Revelis v. Napolitano
844 F. Supp. 2d 915
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- Revelis and Maas are a same-sex couple married in Iowa; Revelis is a U.S. citizen, Maas is a Dutch citizen, and they reside in Chicago.
- Maas seeks an 1-130 visa petition for permanent residence for Maas; USCIS has not ruled on the petition as of the opinion date.
- DOMA Section 3 defines marriage as between one man and one woman and restricts the definition of spouse to opposite-sex individuals, which affects immigration processing.
- The INA provides that citizens may petition to classify spouses as immediate relatives, but DOMA’s definition complicates eligibility for Maas.
- Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; BLAG moves to intervene to defend DOMA.
- The court denies the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and grants BLAG’s motion to intervene for a limited purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: Do standing and ripeness exist? | Revelis and Maas have a legally protected interest in the visa process and injury from DOMA barrier. | Standing and ripeness depend on the petition's outcome; no final agency action yet. | Yes; standing and ripeness found; injury from DOMA is imminent and redressable. |
| Whether a federal question exists that permits review of DOMA’s constitutionality | Constitutional challenge to DOMA raises a substantial federal question. | No final action under APA; no standalone federal question without final agency action. | Yes; the constitutional question is ripe for review as a federal question with standing. |
| Rule 24 intervention: BLAG’s right to intervene | BLAG should not be allowed to intervene; or at most, amicus. | BLAG may defend DOMA as the House’s interest when the executive declines to defend. | Intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) granted to BLAG for defending DOMA. |
| APA final action requirement | Challenge arises from application of DOMA to petition; not an agency rule. | No final agency action under the APA yet. | Court finds no final APA action; not dispositive to reach the federal question claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury, causation, and redressability)
- Ernst & Young v. Depositors Econ. Prot. Corp., 45 F.3d 530 (1st Cir. 1995) (fitness of purely legal issues favors ripeness; court discretion cautions)
- Dragovich v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, 764 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (standing where discriminatory policy hinders eligibility for program benefits)
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1978) (premature or speculative harm considerations in standing/ripe analysis)
- National Park Hospitality Ass’n v. Dep’t of Interior, 538 U.S. 803 (U.S. 2003) (ripeness doctrine concerns fitness and hardship)
- Windsor v. United States, 797 F. Supp. 2d 320 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (BLAG intervention context in DOMA challenge; relevance to congressional defense interests)
- Ali v. INS, 661 F. Supp. 1234 (D. Mass. 1986) (standing and statutory rights in immigration petitions)