Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Full case name	Commonwealth of Massachusetts Plaintiff, v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Defendants.
Date decided	July 8, 2010
Citations	698 F.Supp.2d 234 (D.Mass. 2010)
Judge sitting	Joseph Louis Tauro
Case holding
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a women, is an unconstitutional encroachment on the power to define marriage granted to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
Keywords
Defense of Marriage Act, Same-sex marriage, State's rights

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services 698 F.Supp.2d 234 (D.Mass. 2010) is a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiff in the suit challenges 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] The court found for the plaintiffs and the Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed that decision on October 12, 2010.

Complaint

On July 8, 2009, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a suit, Commonwealth v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of DOMA. The suit claims 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]

Argument

U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro heard arguments in the case of Commonwealth v. United States Department of Health and Human Services 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. Judge 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 disputed 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

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]

Massachusetts Attorney General Coakley greeted her victory:^[5]

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.

Status

Tauro entered his final judgment–a document developed in consultation with the parties to the case–on August 18 and granted a stay for the duration of the appeals process.^[6] GLAD believes an appeal provides "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."^[7]

An attorney for the plaintiffs has estimated that arguments on appeal will take place approximately a year after the expected appeal is filed.^[8]

On October 12, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice from the office of Assistant U.S. Attorney General Tony Weston filed an appeal in federal district court in Boston to the court’s decision in two cases testing the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.^[9] The appeal was generally expected, given that the Obama administration at the time maintained that it must defend all federal laws—even those it believes should be repealed. The appeal will be heard in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

On January 14, 2011, the Department of Justice filed a single brief in the First Circuit Court of Appeals that defended DOMA in both this case and the related Gill case.^[10] On February 25, the Department of Justice notified the Court that it will "cease to defend" both cases.^[11] On May 20, 2011, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), an arm of the U.S. House of Representatives, filed a motion asking to be allowed to intervene to defend DOMA Section 3. The Department of Justice did not oppose the request, but Massachusetts did and plans to file a response.^[12] The BLAG proposed a briefing schedule that would be completed August 15, 2011.^[13]

See also

• 2010 in LGBT rights

References

1. ^ "Defense of Marriage Act". United States Government Printing Office. 1996-09-21. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ199.104. Retrieved 2010-07-25. 
2. ^ Finucane, Martin (2009-07-08). "Mass. challenges federal Defense of Marriage Act". Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/mass_to_challen.html. Retrieved 2009-11-06. 
3. ^ Leblanc, Steve (2010-05-26). "Mass. AG argues against federal gay marriage ban". Boston.com/Associated Press. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/05/26/mass_ag_argues_against_federal_gay_marriage_ban/. Retrieved 2010-06-06. 
4. ^ Geidner, Chris (2010-07-08). "Federal Court Rules DOMA Sec. 3 Violates Equal Protection". Metro Weekly. http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/07/federal-court-rules-doma-viola.html. Retrieved 2010-07-08. 
5. ^ Office of the Attorney General: "Statement of Attorney General Coakley Regarding the Landmark DOMA ", July 8, 2010, accessed July 8, 2010
6. ^ GLAD: "Amended Judgment Entered in Gill DOMA Challenge," August 19, 2010, accessed August 19, 2010
7. ^ GLAD: "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Federal District Court's Rulings Overturning DOMA Section 3", August 18, 2010, p. 4, accessed August 19, 2010. Tauro originally entered his final judgment on August 12, but amended it on August 18. See also: Bay Windows: Lisa Keen, "Clock now ticking on DOMA appeals," August 18, 2010, accessed August 20, 2010
8. ^ The Advocate September 2010, p. 12, citing Mary Bonauto
9. ^ http://www.politico.com/static/PPM170_101012_doj.html
10. ^ Metro Weekly: Chris Geidner, "DOJ Files DOMA Defense in First Circuit Cases," January 14, 2011, accessed January 14, 2011; Text of the brief
11. ^ GLAD: Letter of Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, to United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, February 24, 2011, accessed February 28, 2011
12. ^ Metro Weekly: Chris Geidner, "House GOP Leadership Defends DOMA at the First Circuit," May 21, 2011, accessed May 23, 2011
13. ^ Metro Weekly: "Motion for Leave to Intervene," May 20, 2011, accessed May 23, 2011

External links

• Complaint
• Court decision