Cardona v . Shinseki Cardona v . Shinseki is an appeal pending in the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ( CAVC ) of a decision by the Board of Veterans ' Appeals upholding the denial of service - connected disability benefits for the dependant wife of a female veteran . The United States Department of Veterans Affairs denied the disability benefits based on the definition of " spouse " as " a person of the opposite sex " under federal statute . Proceedings in the Department of Veterans Affairs . Carmen Cardona , a veteran of the United States Navy , applied in 2010 for service - connected disability benefits for her dependent wife . The Veterans ' Affairs Regional Office in Hartford , Connecticut , declined to recognize Cardona ' s marriage . Title 38 of the United States Code , which relates to veterans ' benefits , defines a " spouse " as " a person of the opposite sex who is a wife or husband " . The federal regulation that tracks and implements Title 38 defines " spouse " as " a person of the opposite sex " who meets certain requirements . Cardona appealed the decision to the Board of Veterans ' Appeals ( BVA ) , which confirmed the denial of disability benefits based on its conclusion that Cardona ' s wife is not a " spouse " for purposes of veterans ' benefits even though their marriage is valid under Connecticut law . The BVA did not reach the constitutional issues raised by Cardona ' s legal counsel because it claimed lack of jurisdiction and legal authority . Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims . On October 13 , 2011 , Cardona , represented by the Jerome N . Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School , filed an appeal in the CAVC against Eric K . Shinseki , the United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs . Attorney General Eric Holder informed Congress on February 17 , 2012 , of his conclusion that the definition of " spouse " in Title 38 of the United States Code violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution . Holder explained that neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of Veterans Affairs ( DVA ) had identified any justifications that would warrant treating Title 38 differently from Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ( DOMA ) , which he previously concluded violates equal protection . On April 19 , 2012 , Cardona filed a brief with the court , arguing that Title 38 and Section 3 of DOMA are unconstitutional because they violate the Tenth Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment . Cardona also argued that the statutes are unconstitutional bills of attainder . In a May 4 letter , DVA informed the speaker of the house that it would not defend the denial of benefits to veterans married to same - sex spouses on equal protection grounds . On May 21 , the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group ( BLAG ) of the U . S . house of representatives filed an unopposed motion to intervene in the case , which the court granted on May 21 . and on August 31 filed a brief defending the constitutionality of the statutes . Oral argument was originally scheduled for November 29 , 2012 . On November 8 , BLAG requested it be postponed for forty - five days , pending the U . S . Supreme Court ' s disposition of petitions for writs of certiorari in several other cases challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA ( Massachusetts v . United States Department of Health and Human Services , Gill v . Office of Personnel Management , Golinski v . Office of Personnel Management , Windsor v . United States , and Pedersen v . Office of Personnel Management ) . The court granted the delay over Cardona ' s objections . On December 18 , 2012 , the court , sua sponte , ordered the case " stayed pending resolution of " Windsor " or until further order of the Court . " Amicus briefs . Six amicus ( " friend of the court " ) briefs have been filed in the case , all in support of Cardona . The Connecticut attorney general argued that the federal statutes and regulations violate the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by intruding on the state ' s sovereign authority to determine the marital status of its citizens and to guarantee all married couples equal rights and benefits under the law . Vietnam Veterans of America , Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America , Servicemembers Legal Defense Network , Service Women ' s Action Network , Vets4Vets , and Connecticut Veterans Legal Center argued that the federal statutes and regulations violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution . They also argued that the interpretation of them by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Board of Veterans ' Appeals was inconsistent with the intent of Congress . Briefs were also filed by retired military officers , disability rights advocates , law professors , and 15 public interest and legal services organizations .