Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services
-Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2005
-The state, under Attorney General Martha Coakley, sued Health and Human Services about section 3 of DOMA.
-Section 3 of DOMA offers a federal definition of marriage: “…the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”
-Mass. challenged section 3 on the grounds of the 10th Amendment in the Constitution which reserves that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution to be the powers of the states or the people.
-Mass. said that there was no federal power to enact DOMA.
-Mass. also challenged DOMA by saying that it effectively puts conditions on how Massachusetts spends its money.
-Judge Tauro ruled in favor of Mass., saying that section 3 of DOMA took the power away from the states when it (and thus federal powers) determined which couples are or are not married. Only the states may decide who is married in their state.
In other words, Congress overreached by making a law that – for the first time in U.S. history – said that the federal government could divide that a couple was not legitimately married, even if a sovereign state says they are.
Scope: The Massachusetts case would apply to the entire Commonwealth. It would not affect couples who live outside of Massachusett’s borders, even if they reside in other states with marriage (i.e., Connecticut).
Gill v. Office of Personnel Management
-The case challenges DOMA’s section 3 suggesting that it violates equal protection guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
-Seven married couples and three widowers allege that they have been subject to higher taxes and a lack of health and survivor benefits compared to heterosexual married couples.
-Tauro determined that this inequality was indeed a violation of the constitutional guarantee to equal protection
Scope: The Gill case technically applies ONLY to the specific couples that were parties to the suit. Until there is a stay, those couples may apply for tax refunds, federal Social Security benefits, etc. However, the judge’s language is broad enough that GLAD lawyers believe the ruling may apply more broadly to all Massachusetts couples.
In either case, it may have an affect on the IRS, Office of Personnel Management, Social Security Administration and other federal departments – they could decide to amend their rules for everyone based on the ruling, especially if the entire First District is affected upon appeal.
What happens next?
As of this writing (7 pm Thursday EST) there is no stay. However, it is expected that the federal government will appeal and ask for a stay Friday, meaning that things will stay as they were before the ruling: no federal recognition of gay marriages yet. The cases are likely to keep moving through the courts in tandem.
If the plaintiffs (the gay side) for EITHER case win in the First Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, then it is very likely that section 3 of DOMA will be struck down for the entire district: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico. This would mean that married couples in New Hampshire would also have their marriages recognized by the federal government.
Said Mary Bonauto, who argued the Gill case: “Should we prevail in the first circuit it may be a fatal blow to DOMA in its entirety.”
At that point, Congress might to decide to repeal at least that section of DOMA. Should they decide not to repeal, it is very likely to go on to the Supreme Court. Lawyers for GLAD expect there to be a decision by the Court of Appeals by the beginning of 2012.
Why will the Obama administration appeal if they support the repeal of DOMA?
GLAD lawyers say that “the executive branch has the responsibility to defend an act of Congress.” They expect appeal.
The DOMA case is not Prop 8; And – The Supreme Court
Lawyers for GLAD made it clear that even if DOMA is overturned by the Supreme Court through this case, Prop 8 will still need to wend it’s way through the courts (unless it is repealed through a ballot measure or other means).
“Prop 8 is a marriage case, it is about people being denied the right to marry in a state; ours is a case of people who are already legally married in a state who are seeking federal recognition,” said Bonuato. “Our plaintiffs are already married.”
However, GLAD lawyers added that it can’t hurt the Prop 8 case – currently waiting for a decision- that a federal judge ruled that the rationales given for DOMA – which are similar to the Prop 8 rationales – are invalid.
The Prop 8 case, since it will be appealed to the larger 9th circuit, is likely to take longer before making a ruling. It is unlikely that the Prop 8 case and the DOMA case will be heard together by the Supreme Court.
GLAD lawyers believe that, should both DOMA cases reach the Supreme Court, they will not be decided along partisian 5-4 lines, because it is really a question of federalism – that is, was Congress overreaching when it took power away from the States.
Some important points
-The decision by Judge Tauro refuted the points made by Congress when they enacted DOMA in 1996, leaving only animus – or hatred/fear of gay people – standing as a reson for the law.
-Tauro noted that DOMA was supposedly a means of preserving the status quo of heterosexual marriage while the states debated the matter; in reality, he said, the federal status quo was that the federal government defered to the states to determine who is married.
“The federal government should treat all married people like the married people they are, whether in California or Massachusetts,” said Bonauto.
