Leave a Comment Sagesse
More briefs filed in Gill v. OPM and Massachusetts v. HHS
December 3, 2011
DOMA trials Gill/Massachusetts
By Jacob Combs
Thanks again to Kathleen for bringing us this. Yesterday, reply briefs were filed in the appeal of Judge Tauro’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional in the companion cases of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services.
The first brief comes from the government, on behalf of the official defendants. The second is from the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which is defending the law.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
7 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
spudbeach | December 3, 2011 at 9:22 am
Great — it's nice to see how threadbare the BLAG argument is. (Hint: When you toss off casual insults, your argument isn't good.)
But now that all the briefs are in, when is the oral argument? If I'm going to get tickets to watch, I need to know!
2.
Cat | December 3, 2011 at 11:12 am
Those briefs are quite a challenging read… The first is very complicated with all the "yes, but…", but at least states DOMA Section 3 is unconstitutional because it violates equal protection. However, the government goes out of its way to show if it does not violate equal protection, it is good law and does not violate the spending clause. I guess the spending clause is one of the cornerstones of the federal power, so they vigorously defend that. I wonder if there are some damaging arguments in there that could hurt us…
As spudbeach writes, the BLAG brief is riddled with melodramatic attacks on the plaintiffs' arguments. Some of BLAG's arguments are probably correct (such as that the federal government doesn't always acknowledge marriages that are valid in a state), but overall they do a pretty poor job in demonstration there is no animus and discrimination going on. The argument that it is up to Congress, not the Court, to decide if scientific evidence is relevant is just ludicrous. "Trust Us". That seems to be their main argument.
3.
Ann S. | December 3, 2011 at 11:13 am
Thanks, Jacob and Kathleen!
4.
TerriK | December 3, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Scotus blog, prop 8
http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/12/prop-8-now-on-t…
5.
Steve | December 3, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Yeah, it's one the main instruments – maybe the only effective one – that the government has to get states to do things. I'm certainly no fan of federalism taken to extremes
6.
Steve | December 3, 2011 at 2:16 pm
It's pretty clear actually that they are merely trying to find some reason to defend federal authority in these areas, even if they make no sense. For example they argue that when Congress passed DOMA they somehow made a conscious and explicit decision about the purpose of and eligibility for programs such as Medicaid. That obviously wasn't the case.
7.
Sam | December 3, 2011 at 9:52 pm
On the docket, it says a reply is due Dec 19th? Isn't briefing done? Anyone know what the schedule looks like?
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/c…
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.