Equality On Trial

Judge grants short delay in hearing for DOMA challenge Aranas v. Napolitano

August 29, 2012

DOMA trials

By Scottie Thomaston

Yesterday, we covered the Justice Department’s request for a delay of a hearing in Aranas v. Napolitano, challenging DOMA as applied to immigration. The plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the delay, writing that, “Plaintiffs’ letter [asking Defendants to confer on the deportation issues raised] advised that absent interim relief the lawful spouses of U.S.citizens and permanent residents—immigrants who would routinely be granted lawful status but for their sex and sexual orientation—“will be told they must leave the country, some will have work permits terminated, some will be told their presence is now unlawful and will be encouraged to leave the country, some will be forced to continue litigating removal cases, and some will leave the country.” Id. In an effort to demonstrate the gravity of bi-national couples’ plight and the soundness of the legal case for granting them interim relief, plaintiffs then provided defendants with a draft of their brief in support of a preliminary injunction.”

And the plaintiffs summed up the DOJ’s rationale for a delay, “Defendants’ priorities may accordingly be summed up as follows: first, counsel’s vacation; second, making an initial document response in another matter; third, answering a non-emergent motion by an entity that is not even a party in this case; and lastly, responding to motions to save the immigrant spouses of U.S. citizens and lawful residents from being consigned to the undocumented underground pursuant to a statute defendants themselves concede is unconstitutional.”

The DOJ would still have ten more days even without the delay: “As has been seen, defendants have been fully apprised of plaintiffs’ arguments—and have had opportunity to secure senior officials’ views with respect thereto—for more than six weeks; leaving the hearing date as is, they will have still another 10 days to prepare their opposition.”

However, the judge granted a delay – but not the October 29 date that was requested; the hearing will be on October 9.

h/t Kathleen for these filings

Plaintiffs’ opposition to delay:8:12-cv-01137 #16

Judge’s order:8:12-cv-01137 #17

Washington marriage equality group reserves $5... House Republicans oppose grant of...