Leave a Comment Sagesse
House Republicans move to dismiss Aranas v. Napolitano, challenging Section 3 of DOMA as applied to immigration
September 24, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston
The Justice Department recently filed its opposition to class certification and to a preliminary injunction barring deportation in Aranas v. Napolitano, a class-action challenge to the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act as it applies to immigration. There has been a dispute in the case over whether the Justice Department’s opposition is sufficient since it ultimately agrees with the constitutional challenge.
Now, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), who is seeking to intervene in the case on behalf of House Republicans, has filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice. If granted, this would mean the case is dismissed on the merits of the claim and the plaintiff can’t bring the same claim. This is different from a motion to dismiss in that BLAG is not asking the court to dismiss the case because of procedural defects or lack of jurisdiction, but rather based on the merits of the claim.
In its memo in support of the motion, BLAG writes that plaintiffs lack subject matter jurisdiction and fail to state a claim. There is an independent immigration statute that contains a definition of marriage that is not being challenged by the plaintiffs, and, BLAG argues, “Plaintiffs’ claims fail before ever reaching the statute that they do challenge, DOMA Section 3.” And BLAG suggests plaintiffs fail to state a proper claim because, “controlling Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority squarely foreclose that claim.” For this, they cite a 1972, one-sentence summary dismissal in Baker v. Nelson, a Supreme Court case, as well as two Ninth Circuit precedents, High Tech Gays v. DISCO, holding that classifications based on sexual orientation should be reviewed under rational basis, the most lenient form of judicial review under equal protection principles, and Adams v. Howerton, holding that the definition of marriage as applied to immigration does not violate equal protection principles. (There is a legal dispute over reliance on these precedents, as they are all based on the holding in the Supreme Court case Bowers v. Hardwick, which is now overruled.)
Plaintiffs are asking the court for a preliminary injunction barring deportation among other things, and BLAG recently requested to file a larger brief to respond to the motion. BLAG’s brief here is also in opposition to that motion.
BLAG argues, as the Justice Department did, that, “on a nationwide basis, completely suspend the operation of DOMA Section 3 in the immigration context (as well as the operation of the immigration laws themselves as construed by the Ninth Circuit in Adams), and substantially impair the Executive Branch’s enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws.” They argue that Section 3 of DOMA is constitutional, does not violate equal protection principles, and does not implicate a ‘suspect class’ – a classification of people that is considered ‘suspect’ because it can be inferred the classification was made out of a desire to harm or discriminate against the group – so the law should be reviewed under rational basis review. They suggest there are several rational reasons for the legislative classification made in Section 3 of DOMA. (It is the same argument made throughout this litigation: child-rearing, preserving the public fisc, having a uniform definition of marriage, caution, encouraging responsible procreation, and ensuring children are raised by a mother and a father. Since these reasons exist, BLAG says Section 3 was a rational choice and should be upheld, as acts of Congress are entitled to a presumption of constitutionality.
h/t Kathleen for these filings
BLAG’s motion to dismiss with prejudice:8:12-cv-01137 #36
Memo in support:8:12-cv-01137 #37
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
7 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Steve | September 24, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Someone explain in english please, lol
2.
Mike in Baltimore | September 24, 2012 at 3:12 pm
BLAG is irrational, and thus whatever BLAG states cannot be translated into conventional English, or French, or Swahili, etc.
And BLAG is arguing that Baker v. Nelson applies, as there was, in the Court's view, no Federal question. And yet, BLAG says that there is a Federal law that defines marriage in immigration cases.
It would appear to me that BLAG is saying 'no, there is no Federal law' and also saying 'yes, there is a Federal law'.
Isn't there an old saying about having your cake and eating it, too? It would appear to me that BLAG wants to eat that cake, but the court might just tell BLAG to get lost, as it doesn't have any standing in this, nor any other, case.
3.
Alex | September 24, 2012 at 4:35 pm
So, if section 3 of DOMA was overturned next year by the Supreme Court, would same-sex binational still not be able to apply for a green card?
4.
Matt N | September 24, 2012 at 9:37 pm
If SCOTUS rules that the federal government must respect the states' definitions of marriage, then immigration will have to follow this as well.
If SCOTUS rules that there's no rational reason to exclude same sex couples from marriage, I can't see how this wouldn't apply to immigration as well.
I think SCOTUS would have to go out of their way to exclude immigration, and I see no reason why they would do that. I'm fairly sure with several different DOMA cases in play, they want to make a definitive ruling, or they will just have to address this again next term.
5.
David Henderson | September 24, 2012 at 11:11 pm
If the Court strikes DOMA down because it is not narrowly tailored, there may still be other laws on the books which can restrict other governmental programs more narrowly.
There is one law which says that for a specific military program (I don't recall which one), a "spouse" is a person of the opposite sex from the military person. That change was made decades ago when women started serving in the military, and a "spouse" was no longer just a wife, so it was intended to make the law more equal. But it could potentially be argued that because that law is closely targeted to the purpose of the program, it should still be valid. Such a challenge would likely fail, but just because DOMA goes, it doesn't necessarily mean all other federal laws which discriminate against same-sex couples fall as well.
6.
Matt N | September 25, 2012 at 7:05 pm
That's true. But I would argue that if a law exists that defines the term 'spouse' to exclude same-sex couples for all immigration benefits, then that is certainly not narrowly tailored either.
7. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | October 12, 2012 at 12:56 pm
[...] judicial scrutiny that should be applied to laws that classify on the basis of sexual orientation, filed its opposition to dismiss Aranas v. Napolitano (a class-action DOMA challenge as applied to immigration.) Their brief was [...]
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.