965 F. Supp. 2d 1139
C.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiffs challenged Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(3), (31) (Title 38) as violating the Fifth Amendment by discriminating based on sexual orientation.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment; BLAG initially intervened but withdrew its defenses after the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Windsor.
- The federal government filed a response supporting Plaintiffs’ motion; following Windsor, the Court found DOMA’s Section 3 unconstitutional.
- The Ninth Circuit standard for sexual-orientation classifications was described as unsettled; the court noted it did not need to decide whether heightened scrutiny applies.
- The Court evaluated Title 38 under rational-basis review and considered Congressional justifications (gender-equality drafting intent and military-related purposes) and expert evidence regarding veterans’ benefits and military interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of DOMA §3 | DOMA discriminates on basis of sexual orientation and violates equal protection | Government's prior defense withdrawn; Supreme Court ruled §3 unconstitutional | Court grants summary judgment as to DOMA §3 (Windsor controls) |
| Appropriate standard of review for sexual-orientation classifications | Heightened scrutiny applies (or alternatively sex-based scrutiny) | Standard is unsettled in Ninth Circuit; no need to decide here | Court declines to decide heightened scrutiny; proceeds under rational basis |
| Validity of Title 38 ( exclusion of same-sex spouses ) | Exclusion not rationally related to gender-equality drafting intent or to military interests (readiness, recruiting, cohesion, retention) | BLAG withdrew defense post-Windsor; remaining defendants relied on rationales like gender-neutral drafting and military concerns | Title 38 §§101(3), (31) fail rational-basis review and are unconstitutional as applied; Plaintiffs’ summary judgment granted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (Supreme Court held DOMA §3 unconstitutional)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burdens and standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment and standards for genuine disputes)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (rational-basis review framework)
- Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussion of scrutiny for sexual-orientation classifications)
- In re Levenson, 587 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting unsettled standard for sexual-orientation classifications)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (court’s role at summary judgment; credibility and inference rules)