New York Law Journal
  • Home
  • News
  • Decisions
  • Columns
  • Practice Areas
  • My NYLJ
  • Careers
  • Courts
  • Verdicts
  • Public Notices
  • Smart Litigator

Home > Justices to Hear Woman's DOMA Challenge

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Previous

  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Next

Justices to Hear Woman's DOMA Challenge

December 10, 2012

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •       Comments (1)
 

Professor Douglas NeJaime of Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, called the combination of grants in Perry and Windsor "really interesting" and added, "It's really hard to know exactly what the justices are thinking. Windsor is the DOMA case that presents the heightened scrutiny question and it was raised in Perry but the Ninth Circuit didn't go there. The justices could be interested in saying it's time to say sexual orientation classifications merit heightened scrutiny."

On the other hand, NeJaime said, "They could be prepared to split the difference and say a federal law like DOMA that denies recognition to valid state law marriages is unconstitutional, but not be prepared to find that states can't prohibit marriage themselves."

A third possibility, according to NeJaime, is that the justices will find both Prop 8 and DOMA §3 unconstitutional under the Constitution's lowest scrutiny—rational basis review.

The DOMA case added to the justices' decision docket does not ask whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Instead, the question is whether a federal law is unconstitutional because it discriminates by treating legally married same-sex couples differently from legally married opposite-sex couples.

The question in Perry gives the justices room to rule broadly or, as the Ninth Circuit did, to rule narrowly.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council speaker Christine Quinn both issued statements backing the court's action as did Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

"The rights of men and women should not be dependent upon who they love and who they choose to spend their lives with," said Bloomberg.

Congress enacted DOMA in reaction to a 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision that held that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples would violate the state constitution. Opponents of gay marriage feared that Hawaii would legalize those marriages and that other states would follow or be forced to recognize them. Amidst those fears and furor, President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996. Hawaii never legalized same-sex marriages.

DOMA has two major sections: §2, which says that no state has to recognize or give effect to the same-sex marriage law of another state, and §3, which defines marriage for all federal purposes.

Although §3 does not invalidate same-sex marriages in those states that permit them, it excludes those marriages from recognition for purposes of more than 1,000 federal statutes and programs whose administration turns in part on individuals' marital status, including federal employment, immigration, Social Security, public health and welfare benefits, tax, and other laws.

Continue reading

Previous

  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Next



Subscribe to The National Law Journal

You must be signed in to comment on an article

 

Reader Comments

  • Avon

    December 11, 2012 07:49 PM

    It would have been good to publish the actual title of the Windsor case.
    BLAG may have "stepped into the defense vacuum," but that's not the same thing as actually saying that they are the appellant who sought certiorari. If some Tea Party politician is the lead party of record against Windsor, I'd like to know who!
    And, ideally, if BLAG is the lead party of record, I'd like to see the Democrats in BLAG petition to re-name the appellant "Single-party Legal Advisory Group" (instead of "Bipartisan"), so that it could be "SLAG v. Windsor." Has a nice ring to it.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Post a Comment »
Find similar content

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Stop-and-Frisk Judge Relishes Her Independence
    •      
  2. Court Officials Seek to Reform Process of Naming Acting Justices
    •      
  3. Ground Is Shifting in 14-Year Litigation
    •      
  4. Trial Founders on 'Personality Issues' Between Judge, Counsel
    •      
  5. City Defends Heavy Use of Stop-and-Frisk by Police Dept.
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

Hiring Interns? Be Sure to Do It Right

ACC Weighs in on Arizona's In-House Pro Bono Rules

Ex-Dewey Partners Face New Foe in Firm's Bankruptcy

S&C Adds Linklaters Restructuring Partner in London
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Contrite Companies Can Win Forgiveness in Bribery Cases
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Plaintiffs Want to See Toyota's 'Crown Jewels'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Enron Sandbox Stirs Up Private Data, Again

LegalTech West Coast Wraps Up With Ethics, VC News

Prolific ADA Plaintiff Faces Nemesis in Harassment Suit

Ullyot Exit Closes Chapter for Facebook

Fla. Attorneys Lead Force-Placed Insurance Fight

Lawsuit Names Missing Fla. Attorney for Alleged Fraud
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Summer Programs Still in a Drought

Lawyer Left Without Coverage for Alleged Malpractice at Prior Firm
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Circuit Reinstates Lawsuit by Inmate Over Cell Conditions
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Custody Ruling in Bitter Fight May Turn on 11-Year-Old's Wish
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Castille Testifies in Favor of 'Civil Gideon' Funding

Workers' Comp Judges Can't Fight Rescinded Raise
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Law Schools Are Looking Beyond LSATs, Says Mich. Dean

Is Freezing Your Eggs the Solution?

Advising Clients on Weather and the Workplace
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Texas Sues BP, Others Over Deepwater Oil Spill Disaster
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Filing Blunder To Cost $142,600
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court: Injured College Student Can't Sue State
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Corporate Bribery Case Part Of National Trend
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Continues To Grant Lawyers Fraud Immunity
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • About NYLJ   |
  • Contact NYLJ   |
  • Advertise with Us   |
  • Sitemap
  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media