Leave a Comment Jacob Combs
Another challenge to Section 3 of DOMA in New York is in the works; briefing schedule set in Roe v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield
October 3, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston
In Roe. et al. v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, et al., a lesbian employee of a Catholic hospital is suing the hospital in federal court because it denies spousal health benefits to her and to other gay and lesbian married couples. The lawsuit involves Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act’s effect on ERISA, so part of the constitutional challenge is to Section 3 of DOMA itself:
Because DOMA unlawfully discriminates against same-sex spouses, it is unconstitutional and therefore should not be used as a basis to deny Plaintiffs their right to medical benefits under the Plan.
The briefing schedule in the case at the district court level is now set, with the first brief due on November 1 and the last on December 3.
Notably, the filing says the case is now assigned to Judge Edgardo Ramos, who is an appointee of President Obama. Previously it had been assigned to Judge P. Kevin Castel, an appointee of President George W. Bush.
h/t to Kathleen for this filing
7:12-cv-04788_Minute Entry_10-2-12
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
9 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Ian | October 3, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Why isn't Section 2 (unconstitutional under the full-faith and credit clause) not being challenged?
2.
W. Kevin Vicklund | October 3, 2012 at 9:04 pm
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
Section 2 is a general law that prescribes the effect of state marriage licenses
("records") in other states, so on its face it is constitutional. But only to the extent that states can ban same-sex marriage, which we agree is unconstitutional, thereby making it moot. Defeat state marriage bans, and Section 2 is toothless.
3.
Mike in Baltimore | October 3, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Question:
In the Scribd. entry, it says "Minute Entry".
Is that 'minute' as in 60 seconds, 'minute' as in tiny, or something else?
4.
Steve | October 4, 2012 at 7:54 am
Section 2 is kind of redundant. The Supreme Court already created an exemption to undermine and circumvent the Constitution. A state can ignore another state's laws if they conflict with a clearly stated "public policy" – such as a statute or constitutional amendment.
5.
Bob | October 4, 2012 at 12:13 pm
off topic,,, may have already been posted,,,, probably better in quick hits,, don't know how,,, just want to make sure this is out there
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/jamie-ku…
6.
W. Kevin Vicklund | October 4, 2012 at 8:48 pm
As in meeting minutes. A brief narrative of what happened in court on a particular day.
7.
Mike in Baltimore | October 5, 2012 at 12:10 am
Thanks.
As I've said before, I'm not an attorney, and don't know all the terms that are used in legalese. The use of words that seem ONLY to be used to confuse people may be one of the reasons most people don't like the court system and attorneys.
8.
Jeff | October 18, 2012 at 10:44 am
I understand BLAG is reaching their $1.5 spending cap. Any idea how this group will continue to fund this futile effort? Any comment would be appreciated.
9. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | December 18, 2012 at 1:43 pm
[...] having an impact on some of the other challenges to Section 3 of DOMA within the Second Circuit. In Roe v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, a lesbian employee of a Catholic hospital is suing for her spousal benefits. Recently the briefing [...]
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.