Department of Justice files motion to dismiss in another DOMA case

09/19/09 Leonard Link, by law professor Arthur Leonard::

Professor Leonard provides his usual insightful analysis of the DOJ brief. He also examines the prospect for Gill v. OPM in the U.S. District Court for Masschusetts, and, upon appeal, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

09/18/09 Volokh Conspiracy, by law professor Dale Carpenter:

Today the DOJ filed its motion to dismiss in another case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, Gill v. OPM, pending in a Massachusetts district court ... I may have more to say about it later, but for now I don't see anything very surprising in the brief.

09/18/09 Gay Couples Law Blog, by attorney Gideon Alper:

This stance isn't new. The department did the same thing a month ago in a different case. While the government's stance may frustrate people disappointed with the Obama administration's (non) efforts to repeal the law, the government is correct here. The executive branch cannot pick and choose which laws it defends in court. Ultimately it is up to Congress to change the law.

09/18/09 LawDork, by attorney Chris Geidner:

The DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss (pdf) is measured in its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, which doubtless will leave some unsatisfied, but it is far closer to the type of brief I’d expect the DOJ to file these days than the Smelt brief, which everyone agrees went too far.

09/18/09 NY Times:

Robert Raben, a legislative consultant who worked at the Justice Department during the Clinton administration, called the brief “a really startling political and policy statement” that, while seemingly in conflict with itself, rightly promotes legal stability.

09/18/09 Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders press release:

Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director and co-lead counsel in Gill, said “Nothing in the government’s brief addresses the fact that DOMA is the sole exception in a long history of the federal government deferring to the states’ determination that people are married. Obviously we disagree with any argument that DOMA is constitutional. Married same-sex couples are being treated differently from other married couples. To us, that’s a clear-cut violation of the promise of equal protection.”