Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP: Windsor United States

    Uploaded by

    Equality Case Files
    Doc #98 - Plaintiffs' letter addressed to Judge Jones dated 5/31/2012 re: the decision issued earlier today by the First Circuit holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") is unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP: Windsor United States

    Uploaded by

    Equality Case Files
    56 views2 pages
    Doc #98 - Plaintiffs' letter addressed to Judge Jones dated 5/31/2012 re: the decision issued earlier today by the First Circuit holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") is unconstitutional.

    Original Title

    1:10-cv-08435 #98

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Doc #98 - Plaintiffs' letter addressed to Judge Jones dated 5/31/2012 re: the decision issued earlier today by the First Circuit holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") is unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    56 views2 pages

    Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP: Windsor United States

    Uploaded by

    Equality Case Files
    Doc #98 - Plaintiffs' letter addressed to Judge Jones dated 5/31/2012 re: the decision issued earlier today by the First Circuit holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") is unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP

    126!5 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS


    NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019-6064
    TELEPHONE (212) 3733000
    L.LOVC K. GARRISON
    RANDOLPH E. PAUL ( 19461956)
    SIMON H. RIFKIND (19501995)
    LOUIS S. WEISS ( 19271950)
    JOHN F. WHARTON (19271977)
    WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
    (212) 373-3086
    WRITER'S DIRECT FACSIMILE
    (212) 373-2037
    WRITER'S DIRECT EMAIL ADDRESS
    [email protected]
    May 31, 2012
    UNIT 3601, FORTUNE PLAZA OFFICE TOWER A
    NO. 7 DONG SANHUAN ZHONGLU
    CHAO YANG DISTRICT
    BEIJING 100020
    PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
    TELEPHONE (8610) 582!1-6300
    12TH FLOOR, HONG KONG CLUB BUILDING
    3A CHATER ROAO, CENTRAL
    HONG KONG
    TELEPHONE (852) 28460300
    ALDER CASTLE
    10 NOBLE STREET
    LONDON EC2V 7JU, U.K.
    TELEPHONE (44 20) 7367 1600
    FUKOKU SEIMEI BUILDLNG
    UCHISAIWAICHO 2-<::HOME
    TOKYO t00-Q01 1, .JAPAN
    TELEPHONE (813) 35978!01
    TORONTO-DOMINION CENTRE
    77 KING STREET WEST. SUITE 3100
    P.O. BOX 226
    TORONTO, ONTARIO MSK IJ3
    TELEPHONE (41 6)
    2001 K STREET, NW
    WASHINGTON, DC 200061047
    TELEPHONE (2.02) 2237300
    500 DELAWARE AVENUE, SUITE 200
    POST OFFICE BOX 32
    WILMINGTON, DE 19899-Q032.
    TELEPHONE (302) 655-4410
    VIA FACSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERY
    The Honorable Barbara S. Jones
    United States District Court
    Southern District of New York
    500 Pearl Street
    New York, NY 1 0007
    '*NOT TO TH NEW YORK BAR
    Windsor v. United States, 10 Civ. 8435 (BSJ) (JCF)
    Dear Judge Jones:
    We write on behalf of plaintiff Edie Windsor to bring to the Court's
    attention the decision issued earlier today by the Unites States Court of Appeals for the
    First Circuit holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") is
    unconstitutional in a case that presents substantially similar facts and raises overlapping
    legal issues as the above-captioned matter. See Massachusetts v. Dep 't of Health and
    Human Servs., Gill v. Office of Pers .. Mgmt., Nos. 10-2204, 10-2207, 10-2214 (1st Cir.
    May 31, 2012).
    In particular, in a unanimous opinion by Judge Boudin, the First Circuit
    held that the burdens imposed by Section 3 of DOMA "are comparable to those the
    [Supreme] Court found substantial in [Dep 't ofAg. v.] Moreno[, 413 U.S. 528 (1973)] ,
    City ofCleburne [v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985)], and Romer [v. Evans,
    517 U.S. 620 (1996)]." /d. at 19. The First Circuit proceeded to reject each ofthe
    purported justifications for Section 3 of DOMA, holding "that the rationales offered do
    not provide adequate support for section 3 of DO MA." /d. at 28.
    Case 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ-JCF Document 98 Filed 08/07/12 Page 1 of 2
    PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
    The Honorable Barbara S. Jones
    As a result of the enclosed opinion, as oftoday's date and since 2010 (the
    year in which the Complaint in the above-captioned matter was filed), every federal
    circuit, district, or bankruptcy court to have analyzed the constitutionality of DOMA has
    agreed that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional for the very reasons asserted by Ms.
    Windsor. See id.; Dragovich v. Dep't ofTreasury, No. C 10-1564 (CW), 2012 WL
    1909603 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2012); Golinski v. Office ofFers. Mgmt., 824 F. Supp. 2d
    968 (N.D. Cal. 2012); Gill v. Office ofFers. Mgmt., 699 F. Supp. 2d 374 (D. Mass.
    2010); In re Balas, 449 B.R. 567 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2011).
    2
    As Your Honor is aware, and as addressed in the parties' respective cross-
    motions, the above decisions were issued in Circuits where precedent mandated that
    DOMA be evaluated under rational basis review. (See Reply Mem. of Law in Supp. of
    Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. at 9-13.) As Your Honor is also aware, no such precedent binds
    this Court, and as a result both the Department of Justice and Ms. Windsor have
    respectfully requested a decision from this Court finding that Section 3 of DOMA is
    subject to heightened judicial scrutiny. (See id at 13-24; Def. United States' Mem. of
    Law in Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. and Intervenor's Mot. to Dismiss; Mem. of Law
    in Supp. ofPl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. at 10-31.)
    For the reasons stated in our letters to the Court dated March 29, 2012 and
    May 29,2012, in which we and the Department of Justice respectfully requested an
    expeditious decision on the pending dispositive motions, which have been pending since
    September 15,2011, with the utmost respect, we renew our request that the Court decide
    this matter as soon as practicable in light of the pressing nature of the issues of national
    concern before the Court.
    J ! [ ~
    Roberta N Kaplan
    Enclosure
    cc (via email): Paul D. Clement, Esq.
    H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Esq.
    James D. Esseks, Esq.
    Jean Lin, Esq.
    Case 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ-JCF Document 98 Filed 08/07/12 Page 2 of 2

    You might also like