Three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit — Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch, Judge Juan R. Torruella, and Judge Michael Boudin — listened and asked questions as attorneys for the state of Massachusetts and a group of seven legally married same-sex couples and three widowers urged the panel to uphold two decisions from July 2010 that found a key provision of DOMA unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management that Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, violates the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Judge Tauro, a Nixon appointee, also ruled in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services that the section violates the Tenth Amendment and the Spending Clause.

Paul Clement, a former solicitor general under President George W. Bush who argued against the Obama health care law before the Supreme Court last week, represented the House of Representatives in defending DOMA. House Republican leadership intervened via the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group last year after the Justice Department, in a reversal of its position, announced that it had found DOMA unconstitutional and would no longer defend the law in court.
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News ... als_Court/

This USDC ruling is being appealed by the House of Representatives after the Justice Dept announced it would not defend the law it believes to be unconstitutional.

House Republicans have agreed to a new contract to pay a private law firm up to $1.5 million to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans same-sex marriage on the federal level.
The amount is three times the figure originally agreed upon between the House and the firm Bancroft PLLC. The original contract, drawn up in April, read, "The General Counsel agrees to pay the Contractor for all contractual services rendered a sum not to exceed $500,000.00."
<snipped>
House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) decision to have the House defend DOMA came after Attorney General Eric Holder announced in February that the administration had concluded that the law was unconstitutional and would no longer argue in support of it.
In March, a five-person House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group voted along party lines (3-2) to direct the House General Counsel to initiate a legal defense of DOMA.
Democrats quickly criticized the GOP for devoting scarce resources to defending a discriminatory law while other programs are being dramatically cut.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/0 ... 94121.html

Eric Cantor states that any assistance for rebuilding Joplin will require a reduction in another program's budget.
Cantor, R-Va., told reporters on Monday that "if there is support for a supplemental (appropriation), it would be accompanied by support for having pay-fors to that supplemental."
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 0f31a.html

(pages 25-26) And denying marriage-based benefits to same-sex spouses certainly bears no reasonable relation to any interest the government might have in making heterosexual marriages more secure.
What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But to the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it “only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law.”¹¹² And this the Constitution does not permit. “For if the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean”¹¹³ that the Constitution will not abide such “a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”¹¹⁴
<<snipped>>
(pages 37-38) This court simply “cannot say that [DOMA] is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which [this court] could discern a relationship to legitimate [government] interests.”¹⁴⁸ Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34073588/Deci ... Gill-v-OPM

Of President Nixon's 220 appointees to the Federal Bench, Tauro is the only remaining Judge on active service and not on senior status.
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Joseph_Tauro

Gill v Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v United States Department of Health and Human Services are the two cases before the 1st Circuit. Both cases were heard by Judge Joseph Tauro (USDC District of Massachusetts).

On Thursday evening, a federal judge in California held that the Defense of Marriage Act and a provision of tax law unconstitutionally limit same-sex couples and domestic partners from participating in the long-term care plan offered by the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS.

The May 24 decision in the class-action lawsuit came from U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken, a Clinton appointee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California whose chambers are located in Oakland, and is the first federal court decision relating to the 1996 marriage-defining law since President Obama announced on May 9 that he believes that same-sex couples should be able to marry.

[...]

In the order issued Thursday evening, Wilken found that Section 3 of DOMA -- the federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse" -- "violates the equal protection rights of Plaintiff same-sex spouses" and that subparagraph (C) of Section 7702B(f) of the Internal Revenue Code "violates the equal protection rights of Plaintiff registered domestic partners." Specifically, the court found that "both provisions are constitutionally invalid to the extent that they exclude Plaintiff same-sex spouses and registered domestic partners from enrollment in the CalPERS long-term care plan."

In conclusion, Wilken ordered CalPERS not to use DOMA or the relevant tax provision to deny enrollment to same-sex spouse and registered domestic partners in the state. She also ordered that the federal government not disqualify CalPERS's plan from the beneficial tax treatment for following the court order. Finally, Wilken established in Thursday's ruling that the decision would be stayed, or put on hold, during an appeal of her decision if one is sought.

Accordingly, the Court permanently enjoins State Defendants,
and those acting at their direction or on their behalf, from
denying Plaintiff class members enrollment in the CalPERS longterm
care plan on the basis of § 3 of the DOMA or § 7702B(f)’s
exclusion of same-sex spouses and registered domestic partners,
respectively. Federal Defendants are enjoined from disqualifying
the CalPERS long-term care plan under § 7702B(f) based on State
Defendants’ compliance with the terms of this injunction. A stay
on State Defendants’ compliance with this order will be granted,
if a timely appeal is filed.

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the
Plaintiff class and against Defendants and Intervenors.

In their Prayer for Relief, Plaintiffs indicated their intent
to seek attorneys’ fees and costs. They may submit a motion
making such a request.

BOSTON — An appeals court ruled Thursday that the heart of a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against married same-sex couples by denying them federal benefits.

[...]

The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.

[...]

The court didn't rule on the law's other provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in other states.

Time for the DoJ to stop pushing this and let that dog-awful law die the death it deserves.

The House of Representatives cannot pass a law by itself, so I wonder on what exactly they base their claim to have standing to appeal judicial review of an unconstitutional statute.

“I will convene a meeting of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group for the purpose of initiating action by the House to defend this law of the United States..."
<snipped>
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group is a five-member panel consisting of the Speaker of the House, Majority Leader, Majority Whip, Minority Leader, and Minority Whip. Under House rules, the advisory group has the authority to instruct the non-partisan office of the House General Counsel to take legal action on behalf of the House of Representatives.
http://johnboehner.house.gov/News/Docum ... tID=227399

While looking for a response by Speaker Boehner to the 1st Circuit Court ruling I came across this March 4, 2011 Boehner press release where Boehner claims authority to intervene in the court case.

Yep, Jerk-Faced John and his merry band of troglodytes own this.

June bug wrote:Yep, Jerk-Faced John and his merry band of troglodytes own this.

Look whose name apeared among those filing an amicus brief (page 3):
Gary G. Kreep on brief for National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), Amicus Curiae.
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinion ... 4P-01A.pdf

Gary G. Kreep on brief for National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), Amicus Curiae.

Loh - I had asked a similar question in another thread: Where does the House get the authority to persue these appeals.

I could be remembering wrong, but I was taught in civics class that of the branches, the Congress enacts the laws, the Executive enforces the laws, the Judicial interprets the laws. That is the simpilist explanation of what the various branches do. Again, it's been a rather long time, so I could be remembering incorrectly.

Has any of the Judiciary pondered that question?

Look whose name apeared among those filing an amicus brief (page 3):
Gary G. Kreep on brief for National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), Amicus Curiae.

Sacramento, CA – In a tragic blow to parental rights the California Senate wednesday voted 23-13 basically along party lines in favor of a groundbreaking bill designed to prohibit counselors and therapists from telling young people it is possible to change same-sex attractions.

The bill has sparked outrage from individuals who have overcome unwanted same-sex feelings sparked by childhood sexual abuse. NARTH has sent a delegation to the state capital to speak, offer testimony, and lobby against the legislation. It is also being opposed by Pacific Justice Institute; whose attorneys believe its blanket ban on certain types of counseling is unconstitutional. PJI has been working with ministries and professionals in the targeted fields to highlight the plethora of legal problems with the bill.

The hundreds of phone calls and emails to California senators by NARTH members and supporters seems to have brought about significant changes in the legislation. In a sign that the opposition to SB 1172 may be stronger than was anticipated by its sponsors, Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) and Equality California, the bill was amended for the fifth time late last week. The version of the bill passed by the Senate abandoned sweeping liability provisions for mental health professionals who do not affirm same-sex attraction and also deleted so-called informed consent provisions that would have applied to adult patients. The bill retains its most controversial provisions, however, banning mental health professionals from counseling minors in ways that would discourage same-sex or bisexual feelings. The new version of the bill also declares for the first time that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the “psychological well-being” of LGBT youth.

NARTH President Dr. Christopher Rosik had the following to say about the state senate vote, “The California senate vote to approve SB 1172 marks another triumph of political activism over objective science. The American Psychological Association has observed that there are no studies by which to accurately estimate the effectiveness of sexual orientation change intervention or the prevalence of harm. In NARTH’s view, a truly scientific response would call for more and better research to answer these questions, not a legislative ban that runs roughshod over professional judgment and parental choice.”

Imagine that! A state assembly is acting to curtail the activities of quacks.

That still does not mean that the House, by itself, has the authority to act on behalf of the entire Congress. The House General Counsel can file whatever it likes, but that doesn't mean half of the legislature can necessarily take a legal position on behalf of the entire Congress, any more than a single Congressperson or group of Congresspeople can do the same.

I'm not sure it makes much functional difference, since even if the House could not intervene as a party, it could certainly file an amicus brief that would also certainly be considered.

“At a time when most members of this body are representing newly formed congressional districts with a need to open new offices or move to new locations, we find ourselves with an 8.2 percent decrease in the very operating budgets that support constituent services,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., the ranking member of the Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee. “And yet, we spend up to $3 million to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.”
<snipped>
The subcommittee’s chairman, Republican Rep. Rodney Alexander of Louisiana, who was the only Republican in attendance during the DOMA portion of the hearing, did not respond to their statements. Michael Steel, spokesman for Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, defended the DOMA legal fees later in the day. “As long as the Justice Department refuses to defend the law of the land, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to do so,” Steel said.
<snipped>
That same month, the House Administration Committee approved a contract with the law firm Bancroft PLLC that increased the budget for such outside legal challenges to DOMA from $2 million to $3 million.

Kerry Kircher, the House’s general counsel who testified at the hearing, said that thus far, the House has defended the constitutionality of DOMA in 15 legal challenges to the law in states such as California, New York and Connecticut at a cost of about $1.6 million. Kircher added that four lawyers from Bancroft and six lawyers in the House Office of General Counsel are working on the matter at a blended rate of about $525 an hour.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/doma_defen ... ml?pos=hln

Kircher added that four lawyers from Bancroft and six lawyers in the House Office of General Counsel are working on the matter at a blended rate of about $525 an hour.