Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 64 views

    United States Court of Appeal For The Second Circuit: Plaintiff-Appellee

    Uploaded by

    Equality Case Files
    This document is a notice of intent to file a response to a motion for expedited review in the case of Edith Windsor v. United States. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (House), an intervenor-defendant in the case, intends to respond to the plaintiff's motion for an expedited briefing schedule. While the plaintiff proposed an expedited schedule, the House advised that schedule was not acceptable and will file its response by June 21, 2012 in accordance with court rules. The notice provides background on the district court ruling finding Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional and the subsequent appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States Court of Appeal For The Second Circuit: Plaintiff-Appellee

    Uploaded by

    Equality Case Files
    64 views4 pages
    This document is a notice of intent to file a response to a motion for expedited review in the case of Edith Windsor v. United States. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (House), an intervenor-defendant in the case, intends to respond to the plaintiff's motion for an expedited briefing schedule. While the plaintiff proposed an expedited schedule, the House advised that schedule was not acceptable and will file its response by June 21, 2012 in accordance with court rules. The notice provides background on the district court ruling finding Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional and the subsequent appeal.

    Original Description:

    Doc #19 - BLAG Notice of intention to file response to motion for expedited appeal

    Original Title

    12-2335 #19

    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?

    This document is a notice of intent to file a response to a motion for expedited review in the case of Edith Windsor v. United States. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (House), an intervenor-defendant in the case, intends to respond to the plaintiff's motion for an expedited briefing schedule. While the plaintiff proposed an expedited schedule, the House advised that schedule was not acceptable and will file its response by June 21, 2012 in accordance with court rules. The notice provides background on the district court ruling finding Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional and the subsequent appeal.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    64 views4 pages

    United States Court of Appeal For The Second Circuit: Plaintiff-Appellee

    Uploaded by

    Equality Case Files
    This document is a notice of intent to file a response to a motion for expedited review in the case of Edith Windsor v. United States. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (House), an intervenor-defendant in the case, intends to respond to the plaintiff's motion for an expedited briefing schedule. While the plaintiff proposed an expedited schedule, the House advised that schedule was not acceptable and will file its response by June 21, 2012 in accordance with court rules. The notice provides background on the district court ruling finding Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional and the subsequent appeal.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    Case: 12-2335

    Document: 19

    Page: 1

    06/13/2012

    635434

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 12-2335 ____________________ EDITH SCHLAIN WINDSOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ On Appeal from a Final Order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York _________ INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE RESPONSE TO APPELLEES MOTION FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW This appeal concerns a June 6, 2012 ruling by the district court that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. 7, is unconstitutional. See Order, Windsor v. United States (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2012) (ECF No. 93), and Judgment, Windsor v. United States (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2012) (ECF No. 94). Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S.
    1

    Case: 12-2335

    Document: 19

    Page: 2

    06/13/2012

    635434

    House of Representatives (House) noticed its appeal from that ruling on June 8, 2012. See Notice of Appeal [ . . . ] (June 8, 2012) (ECF No. 95). On June 11, 2012, Plaintiff-Appellee Edith Windsor even though she prevailed fully below moved for a radically expedited briefing schedule for this appeal. See Mot. for Expedited Review (June 11, 2012) (ECF No. 8-1); Memorandum of Law in Support [. . .] at 2 (June 11, 2012) (ECF No. 8-2) (asking Court to require House to file its opening brief by July 6, 2012); cf. id. at 12 (asking Court to require House to file its opening brief by June 29, 2012). The Motion indicates that Ms. Windsors counsel aside from not knowing which of two radically expedited briefing schedules she actually wishes to propose to this Court also does not know whether the House intends to file a response. That is surprising since counsel for the House expressly advised Ms. Windsors counsel on June 11, a few hours before the Motion was filed, that the radically expedited scheduled she was proposing was not acceptable to the House.1 And even if Ms. Windsors counsel really did not know whether the House intended to file a response, she could have asked us but did not before filing the Motion. In any event, the House now respectfully advises the Court that it does intend to respond to the Motion to Expedite. The House will file its response as

    Ms. Windsors counsel proposed to counsel for the House that the House file its opening brief by June 29, 2012.
    2

    Case: 12-2335

    Document: 19

    Page: 3

    06/13/2012

    635434

    promptly as possible, but in any event no later than June 21, 2012, in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(3)(A). Respectfully submitted, BANCROFT PLLC By: /s/ Paul D. Clement Paul D. Clement H. Christopher Bartolomucci Conor B. Dugan Nicholas J. Nelson Bancroft PLLC 1919 M Street, N.W., Suite 470 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 234-0090 Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives OF COUNSEL: Kerry W. Kircher, General Counsel William Pittard, Deputy General Counsel Christine Davenport, Senior Assistant Counsel Todd B. Tatelman, Assistant Counsel Mary Beth Walker, Assistant Counsel Office of General Counsel U.S. House of Representatives 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-9700 June 13, 2012

    Case: 12-2335

    Document: 19

    Page: 4

    06/13/2012

    635434

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I certify that on June 13, 2012, I served one copy of the foregoing Intervenor-Defendant-Appellants Notice of Intent to File Response to Appellees Motion for Expedited Review by CM/ECF, by electronic mail (.pdf format), and by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on the following: Roberta A. Kaplan, Esq. Andrew J. Ehrlich, Esq. Jaren Janghorbani PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Melissa Goodman, Esq. Arthur Eisenberg, Esq. Mariko Hirose, Esq. NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor New York, New York 10004 James D. Esseks, Esq. Rose A. Saxe, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Jean Lin, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., 7th Floor Washington, DC 20530

    /s/ Kerry W. Kircher Kerry W. Kircher


    4

    You might also like