United States v. Windsor, Challenges Section 3 of DOMA
United States v. Windsor, Challenges Section 3 of DOMA
United States v. Windsor, Challenges Section 3 of DOMA
12-307
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(I)
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioner, who was a defendant in the district
court and an appellant in the court of appeals, is the
United States of America.
The private individual respondent, who was plain-
tiff in the district court and an appellee in the court of
appeals, is Edith Schlain Windsor.
Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of
the United States House of Representatives inter-
vened in this case in defense of Section 3 of DOMA.
(II)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
(III)
IV
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases: Page
Cases—Continued: Page
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677
(1973) .............................................................. 14, 20, 28, 29, 35
Garcia v. United States, 469 U.S. 70 (1984) ........................ 48
Golinski v. OPM, 824 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Cal.
2012) ....................................................................................... 49
Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) ........... 11, 30, 46
H.H., Ex parte, 830 So. 2d 21 (Ala. 2002) ............................. 25
Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) ............................. 11, 40, 51
Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir.
2000) ................................................................................. 30, 32
High Tech Gays v. Defense Indus. Sec. Clearance
Office, 895 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1990) .............................. 21, 22
Hill v. INS, 714 F.3d 1470 (9th Cir. 1983) ........................... 24
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) ........................................ 7
Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628 (1974) ........................ 48
Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259 (1978).......................................... 27
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) ...................... passim
Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U.S.
356 (1973) ............................................................................... 51
Lesbian/Gay Freedom Day Comm., Inc. v. INS, 541
F. Supp. 569 (N.D. Cal. 1982).............................................. 24
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) ................................... 45
Lyng v. Castillo, 477 U.S. 635 (1986) ........................ 30, 32, 36
Marriage Cases, In re, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) ................. 34
Massachusetts v. United States Dep’t of Health &
Human Servs., 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012), petitions
for cert. pending, Nos. 12-13 (filed June 29, 2012),
12-15 (filed July 3, 2012), and 12-97 (filed July 20,
2012) .............................................................................. passim
Massachusetts Bd. of Ret. v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307
(1976) ................................................................................ 28, 36
VI
Cases—Continued: Page
Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495 (1976) .......................... 27, 30
Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718
(1982) ...................................................................................... 37
Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984) ................................. 39
Pedersen v. OPM, No. 3:10-cv-1750, 2012 WL
3113883 (D. Conn. July 31, 2012) ........................................ 44
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) ................................... 15, 46
Pryor v. Municipal Court, 599 P.2d 636 (Cal. 1979) .......... 25
Richenberg v. Perry, 97 F.3d 256 (8th Cir. 1996),
cert. denied, 522 U.S. 807 (1997)......................................... 21
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) ......19, 26, 39, 46, 52, 53
San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
1 (1973) ................................................................................... 36
Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ..................... 21
Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 519 U.S. 948 (1996)......................................... 21
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) ..................................... 41
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515
(1996) .............................................................. 14, 15, 19, 37, 40
United States Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528
(1973) ...................................................................................... 52
Watkins v. United States Army, 847 F.2d 1329
(9th Cir. 1988), rev’d en banc, 875 F.3d 699 (9th Cir.
1989) ....................................................................................... 32
Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526 (1963) ................ 50
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U.S.
483 (1955) ............................................................................... 51
Woodward v. United States, 871 F.2d 1068 (Fed. Cir.
1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1003 (1990) ........................... 21
Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55 (1982) ................................... 47
Zuber v. Allen, 396 U.S. 168 (1969) ....................................... 48
VII
Miscellaneous: Page
Am. Acad. of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Gay,
Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transgender Parents Policy
Statement, 2009, http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/
policy_statements/gay_lesbian_transgender_and_
bisexual_parents_policy_statement ................................... 42
Am. Acad. of Pediatrics, Coparent or Second-Parent
Adoption by Same-Sex Parents, Feb. 2002, http://
aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/
pediatrics;109/2/339 .............................................................. 42
Am. Med. Ass’n, AMA Policies on GLBT Issues,
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-
people/member-groups-sections/glbt-advisory-
committee/ama-policy-regarding-
sexual-orientation.shtml ...................................................... 42
Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, Position Statement on Ho-
mosexuality and Civil Rights (1973), reprinted in
131 Am. J. Psychiatry 497 (1974) ....................................... 28
Am. Psychological Ass’n,
Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and
Youth, http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/
just-the-facts.pdf ......................................................... 32
Report of the American Psychological Associa-
tion Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic
Responses to Sexual Orientation (2009),
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/
therapeutic-response.pdf ........................................... 32
Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children, July
2004, http://www.apa.org/about/governance/
council/policy/parenting.aspx .................................... 42
IX
Miscellaneous—Continued: Page
Timothy J. Biblarz & Judith Stacey, How Does the
Gender of Parents Matter?, 72 J. Marriage & Fam-
ily 3 (2010), http://www.squareonemd.com/pdf/
Does%20the%20Gender%20of%20Parents%20Matt
er%202010.pdf ....................................................................... 42
Child Welfare League of Am., Position Statement on
Parenting of Children by Lesbian, Gay, and Bi-
sexual Adults, http://www.cwla.org/programs/
culture/glbtqposition.htm .................................................... 42
Cong. Budget Office, The Potential Budgetary Im-
pact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages, 2004,
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/
cbofiles/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06-21-same-
sexmarriage.pdf .................................................................... 46
142 Cong. Rec. (1996):
p. 22,453 .............................................................................. 47
p. 22,459 .............................................................................. 47
John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust (1980) ................ 21
Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Per-
verts in Government, Interim Report submitted to
the Committee by its Subcommittee on Investiga-
tions pursuant to S. Res. 280, S. Doc. No. 241, 81st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1950) .......................................................... 23
William N. Eskridge, Jr., Privacy Jurisprudence
and the Apartheid of the Closet, 1946-1961, 24 Fla.
St. U. L. Rev. 703 (1997) ...................................................... 25
FBI:
Hate Crime Statistics 2011, http://www.fbi.gov/
about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2011/tables/
table-1 ........................................................................... 24
Hate Crime Statistics, 2007, http://www2.fbi.gov/
ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm ............................................ 25
X
Miscellaneous—Continued: Page
Florida State Legislative Investigation Committee,
Report: Homosexuality and Citizenship in Flori-
da (1964) ................................................................................. 26
H.R. Rep. No. 664, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. (1996)........ passim
Douglas C. Haldeman, The Practice and Ethics of
Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy, 62 J.
Consulting & Clinical Psychol. 221 (1994)......................... 32
Gregory M. Herek et al., Demographic, Psychologi-
cal, and Social Characteristics of Self-Identified
Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in a US Prob-
ability Sample, 7 Sexuality Res. & Soc. Pol’y 176
(2010), http://www.springerlink.com/content/
k186244647272924/fulltext.pdf ............................................ 31
Andrew Koppelman, The Difference the Mini-
DOMAs Make, 38 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 265 (2007) ................ 33
National Conference of State Legislatures, State
Same-Sex Marriage Laws: Legislatures and
Courts, last updated Feb. 14, 2013, http://www.ncsl.
org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-
marriage-laws.aspx .............................................................. 34
Richard A. Posner, Sex and Reason (1992) ......................... 32
Remarks by the President and Vice President at
Signing of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act
of 2010, Dec. 22, 2010, http://www.whitehouse.
gov/the-press-office/2010/12/22/remarks-president-
and-vice-president-signing-dont-ask-dont-tell-
repeal-a .................................................................................. 28
Steven A. Rosen, Police Harassment of Homosexual
Women and Men in New York City, 1960-1980, 12
Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 159 (1980) ................................ 25
XI
Miscellaneous—Continued: Page
Brad Sears et al., The Williams Institute, Document-
ing Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orien-
tation and Gender Identity in State Employment,
Sept. 2009, http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/
research/workplace/documenting-discrimination-on
-the-basis-of-sexual-orientation-and-gender-
identity-in-state-employment ....................................... 23, 24
A.G. Sulzberger, Ouster of Iowa Judges Sends Sig-
nal to Bench, N.Y. Times, Nov. 4, 2010 ............................. 34
U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, Report No. GAO-04-
353R, Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior
Report (2004), http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/
92441.pdf .................................................................................. 3
Teresa Welsh, Should Employers Be Able to Fire
Someone for Being Gay?, U.S. News, May 14, 2012,
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/05/14/
should-employers-be-able-to-fire-someone-for-
being-gay ............................................................................... 35
Robert Wintemute, Sexual Orientation and Human
Rights (1995) ......................................................................... 26
In the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-307
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER
v.
EDITH SCHLAIN WINDSOR, IN HER CAPACITY AS
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THEA CLARA SPYER,
ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
OPINIONS BELOW
The opinion of the court of appeals (Supp. App. 1a-
83a)1 is reported at 699 F.3d 169. The opinion of the
district court (Pet. App. 1a-22a) is reported at 833 F.
Supp. 2d 394.
JURISDICTION
The judgment of the district court was entered on
June 6, 2012. Notices of appeal were filed on June 8,
2012, and June 14, 2012 (Pet. App. 25a-26a, 27a-29a).
A petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment was
filed on September 11, 2012. The judgment of the
court of appeals was entered on October 18, 2012. On
1
“Supp. App.” refers to the appendix to the government’s sup-
plemental brief at the certiorari stage.
(1)
2
2
Two of the group’s five members declined to support interven-
tion. J.A. 196 n.1.
7
3
BLAG asserts in a footnote (Br. 24 n.6) that “[b]efore it can
consider DOMA’s constitutionality, this Court must resolve a
threshold issue of Article III standing,” in that plaintiff “only has
standing to challenge DOMA * * * if New York would have
recognized her 2007 Ontario marriage certificate” at the time of
Thea Spyer’s death. As explained in our certiorari reply (at 3-4 &
nn.1-2), however, both courts below concluded that New York
recognized plaintiff ’s marriage at the relevant time (Supp. App.
5a-7a; id. at 31a (Straub, J., dissenting); Pet. App. 6a-8a)—a con-
clusion entitled to controlling deference by this Court. See, e.g.,
Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 346 (1976). Notably, BLAG makes
no affirmative argument for disturbing the Second Circuit’s and
district court’s common understanding of New York law, instead
contending only that the issue is “not free from doubt.” In any
event, because IRS’s denial of plaintiff ’s tax-refund claim was
based solely on Section 3 of DOMA, without questioning the validi-
ty of her marriage under either Ontario or New York law (see p. 4,
supra), BLAG’s objection in fact goes to the merits rather than to
standing.
19
4
The decisions of other courts of appeals concluding that
rational-basis review applies to sexual-orientation classifications
are flawed. Many of those courts relied in whole or in part on
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), which this Court over-
ruled in 2003. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578. They reasoned that “[i]f
homosexual conduct may constitutionally be criminalized,” as
Bowers held, “then homosexuals do not constitute a suspect or
quasi-suspect class entitled to greater than rational basis scrutiny
for equal protection purposes.” Ben-Shalom v. Marsh, 881 F.2d
454, 464 (7th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1004 (1990); see
Equality Found. v. City of Cincinnati, 54 F.3d 261, 266-267 & n.2
(6th Cir. 1995), vacated by, 518 U.S. 1001 (1996); Steffan v. Perry,
41 F.3d 677, 685 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (en banc); High Tech Gays v.
Defense Indus. Sec. Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563, 571 (9th Cir.
1990); Woodward v. United States, 871 F.2d 1068, 1076 (Fed. Cir.
1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1003 (1990); see also Richenberg v.
Perry, 97 F.3d 256, 260 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing reasoning of prior
appellate decisions based on Bowers), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 807
(1997); Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915, 928 (4th Cir.) (same),
cert. denied, 519 U.S. 948 (1996).
22
5
Until September 2011, open military service by gay and lesbian
people was prohibited first by regulation and then by statute, 10
U.S.C. 654.
25
6
See, e.g., Gregory M. Herek et al., Demographic, Psychologi-
cal, and Social Characteristics of Self-Identified Lesbian, Gay,
and Bisexual Adults in a US Probability Sample, 7 Sexuality Res.
& Soc. Pol’y 176, 186-188 (2010), http://www.springerlink.com/
content/k186244647272924/fulltext.pdf (in national survey of more
than 650 self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults, 95% of
gay men and 83% of lesbian women reported “no choice at all” or
“a small amount of choice” when asked “How much choice do you
feel you had about [your self-described sexual orientation]?”); Am.
Psychological Ass’n et al. (APA) C.A. Amicus Br. 6-8 (“Homosexu-
ality is a normal expression of human sexuality, is generally not
32
8
Two other states (New Mexico and Rhode Island) have no ex-
press constitutional or statutory ban on marriage for same-sex
couples, but those state governments do not permit same-sex
couples to marry there. Both states, as a matter of comity, do
recognize validly entered out-of-state marriages of same-sex
couples.
9
Connecticut (judicial decision), Iowa (judicial decision), Maine
(ballot), Maryland (legislature, approved by ballot), Massachusetts
(judicial decision), New Hampshire (legislature), New York (legis-
lature), Vermont (legislature), and Washington (legislature, ap-
proved by ballot).
10
By way of example, in May 2008, the California Supreme Court
held that the state was constitutionally required to recognize
same-sex marriage. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 419-420
(Cal. 2008). In November 2008, California’s voters passed
Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to restrict
marriage to opposite-sex couples. (The constitutionality of
Proposition 8 is now before this Court. Hollingsworth v. Perry,
No. 12-144 (cert. granted Dec. 7, 2012).) In November 2010, Iowa
voters recalled all three Iowa state supreme court justices up for
reelection after that court’s unanimous decision legalizing same-
sex marriage. A.G. Sulzberger, Ouster of Iowa Judges Sends
Signal to Bench, N.Y. Times, Nov. 4, 2010, at A1. On May 8, 2012,
North Carolina became the thirtieth state to amend its constitution
to prohibit same-sex marriages. National Conference of State
Legislatures, State Same-Sex Marriage Laws: Legislatures and
Courts, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-
sex-marriage-laws.aspx (last updated Feb. 14, 2013).
35
11
Notably, Congress has enacted no similar laws to protect gay
and lesbian people from employment discrimination, and most
states provide no such protection either. See Teresa Welsh,
Should Employers Be Able to Fire Someone for Being Gay?, U.S.
News, May 14, 2012, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/
05/14/should-employers-be-able-to-fire-someone-for-being-gay.
36
12
Murgia, 427 U.S. at 313 (rejecting heightened review for clas-
sifications based on age because such persons “have not experi-
enced a history of purposeful unequal treatment or been subjected
to unique disabilities on the basis of stereotyped characteristics
not truly indicative of their abilities”) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
13
Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 442-443 (rejecting heightened review for
mentally disabled persons because they have “a reduced ability to
cope with and function in the everyday world” and “[h]ow this
large and diversified group is to be treated under the law is a
difficult and often a technical matter”).
14
Lyng, 477 U.S. at 638 (rejecting heightened review for kinship
classification because it meets none of the four factors).
15
San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 28
(1973) (rejecting heightened review for classifications based on
poverty because such a class would be too “large, diverse, and
amorphous”).
37
16
BLAG states in passing, in a footnote (Br. 25 n.7), that “[b]y its
terms, DOMA does not classify based on a married couple’s sexual
orientation.” Whether or not DOMA “by its terms” classifies on
the basis of sexual orientation, it is plainly a law that classifies
based on sexual orientation. Congress left no doubt that the sole
and overriding purpose of Section 3 was to exclude “homosexual
couples” from the federal definition of marriage. House Report 2.
Section 3 denies recognition of a class of marriage into which, as a
practical matter, only gay and lesbian people enter. As discussed
above, the Court has rejected such distinctions between the status
and conduct of gay and lesbian people. See pp. 30-31, supra (citing
Lawrence, Christian Legal Society, and Bray).
38
17
The weight of the scientific literature strongly supports the
view that same-sex parents are just as capable as opposite-sex
parents. See, e.g., Timothy J. Biblarz & Judith Stacey, How Does
the Gender of Parents Matter?, 72 J. Marriage & Family 3 (2010),
http://www.squareonemd.com/pdf/Does%20the%20Gender%20of%
20Parents%20Matter%202010.pdf; see also APA C.A. Amicus Br.
5-6, 15-23 (concluding, based on a rigorous review of the literature,
that “there is no scientific basis for concluding that gay and lesbian
parents are any less fit or capable than heterosexual parents, or
that their children are any less psychologically healthy and well
adjusted”).
18
See, e.g., Am. Acad. of Pediatrics, Coparent or Second-Parent
Adoption by Same-Sex Parents, Feb. 2002, http://aappolicy.
aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/339; Am.
Psychological Ass’n, Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children,
July 2004, http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/
parenting.aspx; Am. Acad. of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Gay,
Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transgender Parents Policy Statement,
2009, http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/policy_statements/gay_lesbian_
transgender_and_bisexual_parents_policy_statement; Am. Med.
Ass’n, AMA Policies on GLBT Issues, http://www.ama-assn.org/
ama/pub/about-ama/our-people/member-groups-sections/glbt
-advisory-committee/ama-policy-regarding-sexual-
orientation.shtml; Child Welfare League of Am., Position State-
ment on Parenting of Children by Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Adults, http://www.cwla.org/programs/culture/glbtqposition.htm.
43
19
But see Massachusetts, 682 F.3d at 14 & n.9 (“[M]ore detailed
recent analysis indicates that DOMA is more likely on a net basis
to cost the government money.”) (citing Cong. Budget Office, The
Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages,
2004, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/55xx/
doc5559/06-21-samesexmarriage.pdf ).
47
20
See BLAG Br. 8-9 (citing 142 Cong. Rec. 22,459 (1996) (Sen.
Ashcroft); id. at 22,453 (Sen. Murkowski)).
48
* * * * *
BLAG (Br. 58-59) makes an appeal to this Court to
allow the democratic process to run its course. That
approach would be very well taken in most circum-
stances. This is, however, the rare case in which def-
erence to the democratic process must give way to the
fundamental constitutional command of equal treat-
ment under law. Section 3 of DOMA targets the many
gay and lesbian people legally married under state law
for a harsh form of discrimination that bears no rela-
tion to their ability to contribute to society. It is
abundantly clear that this discrimination does not
substantially advance an interest in protecting mar-
riage, or any other important interest. The statute
simply cannot be reconciled with the Fifth Amend-
ment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Constitu-
tion therefore requires that Section 3 be invalidated.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the
court of appeals should be affirmed.
Respectfully submitted.
DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR.
Solicitor General
STUART F. DELERY
Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General
SRI SRINIVASAN
Deputy Solicitor General
PRATIK A. SHAH
Assistant to the Solicitor
General
MICHAEL JAY SINGER
AUGUST E. FLENTJE
HELEN L. GILBERT
Attorneys
FEBRUARY 2013
APPENDIX
(1a)