Leave a Comment Sagesse
Paul Clement files motion on behalf of House to intervene in DOMA case
May 20, 2011
DOMA trials Gill/Massachusetts
By Adam Bink
Via press release from GLAD (the copy of the motion can be found in the link):
U.S. House Files Motion to Intervene in GLAD’s DOMA Challenge
Gill v. Office of Personnel Management
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives filed a motion to intervene in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management the multi-plaintiff challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) with co-counsel Foley Hoag LLP, Sullivan & Worcester and Jenner & Block in March 2009.
On July 8, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional with respect to claims brought by the seven married same-sex couples and three widowers represented in the case. The case is now on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
“As always, we are prepared to address whatever comes our way,” said Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director and lead attorney in Gill. “We are eager to move forward and end the serious harms that are experienced not only by our plaintiffs and their families, but by same-sex married couples all over this country.”
GLAD filed a second DOMA challenge, Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, representing plaintiffs from Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire, in November 2010. GLAD will soon have a briefing schedule in that case, where the House of Representatives has also sought to intervene.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
8 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Ann S. | May 20, 2011 at 8:36 am
Does Paul Clement wonder how he's going to be paid? Because I sure wonder how he's going to be paid.
2.
Felyx | May 20, 2011 at 8:38 am
Please let us know if there is any campaign to push Honda and Congress on this action. How I would dearly love to see some justice on this!!!
Honda believes that Boehner's agreement could be violating the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits "involving the government in any obligation to pay money before funds have been appropriated for that purpose." Knowingly violating the law could lead to being fined or imprisoned.
A source familiar with House finances told The Huffington Post that Honda may have a case. The House General Counsel signed the contract and agreed to pay the funds. But since he has admitted that his office doesn't have the money for this case, House leadership would have to have the funds reprogrammed or transferred from other House accounts. The source said that transfer should have been executed before Kircher signed the contract with Clement and Bancroft.
3.
Josh | May 20, 2011 at 10:13 am
Although I don't think we should be wasting our tax dollars on this BS, I also can't help but wait to see what "defense" they come up with. Seriously, what evidence can they really show? Nothing, as was amusingly shown in the P8 trial. I can't wait to read the smack down of their "case" when the judge rules on this and the other DOMA trials.
4.
RWG | May 20, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Josh, no new evidence can be introduced at the appeal level. They must go entirely off the trial record made at the District Court. They can only offer points of law in opposition, or that the judge made an error or argue an unfair or improper procedure at the trial court level. They don't get to call any new witnesses or introduce evidence.
5.
Kathleen | May 20, 2011 at 2:08 pm
@RWG, that's true and is relevant to this particular case, but there are other DOMA challenges in which the BLAG has asked to intervene that are still at the district court level. So we will get to see what evidence they bring to the table.
6.
AB | May 20, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Ann, if you have been watching TV, and you have seen their obnoxious commercials, then you well know that he might be paid in Trident flavored gum. That's my bet.
I have a question: If the House has a right to intervene to "protect its… handiwork", then wouldn't the Senate have a right to intervene? And why don't they intervene in support of the Plaintiffs? (I mean, how hard would it be for the Majority to put a "bipartisan" group together [like the one in the House], but stack it with Democrats who happen to favor repeal [like the House BLAG is stacked with Republicans who oppose repeal]?)
7.
Joe | May 21, 2011 at 4:35 am
"And why don’t they intervene in support of the Plaintiffs?"
Because they cant. The plaintiffs have already obtained judgment against the Senate, so the Senate can only intervene as defendant.
Artice III limits courts to "cases or controversies", therefore the Senate would have to defend DOMA, not support it.
8.
Joe | May 21, 2011 at 4:37 am
Oops I meant "and support it".
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.