• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • About Towleroad
  • Towleroad on Social Media
  • Privacy Policy

Towleroad Gay News

Gay Blog Towleroad: More than gay news | gay men

  • Travel
  • Sports
  • Law/Justice
  • Celebrities
  • Republicans
  • Madonna
  • Books
  • Men
  • Trans Rights
  • Royals
  • Monkeypox
  • John Waters believes mainstream Hollywood films are finally as shocking as his cult movies
  • Sir Elton John is ‘back home and in good health’ after being rushed to hospital
  • Robin Roberts Wedding—All the ‘I Do’ Details: The Dress, the Guest List, the Snubs and More Revealed

Why Is This DOMA Case Different From All Others?

Ari Ezra Waldman July 19, 2012

BY ARI EZRA WALDMAN

Three cases. Three courts. One result.

Whether it was Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California, Judge Barbara Jones of the Southern District of New York, or Judge Joseph Tauro of the District of Massachusetts (or, of course, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeal), the result was essentially the same: the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.

Edith_Windsor_insert_cMichael_KeyThe Department of Justice (DOJ) has asked the Supreme Court to hear the DOMA cases out of the First Circuit and the Northern District of California, bypassing the Ninth Circuit. Earlier this week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represents Edith Windsor (right) in the New York case, asked the Supreme Court to bypass the Second Circuit and take Ms. Windsor's case, as well. Skipping over the intermediate appellate courts is rare, but not impossible, especially when the case is so obviously headed for an ultimate decision at One First Street.

Still, each of these cases — Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services, and Windsor v. United States – is slightly different. In Golinski, the court preferred to use heightened scrutiny to invalidate DOMA; in Massachusetts, the First Circuit used so-called "rational basis plus," or a more searching form of rational basis review; and, in Windsor, the court rejected DOMA under simple rational basis. A win is a win when it comes to equality and access to the federal marriage benefits, but a Supreme Court decision to hear Windsor, in particular, could bring the scrutiny issue front and center.

In the end, while DOMA will likely die at the Supreme Court next term, the level of scrutiny for sexual orientation discrimination will probably continue its muddled trajectory.

The issue exists at all because the appellate court precedent on scrutiny is old, the Obama Administration has changed the government's long-standing opposition to heightened scrutiny, and, most importantly, no one is entirely sure how the Supreme Court approach scrutiny of antigay discriminatory laws in Lawrence v. Texas.

Scrutiny standards are the lenses through which the judiciary reviews the constitutionality of state action. They come up in all sorts of contexts: Laws trying to restrict freedom of speech get strict scrutiny; laws regulating commerce generally get the lowest form of rational basis review (as should have been the case in the recent health care case). Rational basis review requires that a law or state action be rationally related to some legitimate government objective. Heightened scrutiny, sometimes applied to cases involving gender discrimination, requires that a law be substantially related to an important government objective. A "legitimate" government objective can be anything from conserving resources to protecting the American farm industry; "important" government objectives span a narrower bandwith, reaching only historically essential values of democracy and equality and eschewing simple administrative or financial interests. And, of course, it is easier for a law to simply be "rationally" connected to a legitimate goal than "substantially" connected to one: Lots of things are rational, fewer things are substantially important.

The Windsor case is special because it asks the Court and the DOJ to dive into the heart of this legal controversy. Last year, when Attorney General Holder informed the world (and Speaker Boehner) that President Obama believes that state actions that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation deserve heightened scrutiny and that under that standard, DOMA is unconstitutional, the Government maintained that its previous position that DOMA could be upheld under rational basis review was still a reasonable (though not its preferred) interpretation of current law. The rational basis fall back was a footnote in Attorney General Holder's letter, but it seemed like the Government's position until oral argument at the First Circuit in Gill. When pressed by the judges, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division and former WilmerHale partner Stuart Delery said that the Government "is not here to defend [DOMA] on any standard" and took no position on DOMA under rational basis. So, if Windsor reaches the Supreme Court, the Government may be forced to clarify its DOMA-under-rational-basis position.

In context, this is more than just fodder for ivory tower classroom discussion. 

First, even without Windsor, the DOMA cases will give the Court the opportunity to clarify or remuddle the scrutiny standard. The Supreme Court has never explicitly stated a scrutiny standard for antigay laws. Some appellate courts — notably, the Ninth Circuit, in High Tech Gays (1990), and the First Circuit, in Cooke v. Gates (2008) — have said that rational basis review is appropriate for sexual orientation discrimination, but High Tech Gays was decided in a hostile Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) world and Cooke explicitly relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Unfortunately, no one is sure what the Court said in Lawrence. At times, Justice Kennedy appeared to refer to fundamental rights, which would trigger heightened scrutiny; at other times, he rejected the idea of intimacy rights as fundamental. Suffice it to say, there is evidence in the Lawrence opinion for both sides of the heightened scrutiny-rational basis divide. And, although Lawrence was decided pursuant to the due process clause and the DOMA cases implicate Equal Protection concerns, federal courts tend to learn from one another when similar issues — namely, antigay discrimination — come up. 

Second, the DOMA cases could produce a series of fractured opinions from the Court, even if a supermajority invalidates the law. As I have argued before, these cases offer the Court a rare chance at unity across the liberal-conservative divide. DOMA is anathematic to conservatives who despise federal intrusion into states' rights and odious to liberals who despise the obvious unequal treatment of legally married gay couples. Intellectually honest conservatives should put aside any distaste they have for same-sex marriage as an institution to strike down an obviously unconstitutional law. But, within that, the Court may disagree about the level of scrutiny. In Lawrence, the majority avoided this disagreement by muddling the language and never attacking the scrutiny issue head on. There is even some evidence in Dale Carpenter's new book about Lawrence, Flagrant Conduct, that the seemingly confusing language was meant to gloss over internal disagreements about scrutiny. I am not sure how much I buy that; Lawrence was decided in 2003, some years before lower courts started flouting old and outdated precedent to use heightened scrutiny on antigay state action.

Third, we are having this scrutiny discussion because the President favors heightened scrutiny, the adoption of which would revolutionize gay rights law. Undoubtedly, the organizations representing the DOMA plaintiffs, including Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), would have made the heightened scrutiny arguments themselves. But, the Government carries more weight in the federal courts and the Obama Administration's position gave Judge White and others the political and legal cover to defy higher court precedent covering their jurisdictions that appeared to foreclose anything other than rational basis review. Historians may look back at the President's boldness in this area of law as one of his signature, lasting, and greatest actions on behalf of gay and lesbian Americans. If Governor Romney wins the next election and puts the DOJ on the wrong side of DOMA, the Supreme Court — where the case will surely be at the time — will have political reasons for upholding the law.

The Supreme Court may take all, some, or none of the DOMA cases, but the last option is the least likely. There is already an appellate court case declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional, and that decision is buttressed by a handful of lower court decisions and the Government's bold litigation actions. With briefing due next month, the decision to hear the case shortly thereafter, and oral argument in the Winter of 2012 (after the election), we can expect a decision in the Spring of 2013. And, regardless of whether than decision includes clarity on scrutiny, it should be a great victory for the gay community and our quest for marriage recognition.

***

Ari Ezra Waldman teaches at Brooklyn Law School and is concurrently getting his PhD at Columbia University in New York City. He is a 2002 graduate of Harvard College and a 2005 graduate of Harvard Law School. His research focuses on technology, privacy, speech, and gay rights. Ari will be writing weekly posts on law and various LGBT issues. 

Follow Ari on Twitter at @ariezrawaldman.

 

Topics: Health, Nature/Climate, Supreme Court, towleroad More Posts About: aclu, Ari Ezra Waldman, DOMA, DOMA, Lambda Legal, Lambda Legal

Related Posts
  • Alabama Sued In Federal Court By Families, Doctors After Anti-Trans Healthcare Bill Signed Into Law
  • Survivor Benefits Payments For Same-Sex Partners Are Being Paid Under Biden, But Many Don’t Even Know They Qualify
  • Judge Rules Denying Inmate Gender Affirming Care is ‘Cruel and Unusual Punishment’; Queer Eye Subject Accused Of Homophobia, Racism
  • Sir Elton John is ‘back home and in good health’ after being rushed to hospital

    Sir Elton John is ‘back home and in good health’ after being rushed to hospital

    Published by BANG Showbiz English Sir Elton John is “back home and in good health” after being rushed to hospital. The 76-year-old pop icon suffered a fall at his French villa on Sunday (27.08.23) evening and …Read More »
  • Robin Roberts Wedding—All the ‘I Do’ Details: The Dress, the Guest List, the Snubs and More Revealed

    Robin Roberts Wedding—All the ‘I Do’ Details: The Dress, the Guest List, the Snubs and More Revealed

    Published by OK Magazine Here's to the newlyweds! On Friday, September 8, Good Morning America star Robin Roberts tied the knot with her girlfriend of 18 years, Amber Laign. The reporter broke the news on her …Read More »
  • Ellen DeGeneres announces TV return after 16-month absence

    Ellen DeGeneres announces TV return after 16-month absence

    Published by BANG Showbiz English Ellen DeGeneres has announced her return to TV. The 65-year-old star's eponymous ‘The Ellen DeGeneres Show' came to an end in May 2022 after 19 seasons and she's now revealed her …Read More »
  • Madonna ‘Would Love’ for Britney Spears to Come on Tour With Her After Recent Split From Sam Asghari

    Madonna ‘Would Love’ for Britney Spears to Come on Tour With Her After Recent Split From Sam Asghari

    Published by OK Magazine After Sam Asghari filed for divorce from Britney Spears, it seems like her good pal Madonna is hoping to help her out by bringing her on her Celebrations Tour once it resumes …Read More »
Previous Post: « Independent Legalize Love Movement Rallies For Pro-Equality Obama: VIDEO
Next Post: DNC Chair Predicts Marriage Equality Inclusion For Democratic Platform »

Primary Sidebar

Most Recent

  • John Waters believes mainstream Hollywood films are finally as shocking as his cult movies

    John Waters believes mainstream Hollywood films are finally as shocking as his cult movies

  • Sir Elton John is ‘back home and in good health’ after being rushed to hospital

    Sir Elton John is ‘back home and in good health’ after being rushed to hospital

  • Robin Roberts Wedding—All the ‘I Do’ Details: The Dress, the Guest List, the Snubs and More Revealed

    Robin Roberts Wedding—All the ‘I Do’ Details: The Dress, the Guest List, the Snubs and More Revealed

  • Ellen DeGeneres announces TV return after 16-month absence

    Ellen DeGeneres announces TV return after 16-month absence

  • Madonna ‘Would Love’ for Britney Spears to Come on Tour With Her After Recent Split From Sam Asghari

    Madonna ‘Would Love’ for Britney Spears to Come on Tour With Her After Recent Split From Sam Asghari

  • Lourdes Leon, Daughter Of Madonna, Shocks With See-Through String Dress At Victoria’s Secret Show

    Lourdes Leon, Daughter Of Madonna, Shocks With See-Through String Dress At Victoria’s Secret Show

  • Mike Pence Confronted by Emotional Mom of Trans Child About Laws to Protect Lgbtq Kids From Violence

    Mike Pence Confronted by Emotional Mom of Trans Child About Laws to Protect Lgbtq Kids From Violence

  • ‘This Was a Brand New Subject’: Donald Trump Grilled by Megyn Kelly About Supporting Trans Caitlyn Jenner in 2016

    ‘This Was a Brand New Subject’: Donald Trump Grilled by Megyn Kelly About Supporting Trans Caitlyn Jenner in 2016

Adjacent News

  • Did the UAE ban the Barbie movie? What about Saudi Arabia?

    Did the UAE ban the Barbie movie? What about Saudi Arabia?

  • From penal camp, dissident Navalny calls on Russians to resist Putin

    From penal camp, dissident Navalny calls on Russians to resist Putin

  • As contentious judicial ‘reform’ becomes law in Israel, Netanyahu cements his political legacy

    As contentious judicial ‘reform’ becomes law in Israel, Netanyahu cements his political legacy

Good Trash: Going to Read It Somewhere, Y'know

  • Beyonce pays tribute to stabbed fan

    Beyonce pays tribute to stabbed fan

  • Dwight Howard’s Assault Accuser Submits Uber Receipt as Evidence in Court Battle With Ex-Lakers Star

    Dwight Howard’s Assault Accuser Submits Uber Receipt as Evidence in Court Battle With Ex-Lakers Star

  • After Bud Light, Ukraine ‘Scandals,’ Garth Brooks Surprises Again

    After Bud Light, Ukraine ‘Scandals,’ Garth Brooks Surprises Again

Partner Links

  • WATCH: Rosie O’Donnell chats with Kathy Griffin about her triumphant return to Las Vegas & more!
    Rosie O’Donnell has just gotten over her first bout with Covid-19. […]
  • #ThrowbackThursday
    Was tickled to death to receive this old photo from my […]
  • Wombat Wednesday!
    I love wombats. I love their little stubby legs. I love […]
  • Charlie Kirk: Retirement Isn't Biblical, So Cancel Social Security
    This BOZO. CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): Look, for current beneficiaries, none of […]
  • “Rihanna & ASAP Rocky did a photoshoot with their son Riot Rose” links
    View this post on Instagram A post shared by Miles Diggs […]

Most Commented

Social

Twitter @tlrd | Facebook | Instagram @tlrd

About

  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • About Towleroad
  • Towleroad on Social Media
  • Privacy Policy
[towleroadmr] [towleroadtn]

Footer

Ptown Hacks 2018

Read

  • Travel
  • Film
  • Law – LGBT Rights
  • Columns
  • Specials

About

  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • About Towleroad
  • Towleroad on Social Media
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Log in

×
×