Leave a Comment Sagesse
Equality news round-up: Amicus briefs attack DOMA at the Second Circuit
September 13, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston
- Three states file anamicus brief in Windsor v. USA at the Second Circuit:
Three states where members of the clergy and justices of the peace today marry gay couples argued on Friday that it’s a violation of states’ rights for the federal government to then “unmarry” those people under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
The brief is here (h/t Kathleen):12-2335 #292
- The New York Law Journal discusses all the amicus briefs at the Second Circuit in Windsor, a total of 19 briefs.
- The Advocate also reports on the briefs.
- Kathleen posted all of the amicus briefs in Windsor for the plaintiff as a Quick Hit.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
8 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Kathleen | September 13, 2012 at 10:24 am
I know the New York Law Journal article says there are 19 amicus briefs, but there are actually 21. The sidebar in the article lists 20 and they missed one: Historians (Peter Bardaglio, et al.).
Scottie posted the link to the quick hit with all the briefs in support of plaintiff. Here's the quick hit with all the briefs in support of BLAG:
http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/qh/windsor-v-usa…
2.
Sagesse | September 13, 2012 at 11:28 am
@
3.
sfbob | September 13, 2012 at 1:59 pm
I REALLY like this particular brief. It not only describes the interests of the specific states, it recapitulates and very clearly restates the conclusions of other circuit court decisions as well as including the content of various other amici briefs. It absolutely demolishes all of the claims made by BLAG and by the states that had filed amicus briefs in favor of DOMA. It goes from federalism concerns to equal protection concerns to reminders that, under DOMA, federal nepotism statutes do not apply to the legal spouses of gay and lesbian federal officials.
I have felt at times that using Romer vs Evans as a template for attacking DOMA was on shaky ground. This particular brief spells out very clearly why that isn't the case. In other words, I've changed my mind.
I'm very impressed with the scope and depth of the analysis. It's really well worth reading on its own terms.
One of the most telling statements is on page 36. I don't seem to be able to cut and paste but, if I've cribbed the statement correctly, it says that Section 3 of DOMA "takes married couples and unmarries them on a continuing basis whenever a federal law is implicated."
One final thing: it very coyly cites Chief Justice Roberts.
4.
David Henderson | September 13, 2012 at 4:00 pm
I think many of the arguments are written in such a way as to get Roberts' support. Personally, I count him as a likely, but not certain, sixth vote for striking down DOMA.
5.
F Young | September 13, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Does anyone know whether the "Public Advocate" has submitted an amicus brief in defense of Proposition 8, as Eugene Delgaudio said he planed to do, in an email fundraising appeal?
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/09/10/48569…
He also claims to have filed an amicus brief on August 2 "asking the Courts to hold President Obama accountable for his refusal to enforce the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)," and another brief "opposing the activist ruling of Massachusetts’s First Circuit Court of Appeals."
Is this legit?
6.
sfbob | September 14, 2012 at 10:39 am
Delgaudio says many things, most of them severely detached from reality.
I think the deadline for filing of amicus briefs in the Prop 8 case is over (though I could be wrong). That is it's too late to file on behalf of the request for certiorari and too early to file one on an actual hearing.
As for what he claims to have filed on 8/2, there'd need to be a case. And there isn't one, since of course the Obama is continuing to enforce DOMA. Like most of his kind, Delgaudio is primarily a scam artist who uses hysterical homophobia to line his pockets.
7.
F Young | September 14, 2012 at 11:29 am
According to the Public Advocate website, dated September 1, 2012, "Public Advocate has filed another legal brief, requesting certiorari to be granted, in the California Referendum on Proposition 8," and it goes on to quote excerpts from the brief. http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/news/article.php…
So, what he said above via his website is false? I wonder if there is a basis for laying a fraud charge, since his email and website are used for fundraising.
8.
F Young | September 19, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Actually, the Public Advocate did file an amicus brief on the Proposition 8 appeal, jointly with five other organizations. Here it is:
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/…
A lsit of amicus curiae briefs can be found here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hollin…
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.