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.
Contents |
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]
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]
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]
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 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]
|