In Re Balas
449 B.R. 567
Bankr. C.D. Cal.2011Background
- Gene Balas and Carlos Morales are legally married in California and filed a joint Chapter 13 petition on February 24, 2011.
- The United States Trustee moved to dismiss under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) arguing the joint petition is invalid because Balas and Morales are two men, citing DOMA's definition of spouse.
- Balas and Morales seek equal treatment under § 302(a), arguing their same-sex marriage should permit a joint petition just as opposite-sex couples enjoy.
- The case proceeds with a plan that is otherwise eligible for confirmation, subject to the Motion to Dismiss; no creditor has sought dismissal.
- The court adopts arguments from the Holder Letter and Debtors’ Opposition, finding DOMA unconstitutional as applied and denying the Motion to Dismiss.
- The decision emphasizes equal protection and due process principles, concluding Balas and Morales may pursue their joint petition under § 302(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOMA prevents a joint petition under § 302(a) for same-sex spouses. | Balas/Morales contend DOMA violates equal protection/due process by denying joint filing rights. | UST argues DOMA defines spouse as opposite sex and thus § 302(a) cannot be read to include same-sex couples. | DOMA as applied is unconstitutional; joint petition permitted. |
| What constitutional standard applies to DOMA as applied here. | Debtors seek heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation classifications. | USTAFF argues no heightened scrutiny; DOMA should be upheld under rational basis. | Heightened scrutiny applies; as-applied review used. |
| Does DOMA violate equal protection/due process by discriminating on sexual orientation in bankruptcy relief. | Debtors argue sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic warranting equal treatment. | DOMA serves none of the asserted government interests. | Yes; DOMA violates equal protection/due process as applied. |
| Are the government interests cited for DOMA substantial and rational under heightened scrutiny. | Interests such as preserving traditional marriage and resources lack support under heightened scrutiny. | DOMA serves the asserted governmental interests. | No valid government interest supports DOMA under heightened scrutiny. |
| Should the Motion to Dismiss be denied based on the court’s constitutional analysis. | Dismissal would wrongfully exclude Balas and Morales from equal bankruptcy relief. | DOMA compliance would require severing the joint petition or dismissing the case. | Motion to Dismiss denied; DOMA unconstitutional as applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- High Tech Gays v. Defense Indus. Sec. Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1990) (acknowledges history of discrimination against homosexuals)
- Witt v. Dep't of the Air Force, 527 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2008) (heightened scrutiny and as-applied analysis in DADT context)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (U.S. 2003) (concerns equal protection and status/conduct distinction in sexual orientation cases)
- Rom er v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (U.S. 1996) (equal protection invalidates discrimination against homosexuals)
- Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76 (U.S. 1979) (gender-based distinctions in federal benefits scrutinized)
- Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (extensive consideration of discrimination against gays/lesbians in California)
- In re Levenson I, 560 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognizes sexual orientation as a defining characteristic for equal protection)
- In re Levenson II, 587 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2009) (heightened scrutiny analysis in DOMA-related context)
- Gill v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 699 F. Supp. 2d 374 (D. Mass. 2010) (discussion of DOMA and equal protection in a related context)