Law Commons^™

The “Legal Stranger” And Parent: A Love Story?, Kellie Mahoney

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Doma And Diffusion Theory: Ending Animus Legislation Through A Rational Basis Approach, David J. Herzig

Akron Law Review

The purpose of this Article is to expand the scope of the discussion from one of morality to include a sociological approach, called Diffusion Theory...Section II of this Article explains Diffusion Theory. Section III explores the background of DOMA and the factual background in which DOMA is being challenged by the states and private citizens. Section IV discusses the fundamentals behind the Florida adoption ban and how the change in the message by the challengers has proven effective. The final part, Section V, analyzes whether the approach should center on the inevitability of the change, as reflected in the Justice …

Marriage-Based Immigration For Same-Sex Couples After Doma: Lingering Problems Of Proof And Prejudice, Anna Carron

Northwestern University Law Review

In 2013, the Supreme Court changed the lives of thousands of same-sex couples in America by declaring the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor. This decision allowed same-sex spouses to receive the same marriage-based immigration benefits under federal law that “traditional marriages” had long received. Although this holding is a victory for binational same-sex couples, bias still exists in the practices U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) uses to evaluate the legitimacy of marriages. This bias manifests itself in the proof USCIS requires to show a relationship is bona fide, proof that often assumes …

Baker V. Nelson: Flotsam In The Tidal Wave Of Windsor's Wake, David B. Cruz

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

Part I of this Article sketches the virtually unbroken string of pro-marriage decisions in the lower federal and state courts since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor to give a sense of the size and magnitude of this “tidal wave” of precedent. Next, Part II briefly explores some of the reasons that might help account for the flood of litigation and overwhelmingly positive outcomes. Part III tentatively suggests one way this flow of decisions in favor of marriage equality might influence the Supreme Court as it returns to the issue. Part II then at some …

Duty To Defend And The Rule Of Law, Gregory F. Zoeller

Indiana Law Journal

This Article challenges Eric Holder’s and William Pryor’s views and explains the proper role of a state attorney general when a party challenges a state statute. In short, an attorney general owes the state and its citizens, as sovereign, a duty to defend its statutes against constitutional attack except when controlling precedent so overwhelmingly shows that the statute is unconstitutional that no good-faith argument can be made in its defense. To exercise discretion more broadly, and selectively to pick and choose which statutes to defend, only erodes the rule of law. (introduction)

Stealth Advocacy Can (Sometimes) Change The World, Margo Schlanger

Michigan Law Review

Scholarship and popular writing about lawsuits seeking broad social change have been nearly as contentious as the litigation itself. In a normative mode, commentators on the right have long attacked change litigation as imperialist and ill informed, besides producing bad outcomes. Attacks from the left have likewise had both prescriptive and positive strands, arguing that civil rights litigation is “subordinating, legitimating, and alienating.” As one author recently summarized in this Law Review, these observers claim “that rights litigation is a waste of time, both because it is not actually successful in achieving social change and because it detracts attention and …

Certiorari And The Marriage Equality Cases, Carl Tobias

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

Marriage equality has come to much of the nation. Over 2014, many district court rulings invalidated state proscriptions on same- sex marriage, while four appeals courts upheld these decisions. However, the Sixth Circuit reversed district judgments which struck down bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Because that appellate opinion created a patchwork of differing legal regimes across the country, this Paper urges the Supreme Court to clarify marriage equality by reviewing that determination this Term.

Fixing Hollingsworth: Standing In Initiative Cases, Karl Manheim, John S. Caragozian, Donald Warner

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the “Official Proponents” of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion held that initiative sponsors lack Article III standing to defend their ballot measures even when state officials refuse to defend against constitutional challenges. As a result, Hollingsworth provides state officers with the ability to overrule laws that were intended to bypass the government establishment—in effect, an “executive veto” of popularly-enacted initiatives.

The Article examines this new “executive veto” in depth. It places Hollingsworth in context, discussing the initiative process …

Transgender Inpportunity And Inequality: Evaluating The Crossroads Between Immigration And Transgender Individuals, Alexandra Caggiano

Seattle University Law Review

Despite being married to a U.S. citizen, non-citizen transgender individuals and non-citizen spouses married to transgender U.S. citizens still face deportation today due to current immigration policies. When forced to return to their home countries, transgender individuals are likely to encounter violence from those who perpetuate hate towards transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. Instead of protecting these individuals, the United States continues to send people back to their native countries solely because those individuals do not fall within the narrowly constructed definition of marriage some states use that is legally recognized by federal courts. Transgender individuals receive disparate treatment as …

Immigration After Doma: How Equal Is Marriage Equality?, John Medeiros

Journal of Public Law and Policy

Nearly 36,000 United States citizens are currently living with their foreign-born same-sex partners. Until recently, same-gendered binational spouses have been unable to avail themselves of the immigration advantages shared by their heterosexual counterparts, largely because of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines “marriage” at the federal level as “a legal union between one man and one woman.” This dual treatment changed, however, in the summer of 2013, when the Supreme Court heard the case of United States v. Windsor, which challenged Section 3 of DOMA. In Windsor, the Court held that by restricting …

Consistency Is Key: To Preserve Legislative Intent The Irs Must Afford Legal Recognition To Non-Marital Relationships In A Post-Doma World, Shane R. Martins

Marquette Elder's Advisor

Although the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Windsor v. US allows for federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the Internal Revenue Service will only grant spousal recognition to couples residing in states that term same-sex unions as marriages. Consequently, spousal treatment will not be extended to non-marital relationships, even in states that treat their Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships as “marital equivalents.” Given that spousal recognition for federal tax purposes was intended to ensure geographic uniformity and horizontal equity, the IRS must grant spousal recognition to couples who are in relationships that their respective state identifies as a “marital equivalent”.

Is The Full Faith And Credit Clause Still "Irrelevant" To Same-Sex Marriage?: Toward A Reconsideration Of The Conventional Wisdom, Steve Sanders

Indiana Law Journal

Essays on the Implications of Windsor and Perry

Evolving Values, Animus, And Same-Sex Marriage, Daniel O. Conkle

Indiana Law Journal

In this Essay, I contend that a Fourteenth Amendment right to same-sex marriage will emerge, and properly so, when the Supreme Court determines that justice so requires and when, in the words of Professor Alexander Bickel, the Court’s recognition of this right will “in a rather immediate foreseeable future . . . gain general assent.” I suggest that we are fast approaching that juncture, and I go on to analyze three possible justifications for such a ruling: first, substantive due process; second, heightened scrutiny equal protection; and third, rational basis equal protection coupled with a finding of illicit “animus.” I …

Exit, Voice, And Loyalty As Federalism Strategies: Lessons From The Same-Sex Marriage Debate, Ernest A. Young

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

The “Federal Law Of Marriage”: Deference, Deviation, And Doma, W. Burlette Carter

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

"There's No Place Like Home" Doma Deportation: The Forced Expatriation Of Bi-National Same-Sex Couples From The United States To Canada, Anh "Annie" Nguyen

San Diego International Law Journal

This comment will focus on bi-national same-sex couples who are forced to expatriate from the united states to canada because of DOMA’s detrimental effects on their relationship. more specifically, part I focuses on DOMA’s constitutionality, effects on bi-national same-sex couples, and current legal challenges. Part II provides a historical analysis of the united states’ attitude towards same-sex unions before describing current legislation regarding same-sex couples. Part III describes canada’s recognition of same-sex marriage and support of immigration equality, comparing and contrasting the canadian approach with the united states’ approach. Part IV explains the current legal and financial issues that bi-national …

Enron, Doma, And Spousal Privileges: Rethinking The Marriage Plot, Bennett Capers

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Foreward, Joseph Landau

Fordham Law Review

On March 30, 2012, the Fordham Law Review held a daylong conference on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a statute enacted in 1996 with large majorities in both the House and Senate and signed into law by President Clinton. The Symposium could not have come at a better time: there have been extraordinary changes in the political dynamics surrounding relationship rights since DOMA’s enactment in 1996, when same–sex couples could not marry in any U.S. or foreign jurisdiction. Currently, same–sex couples can legally marry in six U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Nine additional states have broad …

The Solicitor General’S Office, Tradition, And Conviction, Charles Fried

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Missing Links In The President’S Evolution On Same-Sex Marriage, Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Interpretive Schizophrenia: How Congressional Standing Can Solve The Enforce-But-Not-Defend Problem, Abner S. Greene

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Obama Administration’S Decision To Defend Constitutional Equality Rather Than The Defense Of Marriage Act, Dawn Johnsen

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Doma And Presidential Discretion: Interpreting And Enforcing Federal Law, Joseph Landau

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Moral Complexity Of Cause Lawyers Within The State, David Luban

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cause Lawyers Inside The State, Douglas Nejaime

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

“Two Parts Of The Landscape Of Family In America”: Maintaining Both Spousal And Domestic Partner Employee Benefits For Both Same-Sex And Different-Sex Couples, Nancy D. Polikoff

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Involuntary Imports: Williams, Lutwak, The Defense Of Marriage Act, Federalism, And “Thick” And “Thin” Conceptions Of Marriage, Lynn D. Wardle

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Collegiality And Individual Dignity, Tobias Barrington Wolff

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Defense Of The Obama Administration's Non-Defense Of Doma, Daniel J. Crooks Iii

Legislation and Policy Brief

The Constitution charges the President with the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . .” Moreover, the President takes an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Although “[g]enerally, these duties are compatible . . ., when the Executive faces a law that he believes is unconstitutional, he must decide whether the law should be executed as written and defended if attacked, or whether the duty of faithfulness to the Constitution requires its repudiation.” This decision belongs to the President alone as the head of a co-equal branch of …

Homosexuals, Equal Protection, And The Guarantee Of Fundamental Rights In The New Decade: An Optimist’S Quasi-Suspect View Of Recent Events And Their Impact On Heightened Scrutiny For Sexual Orientation-Based Discrimination, John Nicodemo

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.