Update on DOMA challenge in Bishop v. USA: the Alliance Defense Fund joins the defense

Bishop v. USA, No. 04-cv-00848 (N.D.Ok.)

Plainitffs' objection to motions for pro hac vice admission of ADF attorneys, filed 03/23/10

Reply to plaintiffs' objection to motions for pro hac vice admission of ADF attorneys, filed 03/23/10

I could have titled this update, "Round Up The Usual Suspects," because that is what defendant Sally Howe Smith has done in a lawsuit challenging sections 2 and 3 of the federal DOMA. Howe is the Tulsa County Clerk who denied a marriage license to plaintiffs Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin, on the grounds that Oklahoma's constitution prohibits same-sex marriages. Howe's counsel has been David Iski, Assistant Tulsa County District Attorney. In March, Iski asked the Court to admit, as out-of-state, co-counsel, four attorneys of the Alliance Defense Fund. On April 1st, the Court granted his request. The ADF attorneys are Brian Raum, Dale Schowengerdt, Jim Campbell, and Austin Nimocks. See also the March 30th press release by the Cimarron Alliance Foundation.

Developments in the DOMA case, Bishop v. USA: the DoJ reprises its defense of the federal DOMA

Bishop v. USA, No. 4:04-cv-00848 (Okla. N. Dist.), amended complaint filed 08/10/09

Bishop v. USA, No. 4:04-cv-00848 (Okla. N. Dist.), brief by Department of Justice supporting motion to dismiss, file 10/13/09

Bishop v. USA, No. 4:04-cv-00848 (Okla. N. Dist.), dismissal by Judge Terence Kern of Oklahoma as a party, filed 11/24/09

In August, two lesbian couples in Oklahoma filed an amended complaint in their lawsuit to challenge sections 2 and 3 of the federal DOMA. In October, the Department of Justice filed a brief supporting its motion to dismiss their claims against the United States. DoJ argues - quite plausibly - that the plaintiff couples lack standing, and - quite implausibly - that section 3 warrants "a presumption of constitutionality." On the latter question, readers of the DoJ's Bishop brief will find that some of the arguments reprise those already made, and made again, in Gill v. OPM.

Assessment of four lawsuits against the federal DOMA

08/31/09 National Law Journal / ADF Alliance Alert:

The National Law Journal examines and assesses four lawsuits that challenge section 3, or sections 2 and 3, of the federal DOMA, singling out two - both in Massachusetts - that hold the most promise for the law's opponents.

Federal lawsuit renewed against Oklahoma's constitutional ban of same-sex marriage

08/11/09 Gay Marriage Watch / The Journal Record:

Two lesbian couples have renewed their federal lawsuit against Oklahoma's constitutional ban of same-sex marriage (Okla. Const. art. 2, § 35), and against the federal DOMA. The case is Bishop v. Oklahoma (Okla. N. Dist. Case No. 4:04-cv-00848). On June 5th, the U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed the part of the case that concerned the challenge to the state constitutional ban. The Court ruled that because plaintiffs named state officials not causally related to their alleged injuries, they lacked standing to sue. In their amended complaint, filed yesterday, the Journal Record reports that "[t]heir latest filing changes some aspects of the case, including which government officials are named as defendants."

10th Circuit Court of Appeals Panel dismisses part of Oklahoma federal lawsuit challenging state's constitutional ban and federal DOMA

06/06/09 The Oklahoman (source: Gay Marriage Watch):

A federal court on Friday dismissed a portion of a lawsuit filed by two Oklahoma lesbian couples who had challenged state and federal restrictions on same-sex marriages.