Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/92004985/1-11-cv-11905-32
Timestamp: 2013-05-19 01:25:10
Document Index: 526184078

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§530', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 130']

MOTION OF THE BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THEU.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
In this case, plaintiffs assert that four separate statutes – Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, § III, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996) (“DOMA”), codified at 1 U.S.C.§ 7; 10 U.S.C. § 101(f)(5); 32 U.S.C. § 101(18); and 38 U.S.C. § 101(3) & (31) – each areconstitutionally deficient in four respects: the statutes, plaintiffs say, are unconstitutional underboth the equal protection and substantive due process components of the Fifth Amendment’sDue Process Clause, violate the Tenth Amendment, and constitute impermissible Bills of Attainder.Pursuant to Rules 24(a), (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 U.S.C. §§530D(b)(2) and 2403, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Pointsand Authorities, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives(“House”) respectfully moves for leave to intervene as a party defendant in this matter for thepurpose of defending two of those statutes – DOMA Section 3 and 38 U.S.C. § 101(3) & (31) –against plaintiffs’ claims that these statutes violate the equal protection and substantive due
Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 32 Filed 05/01/12 Page 1 of 5
2process components of the Fifth Amendment (including for the purpose of litigating related jurisdictional issues, if any).
The House understands that defendants Leon E. Panetta, the Secretary of Defense; EricH. Holder, Jr., the Attorney General; Eric K. Shinseki, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and theUnited States (collectively, “Executive Branch Defendants”) – defended by the Department of Justice (“Department”) – will defend 10 U.S.C. § 101(f)(5) and 32 U.S.C. § 101(18) against allfour of plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges to those statutes.The House also understands that the Department will defend DOMA Section 3 and 38U.S.C. § 101(3) & (31) against plaintiffs’ claims that those statutes violate the TenthAmendment and constitute impermissible Bills of Attainder.In compliance with Rule 24(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Answer andDefenses of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives toPlaintiffs’ Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive and Other Relief, which sets out “the claim ordefense for which intervention is sought,” is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.A proposed Order is submitted herewith and oral argument is not requested.
The House of Representatives has articulated its institutional position in litigationmatters through a five-member bipartisan leadership group since at least the early 1980’s(although the formulation of the group’s name has changed somewhat over time). Since 1993,the House rules have formally acknowledged and referred to the Bipartisan Legal AdvisoryGroup, as such, in connection with its function of providing direction to the Office of GeneralCounsel.
, Rule I.11, Rules of the House of Representatives, 103d Cong. (1993),attached as Exhibit 1; Rule II.8, Rules of the House of Representatives, 112th Cong. (2011),attached as Exhibit 2. While the group seeks consensus whenever possible, it functions on amajoritarian basis, like the institution it represents, when consensus cannot be achieved. TheGroup currently is comprised of the Honorable John A. Boehner, Speaker of the House, theHonorable Eric Cantor, Majority Leader, the Honorable Kevin McCarthy, Majority Whip, theHonorable Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, and the Honorable Steny H. Hoyer, DemocraticWhip. The Democratic Leader and Democratic Whip decline to support the filing of this motion.
7.1(A)(2)
On March 1, 2012, counsel for the House conferred with Jean Lin, Senior Trial Counselwith the Department, who advised that the Executive Branch Defendants do not oppose thismotion to intervene for purposes of presenting arguments in support of the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3 and 38 U.S.C. § 101 (3) & (31), but that the Department will be filing aresponse to explain its position.On March 7, 2012, counsel for the House conferred with Christopher Man, counsel forplaintiffs, who advised that his clients oppose this motion.Respectfully submitted,Paul D. Clement, Esq.
H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Esq.Conor B. Dugan, Esq.
Nicholas Nelson, Esq.BANCROFT PLLC
Bancroft PLLC has been “specially retained by the Office of General Counsel” tolitigate the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA on behalf of the House. Its attorneys are,therefore, “entitled, for the purpose of performing [that] function[], to enter an appearance in anyproceeding before any court of the United States . . . without compliance with any requirementfor admission to practice before such court . . . .” 2 U.S.C. § 130f(a).
SearchSearch History: Searching...Result 00 of 0000 results for result for p. 1:11-cv-11905 #32Doc #32 - BLAG Motion to Intervene w/attachments., including BLAG answer to plaintiffs' complaint (Attach #3). Download or PrintAdd To Collection368Reads0Readcasts11.6KEmbed ViewsThis is a private document.
Published byEqualityCaseFilesFollowSearchTIP Press Ctrl-F⌘F to search anywhere in the document.Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.See Premium PlansInfo and RatingCategory:Business/Law > Court FilingsRating:Upload Date:05/01/2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialTags:No tagsFree download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or readfalse online for free.Flag for inappropriate contenthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/92004985/1-11-cv-11905-3205/01/2012pdftextoriginal
Recommended1 p.1:11-cv-11905 Order 4-22-12EqualityCaseFiles313 Reads20 p.2:12-cv-00887 #33EqualityCaseFiles927 Reads1 p.2:12-cv-00887 #32EqualityCaseFiles235 Reads14 p.2:12-cv-00887 #31EqualityCaseFiles297 Reads31 p.Eth6550 is Sexual Identity ChangeableG-A-Y570 Reads16 p.10-16696 #419EqualityCaseFiles1056 Reads189 p.10-16696 #402EqualityCaseFiles1094 Reads7 p.10-16696 #425EqualityCaseFiles1030 Reads4 p.Laws of Nature SurveyG-A-Y539 Reads25 p.10-16696 #410EqualityCaseFiles1041 Reads23 p.10-16696 #411EqualityCaseFiles677 Reads
More From This User24 p.3:12-cv-30051 #58EqualityCaseFiles35 Reads2 p.3:12-cv-30051 #55EqualityCaseFiles5 Reads1 p.8:12-cv-01137 #130EqualityCaseFiles106 Reads2 p.8:12-cv-01137 #129EqualityCaseFiles214 Reads9 p.8:12-cv-01137 #128EqualityCaseFiles293 Reads12 p.8:12-cv-01137 #127EqualityCaseFiles256 Reads16 p.8:12-cv-01137 #126EqualityCaseFiles266 Reads19 p.D-202-CV-201302757 ComplaintEqualityCaseFiles117 Reads38 p.3:12-cv-30051 #54EqualityCaseFiles152 Reads17 p.12-17681 #93EqualityCaseFiles189 Reads14 p.12-17681 #97EqualityCaseFiles153 Reads8 p.12-17681 #100EqualityCaseFiles138 Reads19 p.12-17681 #96EqualityCaseFiles181 Reads271 p.8:12-cv-01137 #125EqualityCaseFiles152 Reads1 p.Pickup-Welch Panel AssignmentEqualityCaseFiles194 Reads56 p.2:12-cv-00887 #119EqualityCaseFiles223 Reads84 p.2:12-cv-00887 #108EqualityCaseFiles158 Reads104 p.2:12-cv-00887 #116EqualityCaseFiles184 Reads46 p.2:12-cv-00887 #113EqualityCaseFiles202 Reads5 p.2:12-cv-00887 #110EqualityCaseFiles158 Reads32 p.2:12-cv-00887 #97EqualityCaseFiles143 Reads5 p.2:12-cv-00887 #96EqualityCaseFiles176 Reads200 p.2:12-cv-00887 #99EqualityCaseFiles168 Reads35 p.2:12-cv-00887 #114EqualityCaseFiles197 Reads8 p.2:12-cv-00887 #106EqualityCaseFiles180 Reads