Thursday, July 05, 2012

Justice Department Seeking Expedited Supreme Court Review of OPMA Cases

In follow up to the Congressional GOP's request that the U.S. Supreme Court hear an appeal of the First Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling striking down DOMA as unconstitutional, the U. S. Justice Department has upped ante and is seeking a review of of the DOMA cases in both the First and Ninth Circuits.  The move will expedite the process in the Ninth Circuit case and potentially secure a prompter resolution of the unconstitutionality of DOMA.  Here are highlights from Prop 8 Trial Tracker where copies of the petitions for certiorari can be found:

The Department of Justice is asking the Supreme Court to hear two challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, in an unexpected move. The announcement comes in the form of a letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as part of the DOMA challenge in that circuit, Golinski v. OPM. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), who is representing the Republican-led House in defense of DOMA, had filed for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in a different challenge, Gill v. OPM/Massachusetts v. HHS, this past Friday. The letter notes that the Solicitor General has filed petitions for certiorari in both cases.

The Golinski case is scheduled for oral argument at the Ninth Circuit the week of September 10, but the Justice Department is asking to bypass the Ninth Circuit hearing and ruling entirely and head directly to the Supreme Court where they can review issues such as the level of scrutiny and past precedents that may conflict with a ruling striking down DOMA.

[P]utting the issue squarely before the Justices is a significant step. And in fact, in their certiorari petition, the Justice Department tackles the issue of heightened scrutiny for laws affecting gays and lesbians head on. They write:
The district court concluded that Section 3 cannot survive under heightened scrutiny because the denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married under their States’ laws bears no substantial relationship to any important governmental purpose that motivated Section 3’s enactment. App., infra , 36a-44a. Alternatively, the district court concluded that Section 3 would fail even rational basis review because Section 3 is not rationally related to any conceivable legitimate interest of the federal government. Id at 44a-59a. This case squarely raises important questions about the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee as it applies to a federal statute that draws distinctions among persons who are legally married under their States’ laws on the basis of their sexual orientation. For the reasons given in the government’s Massachusetts petition, those questions, and the ultimate question of the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, warrant authoritative resolution by this Court.
They suggest that because the district court ruling addressed the level of scrutiny, it’s time for the Supreme Court to decide that important issue once and for all. The Supreme Court could accept one petition or both in its October conference.
It is time for the Supreme Court to strike down DOMA and end the infusion of religion into the civil laws so as to punish gays for noncompliance with an increasingly toxic and bigotry based form of religion.

No comments: