Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Status update in Oklahoma case challenging DOMA

DOMA trials

By Scottie Thomaston

Bishop v. United States is a case filed in federal court in Oklahoma (filed initially as Bishop v. Oklahoma) challenging Sections 2 and 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. Developments in the slow-moving case have been few and far between as other cases have taken up much of the oxygen. But the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) eventually intervened as they have in all challenges to Section 3 of DOMA. They then filed their own motion for summary judgment and an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for the same – seeking to have the court decide the merits in their favor.

Now they have filed a “Notice of Legal Developments” in the case. The notice is just to catch everyone up on the status of the cases working their way through the courts. BLAG points out that the Supreme Court has taken up a DOMA case (United States v. Windsor) and the Prop 8 case (Hollingsworth v. Perry) and making the district court aware of the fact that other courts have stayed proceedings in their challenges to Section 3 of DOMA.

They also argue that two recent developments back up their arguments: 1) the November 2012 election results, and 2) Sevcik v. Sandoval, the Nevada marriage case that was decided against gay couples at the district court and subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Regarding the election, BLAG writes that the four wins (three in favor of marriage equality and one fighting off a proposed amendment in Minnesota to constitutionally ban it) show that heightened scrutiny is not needed because it shows there is not a lack of political power, in their view. And regarding Sevcik, the district court held that only rational basis review and BLAG suggests that the same arguments generally apply in this case.

They conclude:

The Court need not rule on the pending motions at this time. Prudence and judicial economy suggest that it stay its hand in favor of the pending Supreme Court proceedings that likely will control the outcome of this case. Should the court be inclined to rule on the motions, however, recent developments only make clearer that the House’s motion for summary judgment should be granted, and the plaintiffs’ claims dismissed with prejudice.

This case could continue or join the others that are now stayed awaiting Supreme Court action.

h/t Kathleen for this filing

4:04-cv-00848 #252

3 Comments

  • 1. SoCal_Dave  |  January 7, 2013 at 5:51 pm

    I'm thrilled with the election results in Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota. But for them to say that one election in four states wipes out years and years and years of hatred, beatings, killings and legal discrimination, is pretty outrageous.

  • 2. Mike in Baltimore  |  January 7, 2013 at 8:52 pm

    BLAG points to the Windsor case at SCOTUS, but if memory serves me correct, the Windsor case is only 'attacking' Section 3 of DoMA, not Section 2. Section 2 in the Oklahoma case is also being litigated.

    So while this case might have some similarities to the Windsor case, it is not close to being the same. Thus BLAG's comments that it should be stayed are ludicrous.

    And what does BLAG do if SCOTUS determines that BLAG doesn't have standing in the Windsor case? Does that mean BLAG doesn't have standing in any other case concerning DoMA?

    I almost feel sorry for BLAG, except for who the majority of BLAG is, and who the attorney BLAG hired is.

    Sorry, BLAG, but I feel no sympathy with your pain. And I do NOT appreciate your using my money to prosecute me.

  • 3. resume editor  |  January 29, 2014 at 3:47 am

    I must say this is a nice little text on marketing. I have read your two argument in this topic. Keep it up and keep posting blogs on related matter. !!

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!