Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
Court	United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Full case name	Commonwealth of Massachusetts v.United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al.
Argued	April 4 2012
Decided	May 31 2012
Citation	682 F.3d 1
Case history
Prior history	698 F.Supp.2d 234 (D.Mass. 2010)
Subsequent history	Petitions for certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 12-15 and 12-97) denied.
Related cases	Gill v. Office of Personnel Management 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.)[n 1] Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management (9th Cir.)[n 2] United States v. Windsor (U.S. Sup. Ct.)[n 3] Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management (2nd Cir.)[n 2] Cardona v. Shinseki (Vet. App.)[n 4]
Holding
Section 3 of DOMA fails a less-deferential rational basis review on Equal Protection Clause claims; the Spending Clause and Tenth Amendment do not proscribe DOMA, but they do influence the analysis of DOMA's justifications under equal protection review.
Court membership
Judges sitting	Sandra Lynch, Chief Judge, Juan R. Torruella and Michael Boudin, Circuit Judges
Case opinions
Majority	Boudin, joined by Torruella and Lynch
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V, XIV Defense of Marriage Act

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services 682 F.3d 1 is a United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision that affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the terms "marriage" as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."^[1] Both courts found DOMA to be unconstitutional, though for different reasons. The trial court held that DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment and Spending Clause. In a companion case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the same judge held that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause. On May 31, 2012, the First Circuit held the act violates the Equal Protection Clause, while federalism concerns affect the equal protection analysis, DOMA does not violate the Spending Clause or Tenth Amendment.

The First Circuit, anticipating that the parties would seek a review of the decision, stayed its decision. Both the Department of Justice and Commonwealth of Massachusetts asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision by filing petitions for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court decided a similar case, United States v. Windsor, on June 26, 2013, and dismissed the petitions the following day.

Cite error: There are <ref group=n> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}} template (see the help page).