Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
Encyclopedia
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services 698 F.Supp.2d 234 (D.Mass. 2010) is a lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
. The plaintiff
in the suit challenges the constitutionality
of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA), the section that defines the terms 'marriage' as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and 'spouse' as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." The court found for the plaintiffs and the Department of Justice
(DOJ) appealed that decision on October 12, 2010.
filed a suit, Commonwealth v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of DOMA. The suit claims that Congress "overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people."
heard arguments in the case of Commonwealth v. United States Department of Health and Human Services on May 26, 2010. Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Maura Healey described how a veteran of the U.S military sought burial for himself and his same-sex spouse in a veterans' cemetery, which DOMA's definition of marriage prohibits. Judge Tauro asked Christopher Hall, who represented the U.S. Justice Department, if the federal government had an interest in "perpetuating heterosexuality in the graveyard." He also disputed the government's contention that DOMA was an attempt to preserve the 1996 status quo, noting that the government considers the status quo at the time the restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples while another way of describing the status quo in 1996 is that the federal government deferred to each state's definition of marriage and provided no definition of its own. In response to arguments that the federal government has consistently used state definitions of marriage, Hall cited the federal government's definition of marriage in immigration cases without relying on any state's definition.
and falls outside Congress' authority under the Spending Clause
of the Constitution.
Massachusetts Attorney General Coakley greeted her victory:
Tauro ruled in a companion case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management
, on the same day, finding part 3 of DOMA unconstitutional on Fifth Amendment
grounds.
An attorney for the plaintiffs has estimated that arguments on appeal will take place approximately a year after the expected appeal is filed.
On October 12, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice from the office of Assistant U.S. Attorney General Tony Weston filed an appeal in federal district court in Boston to the court’s decision in two cases testing the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The appeal was generally expected, given that the Obama administration at the time maintained that it must defend all federal laws—even those it believes should be repealed. The appeal will be heard in the First Circuit Court of Appeals
.
On January 14, 2011, the Department of Justice filed a single brief in the First Circuit Court of Appeals that defended DOMA in both this case and the related Gill case. On February 25, the Department of Justice notified the Court that it will "cease to defend" both cases. On May 20, 2011, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
(BLAG), an arm of the U.S. House of Representatives, filed a motion asking to be allowed to intervene to defend DOMA Section 3. The Department of Justice did not oppose the request, but Massachusetts did and plans to file a response. The BLAG proposed a briefing schedule that would be completed August 15, 2011.
Lawsuit
A lawsuit or "suit in law" is a civil action brought in a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have incurred loss as a result of a defendant's actions, demands a legal or equitable remedy. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint...
filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts is the federal district court whose jurisdiction is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, USA. The first court session was held in Boston in 1789. The second term was held in Salem in 1790 and until 1813 court session locations...
. The plaintiff
Plaintiff
A plaintiff , also known as a claimant or complainant, is the term used in some jurisdictions for the party who initiates a lawsuit before a court...
in the suit challenges the constitutionality
Constitutionality
Constitutionality is the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution. Acts that are not in accordance with the rules laid down in the constitution are deemed to be ultra vires.-See also:*ultra vires*Company law*Constitutional law...
of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act
Defense of Marriage Act
The Defense of Marriage Act is a United States federal law whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Under the law, no U.S. state may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state...
(DOMA), the section that defines the terms 'marriage' as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and 'spouse' as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." The court found for the plaintiffs and the Department of Justice
United States Department of Justice
The United States Department of Justice , is the United States federal executive department responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice, equivalent to the justice or interior ministries of other countries.The Department is led by the Attorney General, who is nominated...
(DOJ) appealed that decision on October 12, 2010.
Complaint
On July 8, 2009, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha CoakleyMartha Coakley
Martha Mary Coakley is the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Prior to serving as Attorney General, she was District Attorney of Middlesex County, Massachusetts from 1999 to 2007....
filed a suit, Commonwealth v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of DOMA. The suit claims that Congress "overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people."
Argument
U.S. District Court Judge Joseph TauroJoseph Louis Tauro
Joseph Louis Tauro is a United States federal judge. He is the son of the late Massachusetts Chief Justice G. Joseph Tauro.Born in Winchester, Massachusetts, Tauro received an A.B. from Brown University in 1953 and an LL.B. from Cornell Law School in 1956. He was a First Lieutenant in the United...
heard arguments in the case of Commonwealth v. United States Department of Health and Human Services on May 26, 2010. Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Maura Healey described how a veteran of the U.S military sought burial for himself and his same-sex spouse in a veterans' cemetery, which DOMA's definition of marriage prohibits. Judge Tauro asked Christopher Hall, who represented the U.S. Justice Department, if the federal government had an interest in "perpetuating heterosexuality in the graveyard." He also disputed the government's contention that DOMA was an attempt to preserve the 1996 status quo, noting that the government considers the status quo at the time the restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples while another way of describing the status quo in 1996 is that the federal government deferred to each state's definition of marriage and provided no definition of its own. In response to arguments that the federal government has consistently used state definitions of marriage, Hall cited the federal government's definition of marriage in immigration cases without relying on any state's definition.
Decision
On July 8, 2010, exactly one year after the suit was filed, Judge Tauro released his decision in the case. He ruled that DOMA section 3 violates the Tenth AmendmentTenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791...
and falls outside Congress' authority under the Spending Clause
Taxing and Spending Clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is the clause that gives the federal government of the United States its power of taxation...
of the Constitution.
Massachusetts Attorney General Coakley greeted her victory:
- Today’s landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA’s restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages. The federal government cannot require states, such as Massachusetts, to further the discrimination through federal programs.
Tauro ruled in a companion case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management
Gill v. Office of Personnel Management
Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management 699 F.Supp.2d 374 is a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts...
, on the same day, finding part 3 of DOMA unconstitutional on Fifth Amendment
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215...
grounds.
Status
Tauro entered his final judgment–a document developed in consultation with the parties to the case–on August 18 and granted a stay for the duration of the appeals process. GLAD believes an appeal provides "the chance to argue in front of a higher court with a broader reach...[and] an opportunity to address the harms DOMA Section 3 causes to already married couples across the country."An attorney for the plaintiffs has estimated that arguments on appeal will take place approximately a year after the expected appeal is filed.
On October 12, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice from the office of Assistant U.S. Attorney General Tony Weston filed an appeal in federal district court in Boston to the court’s decision in two cases testing the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The appeal was generally expected, given that the Obama administration at the time maintained that it must defend all federal laws—even those it believes should be repealed. The appeal will be heard in the First Circuit Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* District of Maine* District of Massachusetts...
.
On January 14, 2011, the Department of Justice filed a single brief in the First Circuit Court of Appeals that defended DOMA in both this case and the related Gill case. On February 25, the Department of Justice notified the Court that it will "cease to defend" both cases. On May 20, 2011, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group is a standing body of the U.S. House of Representatives. Comprising 5 members of the House leadership , it directs the activities of the House Office of General Counsel...
(BLAG), an arm of the U.S. House of Representatives, filed a motion asking to be allowed to intervene to defend DOMA Section 3. The Department of Justice did not oppose the request, but Massachusetts did and plans to file a response. The BLAG proposed a briefing schedule that would be completed August 15, 2011.