Amicus Curiae Brief — Deboer v. Snyder, 135 S. Ct. 1040 (2015) (No. 14-571)

Supreme Court brief2015

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Supreins 4 a, ULB.

FircD

MarR O- 2015

Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571, 14-574

QEMCE OF TH Oy ix

In the Supreme Court of the Unite fes

JAMES OBERGEFELL, et al.,

Petitioners,

RICHARD Hopces, DIRECTOR,

Outo DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al.,

Respondents.

On Writs of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

BRIEF OF 167 MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES AND 44 U.S. SENATORS AS

AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

HEATHER C. SAWYER

JOSEPH F. TRINGALI

House Committee on Counsel of Record

the Judiciary JosHua C. POLSTER

Minority Counsel to Eisa Y. LEE

Ranking Members Arpan T. GRANO

John Conyers, J. Simpson Thacher

and Jerrold Nadler & Bartlett LLP

B-836 Rayburn Bldg. 425 Lexington Avenue

Washington, DC 20515 New York, NY 10017

(202) 225-6906 (212) 455-2000

jtringali@stblaw.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

COUNSEL PRESS

(800) 274-3321 + (800) 359-6859

A complete list of the 167 Members of the House of

Representatives and 44 U.S. Senators participating as

amici is provided in an appendix to this brief.

Among them are:

Nancy PELOosI Harry REip

House Democratic Leader Senate Democratic Leader

Rep. JERROLD NADLER Sen. DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Lead Sponsors, Respect for Marriage Act

Sreny H,. Hover RicHARD J. DuRBIN

House Democratic Whip Senate Assistant

Democratic Leader

JAMES E.. CLYBURN CHARLES E. SCHUMER

House Assistant Vice Chair, Senate

Democratic Leader Democratic Conference

Patry MurRRAY

Secretary, Senate Democratic Conference

JOHN CONYERS, JR. Patrick LEAHY

Ranking Member, House Ranking Member,

Committee on the Judiciary Senate Committee

on the Judiciary

JARED Po.tis, Davip N. CIcILLINE, SEAN Patrick MALONEY,

MARK Pocan, KyrsTEN SINEMA, and MARK TAKANO

House LGBT Equality Caucus Co-Chairs

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

eT GEN 6 sb. ccccsescsedcuceusccdes i

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES .............. iii

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE ............. 1

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE

tcl weceedennbeteneddeeteniuovawces 5

i ict cee due edveusiactededkesswaked 4

I. The Constitution Applies with Equal

Force to State Regulation of Marriage......... 4

II. State Marriage Bans Should Be Subject

to Heightened Scrutiny. ..................... 7

III. No Matterthe Standard, State Marriage Bans

Violate the Equal Protection Clause and

Impair Federal Interests. .................. 12

A. State Marriage Bans Deny Equal

sidedundeshen6eeeseebeeeees 13

B. Like DOMA, State Marriage Bans

Have a Profound Federal Impact

on Same-Sex Couples. ................. 14

C. State Marriage Bans Undermine

Federal Programs....................-- 15

Table of Contents

3. Domestic Support Obligations ....... 24

4. Federal Employee Protections. ...... 25

IV. States’ Refusalsto Respect Lawful Marriages

Place Our Cdnstituents at Risk. ............. 27

A. Like DOMA, States that Refuse

to Recognize Valid Marriages

Deny Equal Protection ................ 27

B. States that Refuse to Recognize

Valid Marriages Deprive Many of

Our Constituents of Important

Rights Essential to Family Stability... ... 30

C. States that Refuse to Recognize

Valid Marriages Divest Many of Our

Constituents of the “Dignity and Status

of Immense Import” of Marriage........ 35

CUES cv osvecoeucesceuecescesndeenennel 38

itt

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

Baskin v. Bogan,

766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014)................ 7, 13, 15

Borman v. Pyles-Borman,

No. 2014CV36, 2014 WL 4251133

(Tenn. Cir. Ct. Aug. 5, 2014) ............2-.2002- 25

Bostick v. CBOCS, Inc.,

No. 8:13-cv-1319-T-30TGW, 2014 WL 3809169

(M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2014)...............00cceeeee 10

Brown v. Bd. of Educ.,

ei cet sececebebesec cored 5

Campaign for S. Equal. v. Bryant,

No. 3:14-CV-818-CW R-LRA, 2014 WL 6680570

(S.D. Miss. Nov. 26, 2014) ......cccccscccccccees 34

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.,

cc dececececevdcecoeccesced 6, 8

Crawford v. Washington,

Teen ee ec eeu eves 5

Dandridge v. Williams,

EE 14

Cited Authorities

Page

De Sylva v. Ballentine,

i) o' os cceduenndénneceuncaue 15

DeBoer v. Snyder,

T12 26 SEB Gth Cir. BONA)... 0. cccccccccccccece 9

Frontiero v. Richardson,

a dens cdceccsscedegusceuseans 8

Graham v. Richardson,

viva cuvccaueedieassaiennes .29

Grutter v. Bollinger,

6s .ccadcaseendaneusatencuant 5

Henry v. Himes,

14 F. Supp. 3d 1036 (S.D. Ohio 2014), rev'd sub nom.

DeBoer, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014) ....... 28, 31, 37

Howe v. Haslam,

No. N2013-01790-COA-R3-CV, 2014 W L 5698877

(Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2014) ................-5. 10

In re Gc cinski,

587 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2009) ................... .25

In re Miller’s Estate,

214 N.W. 428 (Mich. 1927).................. .28, 37

In re Neagle,

BP Wes Bee vc ccccccccccccceccesecsccosees 26

Cited Authorities

Page

Inskeep v. W. Reserve Transit Auth.,

No. 12 MA 72, 2013 WL 979054 (Ohio Ct. App.

nt eee ied céneedadeows 10

J.E.B. v. Alabama ez rel. T.B.,

i Ee 5

Keith v. Pack, J

187 S.W.2d 618 (Tenn. 1945)................ .28, 37

Kirchberg v. Feenstra,

ee 5

Kitchen v. Herbert,

755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014)................... 30

Kolender v. Lawson,

«ccc cpaceceuedeedcencdeceuenee 5

Langbehn v.

Pub. Health Trust of Miami-Dade Cnty.,

661 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (S.D. Fla. 2009) ............ 33

Latta v. Otter,

771 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 2014)....... eid se ena 13

Lawrence v. Texas,

539 U.S. 558 (2008)... 2.2... ee ee ce ees passim

Loving v. Virginia,

| ee re 5

Cited Authorities

Mathews v. De Castro,

ee i eee eneeanenee 16

Mazzolini v. Mazzolini,

155 N.E.2d 206 (Ohio 1958). ................ 28, 37

Obergefell v. Kasich,

No. 1:13-ev-501, 2013 WL 38142627 (S.D.

Es 6 6 0cssdcndccecesccdcedooned 32

Obergefell v. Wymyslo,

962 F. Supp. 2d 968 (S.D. Ohio 2013), rev'd sub nom.

DeBoer, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014) ... 13, 28, 32, 37

Perry v. Brown,

671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012), vacated sub

nom. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct.

SR ae eee 29-30

Plessy v. Ferguson,

ek ee naked 3,13

Romer v. Evans,

Rc cnccnteenesedusessees passim

Saenz v. Roe,

ee ee icesaeaeee 29

SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs.,

740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2014)... ..........0--eeeees 7

vit

Cited Authorities

Page

Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Wakefield Twp.,

REE oe ee eT 5

Tanco v. Haslam,

7 F. Supp. 3d 759 (M.D. Tenn. 2014), revi sub

nom. DeBoer, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014) ... . . 35, 36

U.S. Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno,

Tee kee ees eee eae 6

United States v. Morrison,

een ebeeeueabeuud 4

United States v. Virginia,

a een wee 5

United States v. Windsor,

eee passim

Windsor v. United States,

699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012), affd, 133 S. Ct.

ns oe cei i tee bide eeeans 7, 29

Zablocki v. Redhail,

i ie a eee ad 27, 33

Constitutional Provisions

ET ne ee 25

vitt

Cited Authorities

Page

Statutes & Regulations

ID, o cnnccacccecnccscecsavenesd 25

a 6.0004 bb eesdeccnncddeccntandeceeed 25

Ps ES 00 RON ad eutgeeundsddeceudaducenad 25

Pe NS Sh ecdutusesecdesdcecevcovedestun 25

PS IN 66.6 cececcensvcdecstesecesenebeses 21

Be OF Me vec ccdcccnececsessesesocveceesd 21

SG WF enc ccataccecesescuccencescescsuu’ 21

PE ET sec cccecesevcsnscusucsseseaseueus 21

SP Ss cceccevecececsvesccesencsscces 20

ey ee Ee vse dnceccocessececcvessesessendi 20

eG 6 ov cereesuccccuseesecsresccesesi 24

Be SE oc ov oceccesucsvessécccenseseeccens 24

Be ab avcecccadtesctcceecsessacnsncses 24

Be We Ee ce vccccecccccceccesvcscescooesess 26

Cited Authorities

Page

PE a heeecasccccuesesecesdécccaweened 26

PE EE 00 0000seescenscncuéeccasesseuead 29

TE iccedccncnevcusds eeceeseuteetsonnal 20

Be I vacccnccccncecccessevesneseecses 21

I 6 50.08 0056e000eestedenseuneneconedl 21

Be ee I 6 cb vacesccecvesavesvcsesenceeans 21

ye oGddduceeesuwcdendestcenduncanees 21

38 U.S.C. § 103....... entedteriedsdedadcucesteent 22

SU sakes ccecewssccsccssetenwecntund 20

PN ES ce ieddnccovcecesnvucdetancecduced 20

edo ntsoncdseecensovausceuvensse 20

Be I EE ein écccececscccesescesecsesessed 20

Ee ME Socccccsceccnvensesscecsecenceass 21

PE toctanupoeassecssedesetosesenedd 20

Pe Es POs ceeccececceseceususccecescacsees 20

Cited Authorities

Page

en 20

ch ivenauceessodseedescseweunesene 20

En . wiendincssacdcenedesuscesevans 20

Ee er eee 16, 17

e606 b0006ndsineedessctussienceens 17

SP CE Db-adveetedcéenevecaétueuesasud 21

EEE 06 Sa dnedddncenccnncecsesaneses 34

ee a 6.64 600 enccdes dccdvesncienseds 34

ek Be les SAU, HME 0 ccc cccccvccceccccecse 34

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2133.08 .................... 34

Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-64-201............0.cee cece 36

Tenn. Code Ann. § 31-2-104 ........... 0... e eee ees 35

Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-1-109 ...............20ceeees 36

Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-11-1806 ..............-..0005- 34

Other Authorities

127 Cong. Rec. 21,378 (1981)... 0... cc cccccccccecce 19

Cited Authorities

About Us, TRICARE, http://tinyurl.com/

re) ee tee datas aneie ween 21

Admin. on Aging, U.S. Dep’t of Health &

Human Servs., A Profile of Older Americans:

2018, http:/Ainyurl.com/obergefell08............. 16

Associated Press, LGBT Baby Boomers Face

Tough Retirement Hurdles, Dec. 2,2014......... 19

Blake Boldt, Woman Denied Visitation of Partner

at Local Hospital, Out & About Nashville, Dec.

19, 2011, http:/Ainyurl.com/obergefelll9.......... 34

Brief of 172 Members of the U.S. House of

Representatives and 40 U.S. Senators as

Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent

Edith Schlain Windsor, Urging Affirmance

on the Merits, Windsor v. United States,

133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (No. 12-307) ............... 7

Brief on the Merits for Respondent The Bipartisan

Legal Advisory Group of The U.S. House of

Representatives, Windsor v. United States,

133 S. Ct. 2675 (2018) (No. 12-307) .............. 11

Declaration of James Obergefell, Obergefell v. Kasich,

No. 1:13-cv-501 (S.D. Ohio July 22, 2013) ...... 31, 32

Final Vote Results for Roll Call 378,

U.S. House of Representatives (July 18,

2006), http://tinyurl.com/obergefell05............ 12

Cited Authorities

Gary J. Gates, The Williams Institute,

UCLA School of Law, LGBT Parenting

in the United States (Feb. 2013)............... 4, 35

Gay and Lesbian Rights, Gallup, http:/Ainyurl.com/

csc cee veudaaueenbaesactaees ses 9

Jeff Guo, That Anti-Gay Bill in Arkansas

Actually Became Law Today. Why

Couldn't Activists Stop It?, Wash. Post, Feb.

23, 2015, http:/Atinyurl.com/obergefell01........... 8

H.J. Res. 51, 113th Cong. (2013). .............2-000. 12

ee ey BN GE GED onde cccosceseccncscess 11

H.R. 2623, 118th Cong. (2013) .........cccececccees 11

H.R. 3829, 113th Cong. (2014) ............ccccceees 11

H.R. 5326, 112th Cong. § 561 (2011) ................ 10

ie SS HE CIE CUO céccccccccccctoccescess Y

H.R. Res. 5, 113th Cong. § 4(a)(1) (2013)............. 10

H.R.J. Res. 88, 109th Cong. (2006)................. 12

Don J. Jansen, Cong. Research Serv.,

RL33537, Military Medical Care:

Questions and Answers (2009) ...........20200. 19

xiii

Cited Authorities

Carolyn Lochhead, Federal Ban on Same-

Sex Marriage Still Casts Shadow

on Many Lives, S.F. Chron., Jan.

12, 2015, http://tinyurl.com/obergefelll3.......

Maps of State Laws & Policies, Human Rights

Campaign, http://tinyurl.com/obergefell03. . . . .

Marriage Rulings in the Courts,

Freedom to Marry (updated Mar.

2, 2015), http://tinyurl.com/obergefell07-1......

Memorandum from the Att’y Gen. to the

President, Implementation of United

States v. Windsor (June 20, 2014), available

at http://tinyurl.com/obergefell04 ......... 11, 18, 22

Memorandum from the Under Sec’y of Def. to

Secretaries of the Military Dep’ts and Chiefs

of the Military Servs., Further Guidance on

Extending Benefits to Same-Sex Spouses of

Military Members (Aug. 13, 2013), available

at http://tinyurl.com/obergefelll7.............

Petition for Review, Am. Military Partner

Ass’n v. McDonald, No. 14-7121(Fed. Cir.

pe BR UN gg SS Pree eee

Press Release, Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid

Servs., Medicare Steps Up Enforcement

of Equal Visitation and Representation

Rights in Hospitals (Sept. 8, 2011), available

at http://tinyurl.com/obergefelll8.............

xiv

Cited Authorities

Press Release, Lambda Legal, Lambda Legal

Sues Social Security Administration on

Behalf of Texas Lesbian Widow and National

Committee to Preserve Social Security

& Medicare (Oct. 22, 2014), available

at http://tinyurl.com/obergefelll0................ 19

Press Release, Soc. Sec. Admin., Social Security

Basic Facts (Apr. 2, 2014), available at http://

tinyurl.com/obergefell09...................04-. 16

Road Trip: The Blues Highway, Tennessee and

Mississippi, Nat’] Geographic, http://tinyurl.

EE eo vcccdcuscesccepecncekenaeved 34

Roll Call Votes 109th Cong., U.S. Senate (June

7, 2006), http://tinyurl.com/obergefell06 .......... 12

Se Gah EE CUED GEIS x ccccccvcescccecccsecess 11

es es IN IN o ov necccndonceusesedces 11

ie ey EE UN IIE os cccccnccccesscosucees 11

es EE 0 46 04.40 cncetecetesscccest 19

S.B. 202, 90th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ark. 2015). . .8

S.J. Res. 1, 109th Cong. (2006)..................2-. 12

Cited Authorities

Same-Sex Marriage State-by-State, Pew Research

Center (Feb. 9, 2015), http://tinyurl.com

i ccccheendnacewedenek6dsseedsesedd 30

Paula Span, Spouses Denied Social Security

Survivors’ Benefits, N.Y. Times, Nov.

11, 2014, http://tinyurl.com/obergefellll .......... 19

Transcriptof Oral Argument, Hollingsworth v. Perry,

133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013) (No. 12-144). ............ 8, 17

U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey:

Characteristics of Same-Sex Couple Households

(2013), http://tinyurl.com/obergefelll4.......... 2,30

U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO/OGC-97-16,

Defense of Marriage Act, Enclosure I (1997)... ... 25

What Is ALS?, ALS Association, http://tinyurl.

EN Suivctucskieativeeedessstecees 31

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE'

Amici are 167 Members of the U.S. House of

Representatives and 44 U.S. Senators.? Through Social

Security and other federal programs, we partner with

States to safeguard families, and we routinely rely

upon state decisions about marriage to determine

who qualifies for or is subject to more than a thousand

federal responsibilities and rights. We therefore have a

strong interest in ensuring that state definitions comply

with constitutional guarantees and do not wrongfully

discriminate against classes of citizens.

Members of Congress and our state counterparts

must afford all persons the basic protections of our

Constitution. This Court’s interpretation of the

Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection and due

process guarantees directly affects how legislators

draft, consider, and enact laws. While we believe that

heightened review is warranted for laws that distinguish

among individuals based on sexual orientation, we also

wish to explain that, regardless of the standard applied,

the refusal to license or recognize the marriages of same-

sex couples is unconstitutional.

1. Amici affirm that no counsel for a party authored this

brief in whole or in part and that no person other than amici or

their counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or

submission. The parties’ letters consenting to the filing of amicus

briefs are on file with the Clerk.

2. Alist of the Members of Congress participating as amici

appears in an appendix to this brief.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

OF THE ARGUMENT

In thirty-seven States and the District of Columbia,

gay and lesbian couples can marry. Over 250,000 such

couples—representing more than half a million people—

have done so.* Many amici hail from these States; others

come from States that have yet to include same-sex couples

in their marriage laws. Regardless of where we come

from in this nation, we all recognize the importance of

the federal-state partnership in safeguarding American

families.

This partnership is strongest when families are not

wrongly excluded from the vast array of marriage-based

rights and responsibilities. That is why many of us argued

against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as amici

in United States v. Windsor and why we participate as

amici here.

As many of us stated in Windsor, heightened judicial

scrutiny is appropriate for laws that distinguish among

our citizens based on sexual orientation. We offer our

unique perspective on why gay men and lesbians lack

the meaningful political power that the Sixth Circuit

indicated justifies denial of heightened review, and we

urge the Court to clarify that the presumption of validity

appropriately afforded to most legislation does not apply

to laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation.

3. See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey:

Characteristics of Same-Sex Couple Households tbl.2 (2013),

http://tinyurl.com/obergefell14.

But no matter the standard applied, the state bans

are unconstitutional and impair federal interests and the

interests of our constituents. Nearly all of the state bans

on marriages of same-sex couples were enacted between

1998 and 2012—during the same political environment

that led to Congress’s enactment in 1996 of DOMA, a law

that the Court already has held had the “principal purpose

fof] impos{ing] inequality.” United States v. Windsor, 133

S. Ct. 2675, 2694 (2013); see also id. at 2693 (describing

“(t]he history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text”).

The Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes

among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559

(1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting). As the Court concluded

with respect to DOMA, state bans on marriages of same-

sex couples fail this basic test. Like DOMA, these state

bans apply across the board. They limit marriage rights

and the right to remain married when crossing state

lines. They impose countless burdens and indignities

on an identifiable and disfavored class—gay and lesbian

couples and their children. And they serve no legitimate

governmental objective.

More than 1,000 federal statutes operate in a way

that depends on marital status. See Windsor, 133 S. Ct.

at 2690. By refusing to marry same-sex couples, States

can prevent couples and their children from qualifying

for federal programs intended to protect and support

families and federal officers. For couples lawfully married

elsewhere, a State’s refusal to recognize the marriage can

similarly jeopardize that family's eligibility for federal

programs.

These bans impair family stability and mobility and

harm children, an estimated 220,000 of whom are being

raised by same-sex couples.‘ See Windsor, 133 S. Ct.

at 2694. While Respondents argue that the state bans

somehow encourage family stability, denying same-sex

couples and their children the vast array of rights and

responsibilities that flow from marriage under state and

federal law has the opposite effect.

As federal legislators who represent families across

this nation, we believe that—like DOMA—state marriage

bans deny our citizens the equal protection that the

Constitution guarantees. We urge the Court to make

the Constitution’s promise of equality a reality for gay

and lesbian couples throughout the nation and reverse

the judgments below.

ARGUMENT

I. The Constitution Applies with Equal Force to State

Regulation of Marriage.

As legislators, we must legislate within constitutional

bounds, a duty that applies to Members of Congress and

state legislators alike. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 3. We

do have different legislative spheres. Congressional

powers are enumerated in the Constitution, whereas state

legislative powers generally are not. See United States v.

Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607 (2000). But the exercise of

4. See Gary J. Gates, The Williams Institute, UCLA School

of Law, LGBT Parenting in the United States 1 (Feb. 2013)

(estimating more than 125,000 same-sex couples are raising nearly

220,000 children).

legislative power by the States and Congress is subject to

constitutional constraints. See, e.g., Windsor, 133 S. Ct.

at 2681; Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); Brown

v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

The Court has long recognized that state laws

that infringe on fundamental rights or make invidious

distinctions are subject to constitutional restraints. This is

so even when those laws regulate areas within traditional

state authority, such as state courts,® property,’ crime and

criminal procedure,’ and education.*

The same is true for marriage. The Court’s

jurisprudence has been crystal clear since Loving that

invidious discrimination by States in the area of marriage

is unconstitutional.’ Indeed, applying constitutional

protections like the Equal Protection Clause in areas

where the States enjoy primary or exclusive legislative

responsibility is all the more important, because the

Constitution may be the only effective means of redress.

See Brown, 347 U.S. 483; cf Sunday Lake Iron Co. v.

Wakefield Twp., 247 U.S. 350, 352 (1918).

5. See, e.g., J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 135

(1994).

6. See, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455, 459-60

(1981).

7. See, e.g., Arizona v. vant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009); Crawford

v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S.

558 (2003); Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358 (1983).

8. See, e.g., Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 326 (2003);

United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533-34 (1996).

9. See, e.g., Loving, 388 U.S. at 11.

Nothing in this Court’s decisions—certainly not

Windsor—suggests a State may employ otherwise-

saatiinnen dineiatnatinnsteninal py Recor tester

occurs in family law. The Court’s opinion in Windsor was

clear: “State laws defining and regulating marriage, of

course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons.”

In Windsor, the Court invoked Congress’s “unusual

deviation” from its historical role of deferring to state

marriage determinations as “strong evidence” that

the federal DOMA was “a law having the purpose and

effect of disapproval of” married same-sex couples, not

as an indicator that States are permitted to deny equal

protection in marriage." In fact, the Court has invoked

the Equal Protection Clause to invalidate local, state, and

federal laws alike.'”

Laws discriminating based on sexual orientation

should not be entitled to the deference that ordinarily

applies to legislative enactments. As we explain further

below, we are uniquely attuned to the need for heightened

scrutiny here.

10. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2691.

11. Jd. at 2693.

12. See, e.g., Lawrence, 539 U.S. 558; Romer v. Evans, 517

U.S. 620, 635 (1996); City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.,

473 U.S. 482, 450 (1985); U.S. Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S.

528, 534 (1973).

II. State Marriage Bans Should Be Subject to

Heightened Scrutiny.

As demonstrated in the amicus brief submitted by

many of us in Windsor, laws that discriminate based on

sexual orientation must be reviewed with heightened

scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.”

Most legislative enactments are presumptively valid,

which we fully understand and appreciate. But this

Court’s decisions from Romer to Lawrence to Windsor

show that this presumption does not accurately capture

the Court’s approach to laws that classify based on sexual

orientation. As the Ninth Circuit has explained:

Windsor review is not rational basis review.

In its words and its deed, Windsor established

a level of scrutiny for classifications based on

sexual orientation that is unquestionably higher

than rational basis review. In other words,

Windsor requires that heightened scrutiny be

applied to equal protection claims involving

sexual orientation.

SmithKline Beecham, 740 F.3d at 481.

13. See Brief of 172 Members of the U.S. House of

Representatives and 40 U.S. Senators as Amici Curiae in Support

of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, Urging Affirmance on the

Merits at 4-12, Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (No. 12-307) (“Windsor

Amicus”), available at http://tinyurl.com/obergefell00; see also

SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 740 F.3d 471 (9th

Cir. 2014); Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012),

aff'd, 133 S. Ct. 2675; ef Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648, 671 (7th

Cir. 2014).

When asked to identify an instance “outside of the

marriage context” where there would be a “rational basis,

reason, for a State using sexual orientation as a factor in

denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on

them,” the petitioners’ counsel in Hollingsworth v. Perry

answered: “Your honor, I cannot. I do not have anything

to offer you in that regard.” We believe that such a

distinction is equally illegitimate within the marriage

context. This is the essence of why heightened scrutiny

is required. See Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 440 (classifications

triggering heightened scrutiny “are so seldom relevant to

the achievement of any legitimate state interest . . . .”);

Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 686-87 (1973).

As many of us explained as amici in Windsor,

heightened scrutiny is particularly appropriate because

gay men and lesbians lack the political power to safeguard

their rights through the legislative process.’® To the extent

that the political strength of gay men and lesbians “has

improved markedly in recent years” in some places, as it

did for women a generation ago, see F rontiero, 411 U.S. at

685, this is a welcome and long-overdue development. But

this progress has not been universal. For example, some

States continue to enact measures purporting to block

local efforts to protect this group.” “The question is not

14. Transcript of Oral Argument at 14, Hollingsworth v.

Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013) (No. 12-144).

15. See Windsor Amicus, supra note 13, at 4—12.

16. See, e.g., S.B. 202, 90th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess.

(Ark. 2015) (prohibiting local governments from adopting non-

discrimination policies protecting more than what state law

protects); Jeff Guo, That Anti-Gay Bill in Arkansas Actually

Became Law Today. Why Couldn't Activists Stop It?, Wash. Post,

Feb. 23, 2015, http://tinyurl.com/obergefell01.

whether homosexuals have achieved political successes

over the years; they clearly have. The question is whether

they have the strength to politically protect themselves

from wrongful discrimination.” Windsor, 699 F.3d at 184.

The unfortunate answer to this question remains “no.”

As legislators, we have worked for years to enact bills

that would extend basic protections against discrimination

to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.

Despite the fact that a vast majority of Americans support

these measures, they have not been enacted." Since the

1970s, Members have introduced without success bills to

amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing

Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

See, e.g., H.R. 8269, 95th Cong. (1977).

Amore targeted measure designed to ensure workplace

protections—the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

(ENDA)—has been introduced in every Congress but one

since 1994. The bill passed the Senate last Congress, but

the House did not bring it up for a vote—even though up

to 89 percent of Americans supported such protections in

2008.'* Thus, there still is no federal statute to protect

17. The Sixth Circuit suggests that the repeal of “Don’t Ask

Don’t Tell” shows that gay men and lesbians are an “eminently

successful, interest group[]” that needs no protection from the

courts. DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388, 415 (6th Cir. 2014).

But, as many of us explained in Windsor, “[ejlimination of a

costly, discriminatory policy that resulted in the discharge of

valuable servicemembers during wartime hardly illustrates

political power.” Windsor Amicus, supra note 13, at 11. Indeed,

congressional action occurred “only after two federal courts had

already declared [Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell] unconstitutional.” /d.

18. See, e.g., Gay and Lesbian Rights, Gallup, http://tinyurl.

com/obergefell02 (last visited Mar. 5, 2015).

LGBT employees from workplace discrimination. The

majority of States have no such law either,’® leaving these

employees at risk of discrimination.”

While legislatures often have proven unwilling to

protect gay and lesbian Americans, the courts have done

so. In 1996, Congress enacted DOMA, which prevented

same-sex married couples from having their marriages

recognized under over 1,100 federal laws and countless

other regulations. In subsequent years, the House acted

repeatedly to reaffirm DOMA® and to authorize the

defense of DOMA in court.” Just two years ago, the House

majority leadership urged the Court to uphold DOMA

as rationally related to purported interests advanced by

the States here, such as “providing a stable structure to

raise unintended and unplanned offspring”; “encouraging

the rearing of children by their biological parents”; and

19. See Maps of State Laws & Policies, Human Rights

Campaign, http://tinyurl.com/obergefell03 (last visited Mar. 5,

2015).

20. See, e.g., Bostick v. CBOCS, Inc., No. 8:13-cv-1319-T-

30TGW, 2014 WL 3809169, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2014) (“[C]laims

of harassment and retaliation premised on an employee’s sexual

orientation are not cognizable under Title VII and the [Florida

Civil Rights Act]”); see also Howe v. Haslam, No. N2013-01790-

COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 5698877, at *18 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 4,

2014); Inskeep v. W. Reserve Transit Auth., No. 12 MA 72, 2013

WL 979054, at *2-3 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2013).

21. See, e.g., H.R. 5326, 112th Cong. § 561 (2011) (provision

adopted on vote of 245-171 as an amendment offered by Rep. Tim

Huelskamp (R-Kan.)).

22. See H.R. Res. 5, 113th Cong. § 4(a)(1) (2013).

“promoting childrearing by both a mother and a father.”

Many of us argued against these claims, and the Court

rejected them—finding that DOMA was enacted “for no

legitimate purpose.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2696.

Since Windsor, some Members have attempted to

deprive same-sex couples of federal protections. Sixty-

nine House Members and eleven Senators co-sponsored

bills to strip federal protections from legally married,

same-sex couples domiciled in States that do not recognize

their marriages. See State Marriage Defense Act, H.R.

3829, 113th Cong. (2014); S. 2024, 113th Cong. (2014); see

also H.R. 824, 114th Cong. (2015); S. 435, 114th Cong.

(2015). These bills would reverse the “longstanding

policies” of federal agencies that look to the place of

celebration when determining marital status for federa!

purposes.“ Cf Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693.

Some Members have also tried to amend the

Constitution to prohibit the marriages of same-sex

couples—abrogating the actions of voters, legislatures,

and state and federal courts that have recognized that

these couples should not be excluded from civil marriage.

23. See Brief on the Merits for Respondent The Bipartisan

Legal Advisory Group of The U.S. House of Representatives at

30-32, 44—49, Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (No. 12-307) (“Windsor

BLAG Brief”).

24. See Memorandum from the Att’y Gen. to the President,

Implementation of United States v. Windsor 2 (June 20, 2014),

available at http://tinyurl.com/obergefell04 (“Attorney General

Memorandum”). Bills to repeal DOMA, which the Court already

has found was enacted for an improper purpose and with

unconstitutional effects, still have not achieved majority support

in the House or Senate. See S. 1236, 113th Cong. (2013); H.R.

2523, 113th Cong. (2013).

Fifty-nine House Members co-sponsored a constitutional

amendment defining “Marriage in the United States” as

“consist[ing] only of the union of a man and a woman”

and prohibiting the interpretation of the federal or state

constitutions to provide a right to marry for same-sex

couples. See H.J. Res. 51, 113th Cong. (2013). A similar

amendment garnered a 236-vote majority in the House in

2006, see H.J. Res. 88, 109th Cong. (2006),” and the Senate

failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed by a vote

of 49-48. See S.J. Res. 1, 109th Cong. (2006).% These

efforts to eliminate marriages, along with Congress’s

inability to enact protections for gay men and lesbians,

are indicative of this group’s relative inability to secure

protections legislatively.

We urge the Court to confirm what is clear from

Romer through Windsor: sexual orientation is not a

presumptively valid ground for state or federal authorities

to classify citizens. Heightened scrutiny is the appropriate

standard.

III. No Matter the Standard, State Marriage Bans

Violate the Equal Protection Clause and Impair

Federal Interests.

As federal legislators, we believe the state bans at

issue violate the Equal Protection Clause, impair national

interests, and impose significant pecuniary and dignitary

harm on same-sex couples and their children throughout

the nation.

25. See Final Vote Results for Roll Call $78, U.S. House of

Representatives (July 18, 2006), http://tinyurl.com/obergefell05.

26. See Roll Cali Votes 109th Cong., U.S. Senate (June 7,

2006), http://tinyurl.com/obergefell06.

A. State Marriage Bans Deny Equal Protection.

The Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes

among citizens.” Plessy, 163 U.S. at 559 (Harlan, J.,

dissenting). “[E]ven in the ordinary equal protection case

calling for the most deferential of standards, [the Court]

insist{s] on knowing the relation between the classification

adopted and the object to be attained.” Romer, 517 U.S.

at 632.

As the Court concluded with respect to DOMA, the

state marriage bans fail this basic test. The bans apply

across the board, limiting couples’ marriage rights and

even the right to remain married when crossing state

lines.2”7_ They impose countless burdens and indignities

on an identifiable and disfavored class—gay and lesbian

couples, and their children.” And they serve no legitimate

governmental objective.”

27. See, e.g., Latta v. Otter, 771 F.3d 456, 476 (9th Cir. 2014)

(“Idaho and Nevada’s marriage laws, by preventing same-sex

couples from marrying and refusing to recognize same-sex

marriages celebrated elsewhere, impose profound legal, financial,

social and psychic harms on numerous citizens of those states.”);

cf. Windsor, 699 F.3d at 186.

28. See, e.g., Baskin, 766 F.3d at 658 (“The harm to

homosexuals (and, as we’ll emphasize, to their adopted children) of

being denied the right to marry is considerable. Marriage confers

respectability on a sexual relationship; to exclude a couple from

marriage is thus to deny it a coveted status.”).

29. See, e.g., id. at 656; Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp.

2d 968, 994-95 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (“The only effect the bans have on

children’s well-being is harming the children of same-sex couples

who are denied the protection and stability of having parents who

are legally married.”), rev'd sub nom. DeBoer, 772 F.3d 388.

Though more Americans are coming to understand

that the love and commitment of same-sex couples should

be accorded equal dignity under the law, there are

some with deep and abiding convictions to the contrary.

Nevertheless, this Court in Lawrence made clear that

“[(t}hese considerations do not answer the question before”

the Court. 539 U.S. at 571. Opposition to a particular

group is not a valid basis for legislation—certainly not

for enacting “a classification of persons undertaken for

its own sake” and “den[ying] them protection across the

board.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 633, 635; see also Lawrence,

539 U.S. at 571.

We agree with the dozens of federal and state court

decisions concluding that state bans on marriages of same-

sex couples are unconstitutional.”

B. Like DOMA, State Marriage Bans Have

a Profound Federal Impact on Same-Sex

Couples.

We have a strong interest in ensuring that Congress

is not coopted into enforcing, enabling, or abiding by

state discrimination in connection with the allocation of

federal responsibilities and protections.*' The state bans

do exactly that.

30. See Marriage Rulings in the Courts, Freedom to

Marry (updated Mar. 2, 2015) (listing cases), http://tinyurl.com/

obergefell07-1.

31. See, e.g., Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970)

(applying equal protection analysis to state criteria for eligibility

under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program).

More than 1,000 federal statutes operate in a way

that depends on marital status. See Windsor, 133 S.

Ct. at 2683. Those include “laws pertaining to Social

Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright,

and veterans’ benefits.” Jd. at 2694. As the Court knows,

federal statutes typically defer to state enactments

concerning domestic relations, provided that those

enactments are constitutional. See, e.g., De Sylva v.

Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570, 580-81 (1956).

Thus, if a couple cannot marry because of state

law, that couple will be excluded from federal programs

intended to protect and support families. Windsor

enumerated many examples of DOMA’s impact that

apply equally here to couples prevented from marrying

by state bans. Indeed, just as “DOMA touche[d] many

aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to

the profound,” a state ban that prevents a couple from

marrying has the same federal effect, Windsor, 133 S.

Ct. at 2694-95, and imposes significant harms at the state

level as well.

C. State Marriage Bans Undermine Federal

Programs.

Bans that exclude same-sex couples from civil

marriage undermine several federal safeguards for

families that advance important national interests.*

There is no legitimate basis to deny these protections to

same-sex couples who wish to marry but are barred from

doing so.

32. See Baskin, 766 F.3d at 658-59 (analyzing harm from

denial of federal benefits and finding no “clearly offsetting

government interest”).

1. Social Security

Social Security is Congress’s commitment to provide

for elderly and disabled Americans and their families.

Congress affirmed couples’ legal commitments to live

together and sacrifice for each other in marriage by

securing and stabilizing their shared lives through periods

of difficulty and death.*

As the Court explained in Windsor, benefits provided

under Social Security, particularly those “allowed to

families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, . . . are an

integral part of family security.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at

2695. For example, the Social Security program provides

benefits to the spouse of a disabled worker, spousal

retirement benefits, survivor benefits for spouses, and

one-time payments to offset funeral costs to surviving

spouses.** More than 85 percent of elder households in the

United States receive Social Security payments, and 35

percent of all beneficiaries receive 90 percent or more of

their total income from Social Security.” Over one in four

twenty-year-olds will suffer a disability before reaching

retirement age.*®

Family stability is thus undermined, rather than

33. See Mathews v. De Castro, 429 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1976).

34. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(b), (c), (e), (D, (@.

35. See Admin. on Aging, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human

Servs., A Profile of Older Americans: 2013, at 1, http://tinyur'.

com/obergefell08.

36. See Press Release, Soc. Sec. Admin., Social Security Basic

Facts (Apr. 2, 2014), available at http://tinyurl.com/obergefell09.

supported, by a State’s denial of marital status to same-

sex couples and any consequent denial of spousal status

under Social Security. As many of us stated in Windsor,

“the purposes of the Social Security program are not

served when denial of survivor benefits to a lesbian’s or

a gay man’s surviving spouse leaves the spouse destitute

even though both spouses paid into the Social Security

system on the same terms as other citizens.”™

Moreover, the statutory framework makes clear that

the program is not about procreation—it is about the

security of individuals and families, including during the

twilight of their lives. Most Social Security retirement and

spousal benefits begin at age 62 or age 65*—long after a

couple is physically capable of procreation.” Congress has

even extended benefits to the divorced spouse of a retiree

or worker facing a disability—provided the marriage

lasted for ten years.*° Securing the financial benefits

and security stemming from the family relationship, even

after a marriage is over or unlikely to produce children, is

the primary purpose of Social Security (as the program’s

name implies).

37. Windsor Amicus, supra note 13, at 18.

38. See 42 U.S.C. § 402.

39. See Transcript of Oral Argument at 25, Hollingsworth,

133 S. Ct. 2652 (No. 12-144) (statement of Kagan, J.) (“I can just

assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of

55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.”);

Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 605 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Surely not the

encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly

are allowed to marry.”).

40. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(d)()), (2), (4), (5).

Yet even today, on the basis of state bans, the Social

Security Administration continues to deny federal

benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married.“ In

particular, the Social Security Administration processes

“surviving spouses’ claims and appeals involving same-

sex couples, including Medicare-only claims, when the

individual who paid into Social Security was domiciled at

the time of his or her death in a state that recognized his

or her marriage.™ A core federal benefit thus may be

denied to a surviving spouse at the time of greatest need

because a State forbade that couple from marrying or

deemed that couple’s marriage unworthy of recognition.

This scenario is not hypothetical. It is a real-life

situation that has unfolded for families across our nation

since Windsor. For example:

[f)or more than 30 years, Texas residents

Kathy Murphy, 62, and Sara Barker shared

their lives together. Three decades after they

first met, Kathy and Sara legally married in

Massachusetts in 2010. Like other married

couples, they hoped to grow old together and

to live out their retirement years in safety,

security, and dignity.

Tragically, Sara lost her battle with cancer in

March 2012 at age 62, leaving Kathy a widow.

Because the couple lived in Texas, which refuses

to recognize their marriage, SSA also won’t

recognize the marriage, denying Kathy spousal

41. See Attorney General Memorandum, supra note 24, at 13.

42. ld.

survivor’s benefits earned by Sara over a life-

time of work.”

The state bans fundamentally interfere with Social

Security, a bedrock protection for the elderly and those

with disabilities. This indignity is reinforced each

month—when the couple or surviving spouse receives

lesser or no benefits because of a state ban.

2. Military and Veterans’ Benefits

Our nation also has a system of military and veterans’

benefits that provides substantial support and care to

servicemembers and veterans, to whom we owe a great

debt. A strong system to provide for veterans is critical

to ensuring that those fighting overseas can focus on the

fight without concern for the security of their families at

home. “No soldier can be and remain at his best with the

constant realization that his family and loved ones are in

dire need of financial assistance.™

43. Press Release, Lambda Legal, Lambda Legal Sues

Social Security Administration on Behalf of Texas Lesbian Widow

and Nationa) Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare

(Oct. 22, 2014), available at http-//tinyurl.com/obergefell10; see

also Paula Span, Spouses Denied Social Security Survivors’

Benefits, N.Y. Times, Nov. 11, 2014, http-//tinyurl.com/obergefell11;

Associated Press, LGBT Baby Boomers Face Tough Retirement

Hurdles, Dec. 2, 2014.

44. S. Rep. No. 93-235, at 7 (1973); see also 127 Cong. Rec.

21,378 (1981) (statement of Sen. Dennis DeConcini) (“Long-

range benefits which insure the future financial security of

both partners in a military marriage will improve morale and

increase reenlistment.”); Don J. Jansen, Cong. Research Serv.,

RL33537, Military Medical Care: Questions and Answers 2 (2009)

(“[RJjecruitment and retention are supported by the provision of

Benefits accrue to same-sex couples under Title 10 (for

active-duty servicemembers), Title 32 (for the National

Guard), and Title 38 (for veterans). A large number of

these benefits are vital to military readiness. Examples

include:

¢ Retirement benefits;“

¢ Disability benefits;“

¢ Survivorship and death benefits;“’

* The VA home loan program;*

¢ VA education benefits (2.e., GI Bill);”

health benefits to military retirees and their dependents.”).

45. See, e.g., 10 U.S.C. §§ 1448, 1450(a) (providing for annuities

to spouses of deceased servicemembers entitled to retirement

benefits).

46. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1115, 1135 (providing increased

compensation to disabled veterans with dependents, including

spouses).

47. See, e.g., 32 U.S.C. § 714, 38 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1541, 5121,

5121A (providing survivor compensation to spouses of veterans of

wartime and peacetime, along with other benefits).

48. See 38 U.S.C. § 3710 (automatically guaranteeing home

loans to veterans and covering some surviving spouses).

49. See, e.g., 38 U.S.C. § 3311(b)(9) (giving post-9/11 GI Bill

benefits to spouses of servicemembers who die in the line of duty);

id. § 3501(a)(1) (defining educational benefits for “eligible persons”

to include spouses of disabled servicemembers or those who died

from service-related disabilities).

rrr

¢ Family separation benefits;”

* Housing and cost-of-living allowances;”

¢ Supplemental subsistence allowances for low-

income servicemember households;™

¢ Healthcare in armed forces facilities,” including

access to TRICARE, which is “the health care program

for uniformed servicemembers (active, Guard/Reserve,

retired) and their families around the world”;

¢ Civil protections in financial and procedural areas

like default judgments, taxes, and voting rights;© and

50. See 37 U.S.C. § 427 (providing monthly allowance when

servicemembers are separated from their families).

51. See, e.g.,37 U.S.C. §§ 403 (amended 2014), 403b (providing

monthly allowances).

52. See 37 U.S.C. § 402a (providing additional allowances

if servicemember’s household income falls within eligibility for

federal nutrition assistance programs).

53. See, e.g., 10 U.S.C. §§ 1072(2), 1076, 1077, 1097a, 38 U.S.C.

§ 1781 (providing for dependent access to military healthcare).

54. About Us, TRICARE, http://tinyurl.com/obergefell12-1

(last visited Mar. 5, 2015).

55. Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 App. U.S.C. § 538

(applying servicemember protections to dependents, including

spouses, if “materially affected by reason of the servicemember’s

military service”).

* The right to be buried together in veterans’

cemeteries.”

The Court’s opinion in Windsor singled out veterans’

benefits as one facet of benefits denied by DOMA. 133 S.

Ct. at 2694. A state law that prevents military couples

from marrying can produce the same denial of benefits,

leaving some veterans on unequal footing as compared

with those who served alongside them.

Even after Windsor, the Department of Veterans

Affairs continues to deny benefits to legally married,

same-sex couples. The Justice Department has said:

[the] VA will recognize for purpose of applicable

benefits those same-sex marriages that are

recognized by the law of the place of residence

of either spouse at the time of the marriage,

or by the law of the place of residence of either

spouse at the time the claimant became eligible

for benefits.”

Thus, a veteran stationed in a non-recognition State

at the time he or she married may be denied veterans’

benefits or have such benefits reduced. As the American

Military Partner Association (AMPA) has explained, “the

VA will deny spousal benefits te AMPA member veterans

and same-sex spouses who married in Maryland but at the

56. See, e.g., Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694 (noting that DOMA

“prohibits [married same-sex couples] from being buried together

in veterans’ cemeteries.”).

57. Attorney General Memorandum, supra note 24, at 8; see

also 38 U.S.C. § 103(c).

time of their marriage and application for spousal benefits

resided in Virginia—even though Virginia's marriage ban

has been held unconstitutional by the Fourth Circuit.”™

These concerns are real for many veterans, who put

themselves in harm’s way and yet still face discrimination

at home. For example:

[flor Steven Rains, the Defense of Marriage

Act is very much alive.

In 2008, Rains and his partner, Donald Condit,

drove from Fort Worth, Texas, to the Riverside

County town of Hemet, where Condit’s parents

lived, to marry during the brief window when

California allowed same-sex marriages before

voters banned them again under Proposition

8. A federal court overturned that ban in 2010,

although it wasn’t until 2013 that the marriages

resumed.

“We got in the car and drove,” Rains said. “We

didn’t even want to wait a couple of weeks for a

decent airline ticket.”

In 2013, Condit, after retiring from a railroad

career, died from the drugs used to treat his

exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam. As

his widower, Rains, now 60, could have been

entitled to federal railroad retiree and veterans’

survivor benefits. But both have been denied

58. Petition for Review at 8, Am. Military Partner Ass'n

v. McDonald, No. 14-7121 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2014), ECF No. 1.

because at the time of Condit’s death, the couple

lived in Texas, which bans gay and lesbian

marriages.™

3. Domestic Support Obligations

Another federal protection States deny to same-sex

couples by barring their marriages is “the Bankruptcy

Code’s special protections for domestic-support

obligations,” which the Court also highlighted in Windsor.

133 S. Ct. at 2694.

When two individuals marry, a subsequent divorce

may result in a domestic support obligation. If the spouse

that owes the obligation later declares bankruptcy, the

obligation is at risk of being diluted or extinguished. The

Bankruptcy Code protects against this risk by ensuring

that domestic support obligations receive priority over

other creditors’ claims and are not discharged.* These

“special protections” are premised on the idea that spouses’

contributions to each other’s wellbeing are a foundation of

security for spouses and their children—including after

a marital relationship ends. The need for this security

is especially acute where one partner supports the other

in non-financial ways and, at a parting of the ways, finds

himself lacking an established career or education.

59. Carolyn Lochhead, Federal Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

Still Casts Shadow on Many Lives, S.F. Chron., Jan. 12, 2015,

http://tinyurl.com/obergefell13.

60. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(14A); id. § 507(a)(1); id. § 523(a)(5),

(a)(15).

A State’s marriage ban can prevent such a domestic

support obligation from ever coming into existence,"

impairing a key source of family security in the event of

bankruptcy.

4. Federal Employee Protections

The state bans likewise frustrate federal interests in

protecting federal employees, including law enforcement

agents and prosecutors, and their families.

As many of us explained in Windsor, “(t]he Federal

Employee Compensation Act acknowledges the financial

interdependence of spouses regardless of the presence

of children, and it provides spousal survivor benefits

if a federal employee is killed on the job.”"** Numerour

other benefits flow from federal employment, such as

health insurance provided for an employee’s spouse.®

The state bans frustrate the congressional goal behind

61. See, e.g., Borman v. Pyles-Borman, No. 2014C V36, 2014

WL 4251133 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. Aug. 5, 2014) (denying same-sex

married couple a divorce under Tennessee’s non-recognition law).

62. Windsor Amicus, supra note 13, at 26 (citing 5 U.S.C.

§§ 8101 et seg.).

63. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 8901(5), 8905 (allowing federal employees

to enroll in health benefits plans covering self, spouse, and

children); Jn re Golinski, 587 F.3d 901, 902 (9th Cir. 2009)

(describing provision of Federal Employees Health Benefits Act

covering employees’ families, including spouses); see also, e.g.,

5 U.S.C. §§ 9001, 9002 (providing long-term care insurance to

spouses of employees); see also U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office,

GAO/OGC-97-16, Defense of Marriage Act, Enclosure I 4 (1997)

(describing how “[m)arital status is a factor . . . in many ways” in

laws concerning federal employee benefits).

these benefits: to ensure a productive and stable federal

workforce.

Beyond those employee protections, Congress has

acted to protect federal officials and their families from

retaliation or intimidation. Federal law criminalizes the

threat or commission of violent offenses against federal

officials, judges, and law enforcement officers—and their

families, including spouses—with the intent to impede or

retaliate against the official.”

The federal interest in this statute is clear: to guard

against interference with federal judges, agents, and

prosecutors. As the Court has said:

It would be a great reproach to the system of

government of the United States, declared to

be within its sphere sovereign and supreme,

if there is to be found within the domain of

its powers no means of protecting the judges,

in the conscientious and faithful discharge of

their duties, from the malice and hatred of

those upon whom their judgments may operate

unfavorably.®

Protections against, and punishment for, individuals

whe coerce or retaliate against federal officials and their

families are integral to a well-functioning government.

The state bans impair these protections for federal

officials. A gay or lesbian FBI agent, federal prosecutor,

or federal judge may have far less protection for his or

64. See 18 U.S.C. § 115.

65. In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 59 (1890) (concerning federal!

official protecting a Supreme Court Justice).

her family than would otherwise attach. These officials

may investigate, prosecute, or preside over some of the

most dangerous individuals, including terrorists, drug

kingpins, members of organized crime syndicates, gang

members, and human traffickers. Because of the state

bans, such important work may expose a gay or lesbian

federal official to a greater chance of violence, a harm this

Court said was “even more serious” than other inequalities

imposed by DOMA. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694-95.

IV. States’ Refusals to Respect Lawful Marriages

Place Our Constituents at Risk.

Windsor recognizes that the marital relationship,

once created, confers “a dignity and status of immense

import” that cannot be lightly ignored. 133 S. Ct. at 2692.

Yet, because of the state bans, crossing a state line creates

enormous risk for a married same-sex couple and their

children. Easily done by other families without a second

thought, such a simple act could have severe consequences

for these couples and inflict harm on their children, for no

legitimate purpose.

A. Like DOMA, States that Refuse to Recognize

Valid Marriages Deny Equal Protection.

Like DOMA, state bans on recognizing marriages

performed elsewhere have the “principal effect” of

“jdentify[ing] a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and

mak[ing] them unequal.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694.

Such bans create two tiers of out-of-state marriages. One

66. See also Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 397 n.1 (1978)

(Powell, J., concurring in the judgment).

class is recognized as a matter of course,*’ and a second

class is denied recognition because it consists of the

marriages of same-sex couples—the same class denied

federal recognition under DOMA.

Indeed, the bans at issue come from States that

commonly validate out-of-state marriages—as long as the

couple is opposite-sex—even where the marriage could

not validly occur under that State’s law and was purposely

celebrated out of state to evade the State’s marriage

prohibition.” By departing from the longstanding

“place-of-celebration” marriage recognition rule applied

to opposite-sex couples, these bans, like DOMA, are

“discriminations of an unusual character [that] especially

suggest careful consideration to determine whether they

are obnoxious to the constitutional provision.” Windsor,

133 S. Ct. at 2692 (quoting Romer, 517 U.S. at 633).

As in Windsor, “no legitimate purpose overcomes

the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those

67. “The general rule in the United States for interstate

marriage recognition is the ‘place of celebration’ rule, which

provides that marriages valid where celebrated are valid

everywhere.” Henry v. Himes, 14 F. Supp. 3d 1036, 1040 (S.D.

Ohio 2014), rev'd sub nom. DeBoer, 772 F.3d 388. This means,

for example, that a State like Ohio will recognize all out-of-state

marriages other than those of same-sex couples. See Obergefell,

962 F. Supp. 2d at 973.

68. Such “evasive” marriages have routinely been granted

interstate respect. See, e.g. In re Miller's Estate, 214 N.W. 428

(Mich. 1927); Mazzolini v. Mazzolini, 155 N.E.2d 206 (Ohio 1958);

Keith v. Pack, 187 S.W.2d 618 (Tenn. 1945).

69. See supra note 67.

whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in

personhood and dignity.” /d. at 2696.” The Court rejected

a claimed link between excluding gay and lesbian married

couples from federal benefits and the asserted goal of

“address[ing] the tendency of opposite-sex relationships

to produce unintended and unplanned offspring.”” A

federal statute penalizing already-married same-sex

couples was simply unconnected to that asserted goal.”

Just so here. “There is no rational reason to think that

taking away the designation of ‘marriage’ from same-sex

couples would advance the goal of encouraging [] opposite-

sex couples to procreate more responsibly.” Perry v.

Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1088 (9th Cir. 2012), vacated sub

70. Section 2 of DOMA, 28 U.S.C. § 1738C, is not challenged

here and is irrelevant. States cannot escape examination of

their laws by resort to Section 2 because “Congress has no

affirmative power to authorize the States to violate the Fourteenth

Amendment and is implicitly prohibited from passing legislation

that purports to validate any such violation.” Saenz v. Roe, 526

U.S. 489, 508 (1999); see also Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S.

365, 382 (1971) (“Congress does not have the power to authorize

the individual States to violate the Equal Protection Clause.”).

Moreover, were Section 2 to have any bearing here, the Court

has already held that “[tJhe history of DOMA’s enactment and its

own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity

of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the

exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental

effect of the federal statute. It was its essence.” Windsor, 133

S. Ct. at 2693. This conclusion applies with equal force to both

operative sections of the law.

71. Windsor BLAG Brief, supra note 23, at 21.

72. See Windsor, 699 F.3d at 188 (“Incentives for opposite-

_ sex couples to marry and procreate (or not) were the same after

DOMA was enacted as they were before.”).

nom. Hollingsworth, 133 S. Ct. 2652; see also Kitchen v.

Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193, 1223 (10th Cir. 2014) (calling such

a position “wholly illogical”).

B. States that Refuse to Recognize Valid

Marriages Deprive Many of Our Constituents

of Important Rights Essential to Family

Stability.

As of 2013, there were a reported 251,695 married

same-sex couples, representing more than half a million

individuals, in the United States.” This number is likely

significantly larger today because many States have since

extended the freedom to marry to same-sex couples.”

These couples and their children live throughout the

nation, in States that include same-sex couples in their

marriage laws and those that still do not.” Many are, or

were, our constituents. Like other families, they move and

travel to and through other States for reasons including

employment, education, health care, and leisure.

Yet unlike other married couples, they are often

stripped of spousal protections when they move and travel

For example, a same-sex couple who married in Mary!and

will, upon entering Ohio, be treated as legal strangers:

73. See U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 3.

74. Same-sex couples gained the ability to marry in

approximately twenty States over the past year alone. See, e.g.,

Same-Sex Marriage State-by-State, Pew Research Center (Feb. 9,

2015), http://tinyurl.com/obergefelll5. A number of these States,

such as Illinois and Pennsylvania, are some of the most populous

States in the nation.

75. See U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 3, tbl.3.

Same-sex couples are denied local and state

tax benefits available to heterosexual married

couples, denied access to entitlement programs

(Medicaid, food stamps, welfare benefits, etc.)

available to heterosexual married couples and

their families, barred by hospital staff and/

or relatives from their long-time partners’

bedsides during serious and final illnesses due

to lack of legally-recognized relationship status,

denied the remedy of loss of consortium when a

spouse is seriously injured through the acts of

another, denied the remedy of a wrongful death

claim when a spouse is fatally injured through

the wrongful acts of another, and evicted from

their homes following a spouse’s death because

same-sex spouses are considered complete

strangers to each other in the eyes of the law.

Henry, 14 F. Supp. 3d at 1050.

This discrimination imposes far-reaching disabilities

on same-sex married couples reminiscent of those imposed

by the state constitutional amendment in Romer v. Evans,

which singled out gay men and lesbians for disfavored

treatment. 517 U.S. at 631, 633. The case of James

Obergefell and John Arthur is illustrative. After nearly

20 years together in a loving, committed relationship,

Mr. Arthur was diagnosed with ALS,” or “Lou Gehrig’s

Disease.”” Knowing that Mr. Arthur did not have long

76. Declaration of James Obergefell 97 3, 9, Obergefell v.

Kasich, No 1:13-cv-501 (S.D. Ohio July 22, 2013).

77. See What is ALS?, ALS Association, http://tinyurl.com/

obergefell16 (last visited Mar. 5, 2015).

to live, the couple flew on a medically-equipped plane to

Maryland, where they were married on the airport tarmac

by Mr. Arthur’s aunt.” As Mr. Obergefell explained, they

“wantfed] the world to know that [they] share the highest

commitment two people can make to each other in our

society.””

Marriage was important not only for their sense of

dignity, but also for practical reasons. Being married

would allow Mr. Obergefell to be listed as the surviving

spouse on Mr. Arthur’s death certificate, which has

important evidentiary value for issues such as receiving life

insurance payouts, administering wills, and transferring

title for automobiles, real estate, and other property. See

Obergefell, 962 F. Supp. 2d at 980. Mr. Arthur wished

to have Mr. Obergefell buried next to him in his family

plot, but the family plot directive limited those who may

be interred in the plot to descendants and spouses. See

Obergefell v. Kasich, No. 1:13-cv-501, 2013 WL 3814262,

at *7 (S.D. Ohio July 22, 2013). As the district court

emphasized, “the uncertainty around this issue during

Mr. Arthur’s final illness is the cause of extreme emotional

hardship to the couple. Dying with an incorrect death

certificate that prohibits Mr. Arthur from being buried

with dignity constitutes irreparable harm.” Jd.

This couple took extraordinary steps to overcome

Ohio’s marriage ban, made possible only through the

loving support of their family and friends.” For many

78. Declaration of James Obergefell, supra note 76, 4 12.

79. Id. 4 15.

80. Id. 4 12.

couples, this would have been a financial impossibility.

Regardless of whether a couple can travel out of state to

marry, their lawful marriage may be denied recognition,

as occurred here. Such significant and direct interference

with the ability of an entire class of citizens to access the

vast array of state and federal rights and responsibilities of

civil marriage does not comply with core equal protection

guarantees." Cf Zablocki, 434 U.S. 374. “A State cannot

so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer,

517 U.S. at 635.

Moreover, even couples who live in States that

recognize their marriages face unwarranted jeopardy

when they visit or travel through States that do not. For

example, should an accident or medical emergency occur

during a family trip, one spouse may be obstructed when

visiting or making medical care decisions on behalf of the

other spouse.™

81. Since Windsor, the federa] government has tried to

mitigate the hardship and harm caused by state marriage bans by,

for example, granting same-sex military personnel non-chargeable

leave “for travel to a state or jurisdiction that allows same-sex

couples to be married.” Memorandum from the Under Sec’y of Def.

to Secretaries of the Military Dep’ts and Chiefs of the Military

Servs., Further Guidance on Extending Benefits to Same-Sex

Spouses of Military Members 1 (Aug. 13, 2013), available at http-//

tinyurl.com/obergefell17. Such efforts demonstrate the burden

that these bans impose on couples, their families, and the federal

government.

82. See, e.g., Langbehn v. Pub. Health Trust of Miami-Dade

Cnty., 661 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1347 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (finding no relief

available where hospital denied plaintiff visitation with her same-

sex partner and access to partner’s medical records). In response

to the Langbehn case and others, the Department of Health

The legendary “Blues Highway” route, for instance,

could take a family through up to four States that do not

recognize marriages of same-sex couples (Arkansas,

Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana). As a Mississippi

district court recognized: “Suppose that . .. Joce becomes

[seriously] ill and [the] hospital denies Carla the visiting

rights it grants married couples. The emotional damage

would be profound and irreparable. The same can be said

for ... every other committed same-sex couple without a

State-recognized marriage.” Campaign for S. Equal. v.

Bryant, No. 3:14-CV-818-CWR-LRA, 2014 WL 6680570,

at *35 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 25, 2014).

and Human Services promulgated regulations and guidelines

requiring Medicare and Medicaid participating hospitals to allow

patients to designate their visitors and healthcare proxies. See

42 C.F.R. §§ 482.13, 485.635; Press Release, Ctrs. for Medicare

& Medicaid Servs., Medicare Steps Up Enforcement of Equal

Visitation and Representation Rights in Hospitals (Sept. 8,

2011), available at http://tinyurl.com/obergefell18. However, in

situations where a patient has not made pre-designations and

is unable to do so, hospitals can resort to their default visitation

policies, which may not be inclusive of gay men and lesbians, and

to state laws, which often give speuseg, but not same-sex partners,

priority to make medical care decisions. See, e.g., Ky. Rev. Stat.

Ann. § 311.631(1)(¢); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2133.08(B)(2); Tenn.

Code Ann. § 68-11-1806(c)(3)(A); see also Blake Boldt, Woman

Denied Visitation of Partner at Local Hospital, Out & About

Nashville, Dec. 19, 2011, http://tinyurl.com/obergefell19 (reporting

Tennessee woman denied visit with same-sex partner by hospital

participating in Medicare and Medicaid).

83. See Road Trip: The Blues Highway, Tennessee and

Mississippi, Nat’l Geographic, http://tinyurl.com/obergefell20

(last visited Mar. 5, 2015).

C. States that Refuse to Recognize Valid

Marriages Divest Many of Our Constituents of

the “Dignity and Status of Immense Import”

of Marriage.

States’ refusals to recognize marriages also cause

same-sex couples, and the hundreds of thousands oi

children of those couples,“ immeasurable psychological

harm by “instruct[ing] all . . . officials, and indeed all

persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including

their own children, that their marriage is less worthy

than the marriages of others.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at

2696. “The state’s refusal to recognize the plaintiffs’

marriages de-legitimizes their relationships, degrades

them in their interactions with the state, causes them

to suffer public indignity, and invites public and private

discrimination and stigmatization.” Tanco v. Haslam, 7

F. Supp. 3d 759, 770 (M.D. Tenn. 2014), rev'd sub nom.

DeBoer, 772 F.3d 388.

For example, Dr. Valeria Tanco and Dr. Sophia Jesty

married in New York, where they met while studying

veterinary muedicine. After completing their training, they

accepted teaching positions at the University of Tennessee.

Upon moving, the couple found their commitment and hard

work rewarded with a second-class status infecting major

facets of their lives. Because theirs was not an opposite-

sex marriage, they faced uncertainties surrounding

property protections in their newly purchased home*®

84. See Gates, supra note 4.

85. Married couples enjoy property protections under

Tennessee’s laws, including the right to a share of a decedent’s

estate (Tenn. Code Ann. § 31-2-104); the right to hold real property

and their eligibility for a family health insurance plan.

Id. at 764. When Dr. Tanco became pregnant, a cause for

celebration became a cause for

concern{] about the environment in which their

child [would] be raised, fearing that Tennessee’s

refusal to recognize her parents’ marriage

[would] stigmatize her, cause her to believe that

she and her family are entitled to less dignity

than her peers and their families, and give her

the impression that her parents’ love and their

family unit is somehow less stable.

Id.

Another couple, Matthew Mansell and John Espejo,

moved to Tennessee after Mr. Mansell’s law firm

transferred him from California, where the couple had

married and adopted children. Jd. at 765. In Tennessee

they found their marriage a nullity. Like the Tanco-

Jesty couple, they were understandably concerned about

the impact that would have on their children. Jd. As the

Tennessee district court acknowledged, these couples

faced the “imminent risk of potential harm to their children

during their developing years from the stigmatization and

denigration of their family relationship.” Jd. at 770.

Countless couples will move or travel, if they have

not already, to a non-recognizing State and be subject to

a law that does not treat them with the same dignity and

respect that other married couples receive. Opposite-

in a tenancy by the entirety (Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-1-109); and the

right to defer some property taxes (Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-64-201).

sex married couples enjoy the security of knowing their

marriages will be recognized throughout the country,

even in States where they could not affirmatively marry.”

However, as with DOMA:

{state bans] tell[] [same-sex] couples, and all the

world, that their otherwise valid marriages are

unworthy of... recognition. This places same-

sex couples in an unstable position of being in

a second-tier marriage. The differentiation

demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual

choices the Constitution protects .... And it

humiliates tens of thousands of children now

being raised by same-sex couples. The [state

ban] in question makes it even more difficult for

the children to understand the integrity and

closeness of their own family and its concord

with other families in their community and in

their daily lives.

Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694.

No legitimate interest justifies the drastic “deprivation

of the liberty of the person” effected by the nullification

of already-established marriages, including those of our

constituents. Jd. at 2695.

86. See supra notes 67-68.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the Court

of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit should be reversed.

Respectfully submitted,

HEATHER C. SAWYER JOSEPH F.. TRINGALI

House Committee on Counsel of Record

the Judiciary JosHuA C. PoLsTER

Minority Counsel to Evisa Y. LEE

Ranking Members AIDAN T. GRANO

John Conyers, Jr. Simpson Thacher

and Jerrold Nadler & Bartlett LLP

B-336 Rayburn Bldg. 425 Lexington Avenue

Washington, DC 20515 New York, NY 10017

(202) 225-6906 (212) 455-2000

jtringali@stblaw.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

March 6, 2015

APPENDIX

The Members of Congress participating

as amici are:

United States Senators

Tammy Baldwin Patrick Leahy

Michael F. Bennet Edward J. Markey

Richard Blumenthal Claire McCaskill

Cory Booker Robert Menendez

Barbara Boxer Jeff Merkley

Sherrod Brown Barbara A. Mikulski

Maria Cantwell

Benjamin L. Cardin

Thomas R. Carper

Robert P. Casey, Jr.

Christopher Coons

Joe Donnelly

Richard J. Durbin

Dianne Feinstein

Al Franken

Kirsten Gillibrand

Martin Heinrich

Heidi He.tkamp

Mazie K. Hirono

Tim Kaine

Angus S. King, Jr.

Amy Klobuchar

Christopher S. Murphy

Patty Murray

Bill Nelson

Gary Peters

Jack Reed

Harry Reid

Bernard Sanders

Brian Schatz

Charles E. Schumer

Jeanne Shaheen

Debbie Stabenow

Jon Tester

Mark R. Warner

Elizabeth Warren

Sheldon Whitehouse

Ron Wyden

Appendix

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives

Alma S. Adams

Pete Aguilar

Brad Ashford

Karen Bass

Joyce Beatty

Xavier Becerra

Ami Bera

Donald S. Beyer Jr.

Earl Blumenauer

Suzanne Bonamici

Brendan F. Boyle

Robert A. Brady

Julia Brownley

Cheri Bustos

Lois Capps

Michael E. Capuano

Tony Cardenas

John C. Carney, Jr.

André Carson

Matt Cartwright

Kathy Castor

Joaquin Castro

Judy Chu

David N. Cicilline

Katherine M. Clark

Yvette D. Clarke

James E. Clyburn

Steve Cohen

Gerald E. Connolly

John Conyers, Jr.

Jim Cooper

Joe Courtney

Joseph Crowley

Elijah E. Cummings

Danny K. Davis

Susan A. Davis

Peter A. DeFazio

Diana DeGette

John K. Delaney

Rosa L. DeLauro

Suzan K. DelBene

Mark DeSaulnier

Theodore E. Deutch

Debbie Dingell

Lloyd Doggett

Michael F. Doyle

Tammy Duckworth

Donna F. Edwards

Keith Ellison

Eliot L. Engel

Anna G. Eshoo

Elizabeth H. Esty

Sam Farr

Chaka Fattah

Bill Foster

Lois Frankel

Marcia L. Fudge

Tulsi Gabbard

Appendix

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives

(continued)

Ruben Gallego Barbara Lee

John Garamendi Sander M. Levin

Alan Grayson John Lewis

Al Green Ted Lieu

Rail M. Grijalva Dave Loebsack

Luis V. Gutiérrez Zoe Lofgren

Janice Hahn Alan S. Lowenthal

Alcee L. Hastings Nita M. Lowey

Denny Heck Ben Ray Lujan

Brian Higgins Michelle Lujan Grisham

James A. Himes Stephen F. Lynch

Michael M. Honda Carolyn B. Maloney

Steny H. Hoyer Sean Patrick Maloney

Jared Huffman Doris O. Matsui

Steve Israel Betty McCollum

Sheila Jackson Lee Jim McDermott

Hakeem S. Jeffries James P. McGovern

Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr. Jerry McNerney

Marcy Kaptur Gregory W. Meeks

Robin L. Kelly Grace Meng

Joseph P. Kennedy Gwen Moore

Dan Kildee Seth Moulton

Derek Kilmer Patrick E. Murphy

Ron Kind Jerrold Nadler

Ann Kirkpatrick Grace F. Napolitano

Ann McLane Kuster Richard E. Neal

James R. Langevin Richard M. Nolan

John B. Larson Donald Norcross

Brenda L. Lawrence Eleanor Holmes Norton

Appendix

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives

(continued)

Beto O’Rourke Brad Sherman

Frank Pallone, Jr. Kyrsten Sinema

Bill Pascrell, Jr. Albio Sires

Donald M. Payne, Jr. Louise McIntosh Slaughter

Nancy Pelosi Adam Smith

Ed Perlmutter Jackie Speier

Scott H. Peters Eric Swalwell

Chellie Pingree Mark Takai

Mark Pocan Mark Takano

Jared Polis Mike Thompson

David E. Price Dina Titus

Mike Quigley Paul Tonko

Charles B. Rangel Norma J. Torres

Kathleen M. Rice Niki Tsongas

Lucille Roybal-Allard Chris Van Hollen

Raul Ruiz Juan Vargas

C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger Marc A. Veasey

Bobby L. Rush Nydia M. Velazquez

Tim Ryan Timothy J. Walz

Linda T. Sanchez Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Loretta Sanchez Maxine Waters

John P. Sarbanes Bonnie Watson Coleman

Janice D. Schakowsky Peter Welch

Adam B. Schiff Frederica S. Wilson

Robert C. “Bobby” Scott John A. Yarmuth

José E. Serrano William R. Keating

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.