Citation682 F.3d 1
Case history
Prior history698 F.Supp.2d 234 (D.Mass. 2010)
Subsequent historyPetitions for certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 12-15 and 12-97) denied.
Related cases
Holding
Section 3 of DOMA fails a less-deferential rational basis review on Equal Protection Clause claims; the Spending Clause and Tenth Amendment do not proscribe DOMA, but they do influence the analysis of DOMA's justifications under equal protection review.
Court membership
Judges sitting Sandra Lynch, Chief Judge, Juan R. Torruella and Michael Boudin, Circuit Judges
Case opinions
MajorityBoudin, joined by Torruella and Lynch
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V, XIV
Defense of Marriage Act

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." [1] 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.

Contents

The First Circuit, anticipating that the parties would seek a review of the decision, stayed its decision. Both the Department of Justice and Commonwealth of Massachusetts asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision by filing petitions for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court decided a similar case, United States v. Windsor , on June 26, 2013, and dismissed the petitions the following day.

Trial proceedings

On July 8, 2009, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley filed suit challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of DOMA in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. It claimed that Congress "overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people." [2]

Judge Joseph Tauro heard arguments on May 26, 2010. Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Maura Healey described how a veteran of the U.S. military sought burial for himself and his same-sex spouse in a veterans' cemetery, which DOMA's definition of marriage prohibits. Tauro asked Christopher Hall, who represented the U.S. Justice Department, if the federal government had an interest in "perpetuating heterosexuality in the graveyard." He also questioned the government's contention that DOMA was an attempt to preserve the 1996 status quo, noting that the government considers the status quo at the time the restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples while another way of describing the status quo in 1996 is that the federal government deferred to each state's definition of marriage and provided no definition of its own. In response to arguments that the federal government has consistently used state definitions of marriage, Hall cited the federal government's definition of marriage in immigration cases without relying on any state's definition. [3]

Decision

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (left) and Assistant Attorney General Maura Healey (right) at a July 8, 2010 press conference on the Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. lawsuit challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act Doma-decision-press-conference 4787096744 o (1).jpg
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (left) and Assistant Attorney General Maura Healey (right) at a July 8, 2010 press conference on the Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. lawsuit challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act

On July 8, 2010, exactly one year after the suit was filed, Judge Tauro released his decision in the case. He ruled that DOMA section 3 violates the Tenth Amendment and falls outside Congress' authority under the Spending Clause of the Constitution. [4] [5]

In response, Attorney General Coakley said, [6]

Today's landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA's restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages. The federal government cannot require states, such as Massachusetts, to further the discrimination through federal programs.

Tauro ruled in a companion case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management , on the same day, finding part 3 of DOMA unconstitutional on Fifth Amendment grounds. Tauro issued an amended final judgment on August 18, [n 5] but he stayed it pending appeal. The text of the decision was developed in consultation with the parties. [8]

Appeals

First Circuit

On January 14, 2011, the DOJ filed a brief in the First Circuit Court of Appeals that defended DOMA in both this case and the related Gill case. [9] Despite its victory, GLAD supported an appeal, stating "the chance to argue in front of a higher court with a broader reach ... [and] an opportunity to address the harms DOMA Section 3 causes to already married couples across the country." [10] On February 25, the DOJ notified the Court that it would cease to defend both cases. [11] On May 20, 2011, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) filed a motion asking to be allowed to intervene to defend DOMA section 3, and leave was granted.

Chief Judge Sandra Lynch and Judges Michael Boudin and Juan Torruella heard arguments in the case on April 4, 2012. [12] On May 31, 2012, they unanimously found section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, but rejected Tauro's rationale in this case that it violated the Tenth Amendment and the Spending Clause. [13] [14] The Court stayed enforcement of its decision in anticipation of an appeal to the Supreme Court. [15]

Supreme Court

On June 29, BLAG filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court in Gill. [16] The DOJ filed a petition in this case on July 3, while asking the Supreme Court to review Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management as well. [17] The DOJ's petitions in Gill and Massachusetts raised the question of whether section 3 violates the Equal Protection Clause. In its reply to those petitions, filed on July 20, 2012, Massachusetts proposed the additional questions of whether section 3 violates the Tenth Amendment and the Spending Clause. [18] [n 6] BLAG on July 30 asked for extension of the August 2 deadline for its responses to the DOJ petition in this case and in Golinski to August 31, which request was granted. [19] [n 7] The petition for the writ of certiorari was dismissed after United States v. Windsor was decided. [22]

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. 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.
  3. ↑ The Supreme Court decided Windsor on June 26, 2013, finding section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
  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 original final judgment was issued on August 12, 2010 [7]
  6. ↑ At the same time Massachusetts filed its response to the BLAG and DOJ petitions, it filed its own petition for certiorari in case the Supreme Court found its response went beyond the allowable scope for a response. See footnote 1 of the Response. [18]
  7. ↑ The deadline for a response to the Commonwealth's conditional counter-petition in this case is August 23, [20] and the BLAG request did not mention that petition. [21]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defense of Marriage Act</span> 1996 U.S. federal law, repealed in 2022

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. It banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage by limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman, and it further allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in the United States</span>

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.

<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.

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."

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, was a federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska and decided on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It challenged the federal constitutionality of Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and other same-sex relationships.

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>In re Marriage of J.B. and H.B.</i>

In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B. was a case arising from a divorce petition filed by a same-sex couple in Texas. They had been married in Massachusetts. A Texas Family Court granted the petition, holding that Texas's Proposition 2, which prohibited the court from recognizing a same-sex marriage, violated the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On appeal, the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas reversed the family court's judgment, holding that it was consistent with the due process and equal protection clauses. The case was before the Texas Supreme Court, but the case was dismissed due to the death of one of the parties.

<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.

This article contains a timeline of significant events regarding same-sex marriage in the United States. On June 26, 2015, the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges effectively ended restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States.

<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.

<i>Kitchen v. Herbert</i> American legal case

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.

The lead cases on same-sex marriage in Kentucky are Bourke v. Beshear, and its companion case Love v. Beshear. In Bourke, a U.S. district court found that the Equal Protection Clause requires Kentucky to recognize valid same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. In Love, the same court found that this same clause renders Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Both decisions were stayed and consolidated upon appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments in both cases on August 6, 2014. On November 6, the Sixth Circuit upheld Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriage.

In Brenner v. Scott and its companion case, Grimsley v. Scott, a U.S. district court found Florida's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. On August 21, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction that prevented that state from enforcing its bans and then stayed its injunction until stays were 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 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which 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 of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 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 equal rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the enforcement of liquor laws by a non-government entity. Massachusetts had established a law that allowed any church or school located within 500 feet (150 m) of an establishment seeking a liquor license to object to that license. The Supreme Court, in an 8–1 decision, ruled that Massachusetts' law violated the Establishment Clause as it delegated powers normally reserved to the government to non-government entities and would allow decisions to be made along religious lines, effectively advancing religious purposes.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

References

  1. ↑ "Defense of Marriage Act". United States Government Printing Office. September 21, 1996. Retrieved July 25, 2010.
  2. ↑ Finucane, Martin (July 8, 2009). "Mass. challenges federal Defense of Marriage Act". Boston Globe. Retrieved November 6, 2009.
  3. ↑ Leblanc, Steve (May 26, 2010). "Mass. AG argues against federal gay marriage ban". Boston.com. Associated Press. Retrieved June 6, 2010.
  4. ↑ Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 698 F.Supp.2d 234 (D.Mass. 2010). Retrieved July 25, 2012.
  5. ↑ Geidner, Chris (July 8, 2010). "Federal Court Rules DOMA Sec. 3 Violates Equal Protection". Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on July 12, 2010. Retrieved July 8, 2010.
  6. ↑ "Statement of Attorney General Coakley Regarding the Landmark DOMA" (Press release). Office of the Attorney General. July 8, 2010. Retrieved July 8, 2010.
  7. ↑ Keen, Lisa (August 18, 2010). "Clock now ticking on DOMA appeals". Bay Windows. Archived from the original on August 19, 2010. Retrieved August 20, 2010.
  8. ↑ "Amended Judgment Entered in Gill DOMA Challenge". GLAD. August 19, 2010. Archived from the original on August 25, 2010. Retrieved August 19, 2010.
  9. ↑ Geidner, Chris (January 14, 2011). "DOJ Files DOMA Defense in First Circuit Cases". Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on January 17, 2011. Retrieved January 14, 2011.
  10. ↑ "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Federal District Court's Rulings Overturning DOMA Section 3" (PDF). GLAD. August 19, 2010. p. 4. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 14, 2010.
  11. ↑ Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Letter of Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, to United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Archived July 24, 2011, at the Wayback Machine , February 24, 2011. Retrieved February 28, 2011.
  12. ↑ Geidner, Chris (April 4, 2012). "Federal Appeals Judges Consider Whether DOMA Is Constitutional in Historic Hearing in Boston". Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on April 5, 2012. Retrieved April 4, 2012.
  13. ↑ Jeffrey, Don (May 31, 2012). "Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional, Appeals Court Says". Bloomberg. Retrieved May 31, 2012.
  14. ↑ Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services Archived September 4, 2012, at the Wayback Machine , 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012). Retrieved May 31, 2012.
  15. ↑ Seelye, Katharine Q. (June 1, 2012). "Appeals Court Turns Back Marriage Act as Unfair to Gays". New York Times. Retrieved June 1, 2012.
  16. ↑ Johnson, Chris (June 20, 2012). "Boehner appeals DOMA cases to Supreme Court". Washington Blade. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
  17. ↑ Geidner, Chris. "DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Take Two DOMA Cases, Maintains Law Is Unconstitutional," July 3, 2012], accessed July 3, 2012". Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on July 4, 2012.
  18. 1 2 BLAG v. Gill, Response of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Support of Certiorari, p. i (Docket nos. 12-13 and 12-15). Retrieved July 25, 2012.
  19. ↑ Geidner, Chris (July 31, 2012). "Supreme Court Delays DOMA Deadline". BuzzFeed. Retrieved August 3, 2012.
  20. ↑ "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.
  21. ↑ Paul Clement (July 30, 2012). "Letter to the Clerk of the Supreme Court requesting an extension" . Retrieved August 3, 2012.
  22. ↑ "Department of Health and Human Services v. Massachusetts". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved March 10, 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.