Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health & Human Services, 682 F.3d 1

Congress enacted DOMA to define marriage and spouse for federal purposes after states began recognizing same-sex marriage; §3 defines marriage as one man, one woman and spouse as opposite sex; §2 preserves states’ recognition of same-sex marriages from other states; district court held §3 unconstitutional under Equal Protection and Spending Clause; Gill plaintiffs challenged federal benefits; Massachusetts case concerned federal funding tied to DOMA; DOJ initially defended then shifted to heightened scrutiny; court noted federalism considerations and the impact on state-regulated marriage regimes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DOMA §3 violates equal protection	Gill argues §3 discriminates on basis of sexual orientation	United States defends traditional rational basis or intermediate scrutiny	§3 fails under heightened scrutiny/federalism concerns
Whether DOMA §3 violates the Spending Clause and Tenth Amendment	Massachusetts and Gill contend §3 misuses federal powers	Government asserts no commandeering and permissible funding condition	§3 does not violate Spending Clause or Tenth Amendment but requires closer scrutiny
Whether federalism concerns require closer scrutiny of DOMA §3	DOMA intrudes on state-regulated marriage	Federal interest appropriate and not commandeering	Closer-than-usual scrutiny warranted; §3 not adequately justified
Whether Hara’s health-benefits claim is ripe/appropriately adjudicated	Hara seeks FEHBP survivor benefits	Eligibility depends on annuitant status and pending appeal	Affirmed district court status; remains pending Federal Circuit determination
Whether Baker v. Nelson controls the equal protection challenge to DOMA	Baker forecloses, binding precedent	Baker not controlling given later precedents	Baker does not foreclose here; DOMA analyzed under modern precedents

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (overruled moral grounds as sole basis for discrimination against homosexuals)
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (struck down status-based discrimination against gays)
Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973) (scrutinized congressional intent and impact on needy groups)
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (struck down discriminatory zoning against group home for mentally disabled)
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (scrutinized federal statutes intruding on states' traditional domains)
Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (limits federal intrusion into state regulation; relevance to federalism analysis)