DOMA: In Aranas v. Napolitano, House Republicans ask to file larger, consolidated brief opposing the motion for a preliminary injunction against deportation of plaintiffs
September 17, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is being challenged in a class-action lawsuit as it applies to immigration in Aranas v. Napolitano. The case is in its early stages – the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), who has been defending the law, has filed a motion to intervene to defend the law but has not yet been granted the motion. There is a dispute over the reach of BLAG’s defense of the law. BLAG wants to fully defend Section 3 by filing opposition briefs in the case (namely a brief in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to bar deportation of the plaintiffs.) The Justice Department wants BLAG to have a more limited role, arguing that a limited role was its original intended purpose.
Now, BLAG has filed a request for an oversized brief in the case. They write that, “Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order (Aug. 27, 2012) (ECF No. 17), the House intends to respond to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on September 14, 2012. The House also intends to file a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. Given the significant overlap in arguments that the House intends to advance in support of its motion to dismiss and in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the House should be allowed to file one consolidated memorandum of not more than sixty (60) pages.”
BLAG is arguing, again, that opposing the motion for a preliminary injunction is necessary for their defense of the law. They write that the Justice Department is not contesting the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, and is not likely to contest the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits – one of the factors necessary to grant a preliminary injunction. Since the judge has not yet granted the motion to intervene, that seems likely to occur first.
h/t Kathleen for this filing