Dragovich v. United States Department of the Treasury
764 F. Supp. 2d 1178
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- Plaintiffs challenge DOMA §3 and IRC §7702B(f) as violating equal protection and substantive due process in the CalPERS LTC enrollment context.
- CalPERS LTC Program offers long-term care insurance to state employees, but eligibility excludes same-sex spouses and registered domestic partners under federal tax rules.
- DOMA §3 defines spouse as opposite-sex; §7702B(f) restricts eligible relatives, affecting tax treatment for state plans.
- Plaintiffs are three California public employees and their same-sex spouses/partners, who seek enrollment in CalPERS LTC Program but are denied.
- California status includes marriages and registered domestic partnerships; enrollment suspensions occurred in 2009 with open enrollment periodic obligations.
- Federal Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state claims; State Defendants answered but did not join the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue | Dragovich, et al. have injury in fact from denial of equal access to LTC Program. | No injury without an application or actual enrollment attempt. | Plaintiffs have standing; injury and redressability shown. |
| Equal protection | DOMA §3/IRC §7702B(f) unlawfully deny same-sex couples equal benefits. | Rational basis justification; classifications permissible. | Plaintiffs state an equal protection claim; rational basis not clearly satisfied. |
| Substantive due process | Laws infringe fundamental liberty in marital/familial relationships. | Burden is incidental and does not infringe fundamental rights. | Plaintiffs state a cognizable substantive due process claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (injury-in-fact, causation, redressability requirements)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (standing requires concrete adversity)
- Taniguchi v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2002) (standing despite no formal application in certain contexts)
- Desert Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Moreno Valley, 103 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 1996) (standing where permit application would be futile)
- Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003) (able and ready standard for equal protection injuries)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (strict scrutiny concerns for classifications affecting protected class)