• 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
  • Film/TV/Stream
  • Republicans
  • Madonna
  • Books
  • Men
  • Trans Rights
  • Tech/Science
  • Royals
  • Monkeypox
  • Americans are flooding Mexico City. Some locals want them to go home
  • Longtime Trump executive Weisselberg pleads guilty, becomes prosecution witness
  • Mpox, Poxy McPoxface and TRUMP-22: Public sends WHO suggestions to rename monkeypox

What To Watch For: ‘Standing’ in the Supreme Court’s DOMA Case, Windsor v. United States

Ari Ezra Waldman March 23, 2013

BY ARI EZRA WALDMAN

On Tuesday and Wednesday, March 26 and 27, the Supreme Court will hear more than 3 hours of arguments in the challenges to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry) and the Defense of Marriage Act (Windsor v. United States). In a series of short posts, I will preview and summarize the legal issues that will be raised. In this column, standing in the DOMA case. 

CapitolIn an earlier post, we discussed the "standing" issue in the Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry. The issues there should be pretty familiar to regular Towleroad readers; we have been discussing them since shortly after Judge Vaughn Walker declared Prop 8 unconstitutional in 2010. The standing question in the DOMA case, Windsor v. United States, has not garnered as much attention, but it rests on similar legal principles.

Standing in Hollingsworth depends on whether ordinary citizens can step into the shoes of the state without showing their own "particularized" or "direct injury."

Standing in Windsor depends on whether one house of Congress can step into the shoes of the Executive Branch without showing their own direct injury.

There are really four related questions here:

First, could Congress ever have standing to defend a law like DOMA?

Second, even if Congress could, can one house of Congress defend DOMA without the other?

Third, even if one house of Congress could, did one committee of that house have the power to intervene?

Fourth, even if one house of Congress could defend DOMA, does the Obama Administration's agreement with the Second Circuit's decision striking down DOMA deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction regardless of who is defending the law?

JacksonBecause Edie Windsor, President Obama, and House Republicans all believe that the parties have standing and the Court has jurisdiction, the Court, as it sometimes does, appointed a constitutional scholar — Professor Vicki Jackson of Harvard Law School (right) — to flesh out the standing argument.  

Think of Professor Jackon's argument this way: Winners can't appeal, the left hand can't do anything without the right hand, and, regardless, both hands are tied. That is, because the Obama Administration won at the Second Circuit and because only one house of Congress is trying to defend DOMA, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case. Plus, DOMA is not the kind of law that Congress ever has the authority to defend.

There are several persuasive legal reasons to think this argument is sound, but just as many persuasive reasons on the other side. And, there is one other factor that will most likely push the Court to go beyond the standing question and address DOMA's merits: If it doesn't, then DOMA is the law of the land in several jurisdictions, but unconstitutional in others, contributing to an absurd regime that would be impossible to administer.

I discuss the arguments AFTER THE JUMP.

Could Congress ever have standing to defend a law like DOMA?

The rule of federal standing — the party needs to articulate a "particularized" or "direct injury" — and the principle of separation of powers would seem to suggest that Congress can only jump in to defend a law that directly and adversely affects one of its particular prerogatives. All the House is doing in the DOMA case is citing its general interest in seeing a law it passed get enforced. Yet, in a famous standing case called Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Supreme Court stated that such generalized interest in seeing the government function "in accordance with the law" does not give rise to an injury sufficient for standing.

Basically, the only reason Congress thinks it has standing is because it wants a law enforced and defended. But, so do I and so do you. Congress has no more showed a "direct injury" than you or I. When the Executive Branch declines to defend a law, nothing is happening to Congress: members' votes aren't being nullified and their specific powers are not being directly affected. On the other hand, if an executive tried to enforce a rule that took away a specific Congressional power — declare war or hire staff, for example — Congress could sue. There, Congress would have a particularized interest in quashing that rule. With DOMA, there is not such interest.

Could one house of Congress defend DOMA without the other?

Even if Congress could somehow articulate a direct injury, standing would require Congress – the House and Senate — to speak together. Case law about Congressional standing has exclusively referred to "Congress" in cases where both the House and Senate sought to challenge a direct attack on their powers. That precedent would have to be extended to include this case, where only one house is trying to assert its role.

130226_john_boehner_1_605_apCan one committee of one house of Congress defend DOMA? 

To be perfectly accurate, it isn't even the House per se that is defending DOMA. It is the mis-named Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), a five person committee of the House leadership with a Republican majority led by Speaker Boehner, that elbowed its way into the DOMA case. BLAG was authorized only "to provid[e] legal assistance and representation to the House," not to intervene in federal litigation. On the other hand, a previous case where Congress did step in to defend a law the president declined to defend involved both the House and Senate passing resolutions explicitly authorizing Congress as a whole to get involved.

Does the Obama Administration's victory at the Second Circuit deny jurisdiction in any event?

This argument has to do with the unique way that Windsor climbed the ladder of the federal judiciary. First, a federal district court in New York adjudicated the case, which then put Edie Windsor and her attorneys against the Obama Administration. Then, the President changed policies, agreed with the district court's striking down DOMA, decided to stop defending the law, and issued notice of appeal. 

But, winners can't appeal.

The Constitution's "case and controversy" rule means that a federal court can only hear a case if there is a real debate, a real disagreement, a real controversy between two legitimate parties. However, when the Obama Administration switched sides, it eliminated any conflict. It switched sides, leaving one side empty, thus denying Windsor a real "case or controversy."

Conclusions and Analysis

That seems like a pretty tight argument. Professor Jackson and her colleagues at Akin Gump who wrote the brief certainly delivered the best possible case for House Republicans lacking standing in Windsor. But, the problems with this argument are as follows:

First, it assumes that the President changing his mind is the same as erasing its "direct injury." The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional, but it cannot be denied that the federal government has been adversely affected by the decisions in Windsor, much like California has been "injured" by the decisions in Hollingsworth. Before Windsor, the federal government did not have to give legally married gay couples the benefits associated with marriage; after striking down DOMA, the district and appellate courts are saying that it must do so. Before Hollingsworth, California did not have to issue marriage licenses to gay couples; now they do. That President Obama and Governor Brown eagerly want to do so does not change the fact that the government experienced a "direct injury."

If the Court sees the standing question this way, the House could piggy back on the Obama Administration's standing.

Second, it looks at the Court's standing precedent and makes a logical jump. Take the example of the designated hitter rule. Baseball's American league added it in 1973, but before that, there were no designated hitters. But, just because there were no designated hitters before 1973 does not necessarily mean that the designated hitter rule violated baseball's charter or bylaws.

Court precedent on Congressional standing may refer to "Congress," but because its previous cases involved both the House and Senate seeking to intervene together, the Court has simply never had the opportunity to address whether the Constitution allows one house to intervene without the other. Nor has it had the opportunity to consider the powers of BLAG, a relatively new creation in the colorful history of House committees. In other words, Professor Jackson's argument tries to prove too much from strong, but non-authoritative precedent.

It seems more likely that the Court will not make either mistake. 

***

If you missed it, read my preview on 'Standing' in the Prop. 8 case HERE.

***

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. You can follow him on Twitter at @ariezrawaldman.

Topics: Actor, History More Posts About: Ari Ezra Waldman, DOMA, DOMA, John Boehner, John Boehner, Law - Gay, LGBT, Republican Party, Republican Party

Related Posts
  • North Carolina Voter Suppression Law Struck as Racist. Republican Voter ID Found to ‘Target African American Voters’
  • Liz Cheney Faces 6 Opponents Dems Willing to Cross Over For Primary May Be Her Only Hope. In Wyoming They’ve Done It Before
  • Randy Rainbow Meets Josh Hawley And Takes Down A Republican Party ‘turned Anarchic, Askew and Obscene. Thanks to Boebert and Green’
  • Longtime Trump executive Weisselberg pleads guilty, becomes prosecution witness

    Longtime Trump executive Weisselberg pleads guilty, becomes prosecution witness

    Published by Reuters By Karen Freifeld NEW YORK (Reuters) -A longtime senior executive at Donald Trump’s family business pleaded guilty on Thursday to helping the company engineer a 15-year tax fraud, in an agreement that will …Read More »
  • Mpox, Poxy McPoxface and TRUMP-22: Public sends WHO suggestions to rename monkeypox

    Mpox, Poxy McPoxface and TRUMP-22: Public sends WHO suggestions to rename monkeypox

    Published by Euronews (English) The World Health Organization (WHO) is looking to rename monkeypox after scientists criticised its current moniker as “discriminatory and stigmatising” which has resulted in reportedly vicious attacks on monkeys in Brazil last …Read More »
  • US to provide monkeypox vaccines at Pride events

    US to provide monkeypox vaccines at Pride events

    Published by AFP US cases have quickly soared to 13,500 since May, when the current outbreak began in Europe Washington (AFP) – Monkeypox vaccines will be made available at Gay Pride and other events as part …Read More »
  • Cruise review, Apollo Theatre: As fresh and relevant as It’s A Sin

    Cruise review, Apollo Theatre: As fresh and relevant as It’s A Sin

    Published by City AM By Adam Bloodworth Cruise is one of only a handful of West End openings this August, so thank goodness it’s a hit. A lucky few were already privy to how good Cruise …Read More »
Previous Post: « Michelle Shocked Said She’ll Be Showing Up to Her Canceled Show Tonight; Venue Tells Her ‘Don’t Come’
Next Post: Man Gets 3 Years Jail in Manslaughter Death of Gay Autistic Teen He Taunted Then Set on Fire »

Primary Sidebar

Adjacent News

  • Biden signs $430 billion climate, healthcare and tax bill

    Biden signs $430 billion climate, healthcare and tax bill

  • Judge schedules Thursday hearing on motion to unseal Trump search warrant materials

    Judge schedules Thursday hearing on motion to unseal Trump search warrant materials

  • Dr. Oz Loses $5 Million Of GOP Campaign Funding In Pennsylvania As His Poll Numbers Continue To Plummet

    Dr. Oz Loses $5 Million Of GOP Campaign Funding In Pennsylvania As His Poll Numbers Continue To Plummet

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

  • Gwyneth Paltrow is joining Shark Tank

    Gwyneth Paltrow is joining Shark Tank

  • ‘It’s Good To Be Loved!’ Ellen DeGeneres Celebrates Anniversary With Portia de Rossi After It’s Revealed She Won’t Be Invited To Ex Anne Heche’s Funeral

    ‘It’s Good To Be Loved!’ Ellen DeGeneres Celebrates Anniversary With Portia de Rossi After It’s Revealed She Won’t Be Invited To Ex Anne Heche’s Funeral

  • New Handwritten Notes & Letter Reveal Princess Diana Predicted She May Be Killed In A ‘Staged Car Accident’

    New Handwritten Notes & Letter Reveal Princess Diana Predicted She May Be Killed In A ‘Staged Car Accident’

RSS Partner Links

  • Song of the Day: 'Edge of Seventeen' by Stevie Nicks
  • (No Title)
  • Scott Disick Spotted with New Mystery Girl, Source Speaks Out About His Relationship Status
  • “Netflix’s ‘Wednesday’ series looks like so much fun” links
  • The Cambridges are ‘privately renting’ Adelaide Cottage at no cost to taxpayers?
  • (No Title)
  • Ben Affleck & Jennifer Lopez Spotted in Georgia Ahead of Their Second Wedding!

Most Recent

  • Americans are flooding Mexico City. Some locals want them to go home

    Americans are flooding Mexico City. Some locals want them to go home

  • Longtime Trump executive Weisselberg pleads guilty, becomes prosecution witness

    Longtime Trump executive Weisselberg pleads guilty, becomes prosecution witness

  • Mpox, Poxy McPoxface and TRUMP-22: Public sends WHO suggestions to rename monkeypox

    Mpox, Poxy McPoxface and TRUMP-22: Public sends WHO suggestions to rename monkeypox

  • US to provide monkeypox vaccines at Pride events

    US to provide monkeypox vaccines at Pride events

  • Cruise review, Apollo Theatre: As fresh and relevant as It’s A Sin

    Cruise review, Apollo Theatre: As fresh and relevant as It’s A Sin

  • Lee Pace confirms he tied the knot with longtime boyfriend Matthew Foley

    Lee Pace confirms he tied the knot with longtime boyfriend Matthew Foley

  • Strippers bid to unionize in Los Angeles

    Strippers bid to unionize in Los Angeles

  • Giuliani testifies in Georgia criminal probe into 2020 U.S. election

    Giuliani testifies in Georgia criminal probe into 2020 U.S. election

Most Commented

Social

Twitter @tlrd | Facebook | Instagram @tlrd

Footer

Copyright © 2022 · Log in

×