Brief of 172 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 40 U.S. Senators as amici curiae in support of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, urging affirmance on the merits.
Position | Introduction and Summary of the Argument through I. Gay Men and Lesbians Lack Meaningful Political Power, p. 177-200 - Marriage Equality and Reproductive Rights: Lessons Learned and the Road Ahead |
No. 12-307
In the Supreme Court of the United States United States of America, Petitioner,
v.
Edith Schlain Windsor and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, Respondents.
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
BRIEF OF 172 MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND 40 U.S. SENATORS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT EDITH SCHLAIN WINDSOR, URGING AFFIRMANCE ON THE MERITS
Heather C. Sawyer
House Committee on
the Judiciary
Minority Counsel to
Ranking Members
John Conyers, Jr.
and Jerrold Nadler
B-336 Rayburn Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-6906
Miriam R. Nemetz
Counsel of Record
Richard B. Katskee
Kathleen Connery Dawe
Michael B. Kimberly
Mayer Brown LLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 263-3000
mnemetz@mayerbrown.com
Counsel for Amici Curiae
A complete list of the 172 Members of the House of Representatives and 40 U.S. Senators participating as amici is provided in an appendix to this brief. Among them are:
Nancy Pelosi
House Democratic
Leader
Steny H. Hoyer
House Democratic
Whip
James E. Clyburn
House Assistant
Democratic Leader
Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader
Charles E. Schumer
Vice Chair, Senate
Democratic Conference
Richard J. Durbin
Assistant Senate
Majority Leader
Patty Murray
Secretary, Senate
Democratic Conference
Rep. Jerrold Nadler
Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Lead Sponsors, Respect for Marriage Act
John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member, House
Committee on the Judiciary
Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman, Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
Jared Polis, David N. Cicilline, Sean Patrick Maloney,
Mark Pocan, Kyrsten Sinema, and Mark Takano
House LGBT Equality Caucus Co-Chairs
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities Interest of the Amici Curiae Introduction and Summary of the Argument Argument I. Gay men and lesbians lack meaningful political power A. Just as heightened review applies to sex-based classifications, it should apply here B. Gay men and lesbians could not prevent DOMA, and their marriages remain the subject of unfavorable congressional attention C. Lesbians and gay men have yet to obtain basic civil-rights protections II. DOMA Section 3 is unconstitutional A. DOMA is not the rational result of impartial lawmaking B. None of the arguments advanced in DOMA's defense justifies the denial of federal recognition for married gay and lesbian couples 1. Preservation of tradition is not a valid basis for DOMA 2. DOMA harms American families and serves no legitimate federal interest in procreation or child-rearing 3. DOMA undercuts Congress's long standing practice of deferring to the States on matters of family law 4. The supposed interest in conserving public resources does not justify DOMA 5. The asserted desire for federal "uniformity" does not justify DOMA. Conclusion Appendix--Complete list of Members of Congress participating as Amici TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) Bradwell v. State, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130 (1873) Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) Cruzan v. Mo. Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570 (1956) Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) Gill v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 699 F. Supp. 2d 374 (D. Mass. 2010) Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 824 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2012) Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562 (1906) Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248(1983) Lembcke v. United States, 181 F.2d 703 (2d Cir. 1950) Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 716 F. Supp. 2d 884 (C.D. Cal. 2010) Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) Mass. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 698 F. Supp. 2d 234 (D. Mass. 2010) Mass. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) passim Money v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 811 F.2d 1474 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012) Pedersen v. Office of Per s. Mgmt., 881 F. Supp. 2d 294 (D. Conn. 2012) Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) Renshaw v. Heckler, 787 F.2d 50 (2d Cir. 1986) Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) Ry. Express Agency v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949) Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Kenney, 240 U.S. 489 (1916) Slessinger v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 835 F.2d 937 (1st Cir. 1987)(per curiam) Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009) Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973) U.S. Dep't of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973) Weinberger v. Weisenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975) Weiner v. Astrue, 2010 WL 691938 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942) Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012) Witt v. Dep't of Air Force, 739 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (W.D. Wash. 2010) Statutes & Regulations 5 U.S.C. [section][section] 8101 et seq. 11 U.S.C. [section] 302 (a) 26 U.S.C. [section] 6013 28 U.S.C. [section] 1738C 29 U.S.C. [section][section] 2601 et seq. 42 U.S.C. [section] 7385s-3 (d)(1) 20 C.F.R. [section] 404.1101 (Supp. 1952) 38 C.F.R. [section] 39.10 (a), (c) Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996) Other Authorities 142 Cong. Rec. H7489 (July 12, 1996) 142 Cong. Rec. H7501 (July 12, 1996) 142 Cong. Rec. S10118 (Sept. 10, 1996) 142 Cong. Rec. S4870 (May 8, 1996) H.R. 1397, 112th Cong. (2011) H.R. 1540, 112th Cong. [section] 534 (2011) H.R. 5326, 112th Cong. [section] 561 (2011) H.R. 8269, 95th Cong. (1977) H.R.J. Res. 88, 109th Cong. (2006) H.R. Rep. No. 104-664 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2905 passim H.R. Res. 5, 113th Cong. [section] 4 (a)(1)(2013) M.V. Lee Badgett & R. Bradley Sears, Putting A Price on Equality? The Impact of Same-Sex Marriage on...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.