Gill v. Office of Personnel Management

Gill v. Office of Personnel Management
150px
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Full case name	NANCY GILL & MARCELLE LETOURNEAU, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants.
Date decided	July, 8, 2010
Citations	699 F.Supp.2d 374 (D.Mass., 2010)
Judge sitting	Joseph Louis Tauro
Case history
Related actions	Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
Case holding
As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Keywords
Fifth Amendment, Equal protection, Defense of Marriage Act, Same-sex marriage

Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management 699 F.Supp.2d 374 (D.Mass., 2010) is a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs in the suit challenge 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."

The trial began on May 6, 2010, and was heard by District Judge Joseph Louis Tauro. On July 8, Tauro ruled section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in a summary judgment. He later stayed the implementation of his decision pending appeal and the Department of Justice entered an appeal on October 12, 2010.

History

On March 3, 2009, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed Gill in federal district court. The complaint argued that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) should be found unconstitutional based on the Fifth Amendment, equal protection, and the federal government's historically consistent deference to state definitions of marriage. Section 3 defines the terms "marriage" and "spouse" for the purposes of federal law. It prevents the federal government from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples who are legally married in their own states and restricts the federal government from granting such couples any federal benefits it provides to opposite-sex married couples.

On July 8, 2010, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro found for the plaintiffs, saying:

As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Tauro's decision found Section 3 lacks a rational basis. While the plaintiffs had asked Tauro to find that sexual orientation was a suspect class and therefore properly treated with strict scrutiny, Tauro's found that Section 3 was unconstitutional on rational basis grounds. He did not address the question of whether heightened scrutiny was warranted.

Tauro issued a decision in Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, which found the same provision of DOMA was also unconstitutional on Tenth Amendment and Spending Clause grounds, on the same day he released his opinion in Gill.

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. Plaintiffs did not oppose the stay. 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."

On January 14, 2011, the Department of Justice filed a single brief in the First Circuit Court of Appeals that defended DOMA in both Gill and the related case brought by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. On February 25, the Department of Justice notified the Court that it will "cease to defend" both cases. On April 18, 2011, leaders of the House of Representatives announced they had hired former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement to defend the case. 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. GLAD and the Department of Justice did not oppose the request. The Court set a briefing scheduled to be completed by the end of September.

On June 21, 2011, plaintiffs filed a petition for en banc review to expedite the case by moving it more quickly through the judicial review process. On July 7, the DOJ supported that petition and argued that DOMA 3 requires heightened scrutiny review and will fail to meet that standard. In its response filed the same day, the BLAG agreed to the plaintiffs' request provided that other cases are consolidated with it, notably Massachusetts, and that the briefing schedule be revised. It said that "a definitive determination of Section 3's constitutionality by the Supreme Court seems all but inevitable. It is in all parties' interest that the Supreme Court resolve this issue sooner, rather than later." In their briefs, the parties disputed whether there is a First Circuit precedent holding that laws using sexual orientation as a classification are not subject to heightened scrutiny.

GLAD filed its appeal brief on October 28, 2011. Responses from the DOJ and the BLAG were filed December 1, 2011.

See also

• Cook v. Gates
• Same-sex marriage in the United States

External links

• Court decision (via Justia)
• Case Documents at GLAD
• Cook v. Gates (2008), earlier First Circuit opinion