Editing Defense of Marriage Act (section)

==Challenges to Section 3 in Federal court==
Numerous plaintiffs have challenged DOMA. Prior to 2009, all federal courts upheld DOMA in its entirety.

Later cases focused on Section 3's definition of marriage. The courts, using different standards, have all found Section 3 unconstitutional. Requests for the Supreme Court to hear appeals were filed in five cases, listed below (with Supreme Court docket numbers):
* ''[[Gill v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' ([https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-13.htm 12-13] as ''BLAG v. Gill'')
* ''[[Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services]]'' ([https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-15.htm 12-15] as ''Dept. of HHS v. Massachusetts'', [https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-97.htm 12-97])
* ''[[Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' ([https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-16.htm 12-16] ''OPM v. Golinski'')
* ''[[Windsor v. United States]]'' ([https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-63.htm 12-63])
* ''[[Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' ([https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-231.htm 12-231])

===''Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management''===
''[[Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' was a challenge to Section 3 of DOMA in federal court based on a judicial employee's attempt to receive spousal health benefits for her partner. In 2008, Karen Golinski, a 19-year employee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, applied for health benefits for her wife. When the application was denied, she filed a complaint under the Ninth Circuit's Employment Dispute Resolution Plan. Chief Judge [[Alex Kozinski]], in his administrative capacity, ruled in 2009 that she was entitled to spousal health benefits,<ref>{{cite news |title=Obama on Spot Over a Benefit to Gay Couples |last=Pear |first=Robert |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/us/politics/13benefits.html |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=March 12, 2009 |access-date=March 1, 2011}}</ref> but the [[Office of Personnel Management]] (OPM) announced that it would not comply with the ruling.

On March 17, 2011, U.S. District Judge [[Jeffrey White]] dismissed the suit on procedural grounds but invited Golinski to amend her suit to argue the unconstitutionality of DOMA Section 3,<ref>{{cite news |title=Lesbian U.S. employee set back in benefits fight |author= Levine, Dan |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-court-gays-idUSTRE72F9WE20110316 |work=Reuters |date=March 16, 2011 |access-date=March 17, 2011}}</ref> which she did on April 14.<ref>''Golinski v. OPM'', [https://www.scribd.com/doc/53046973/Golinski-v-OPM-Second-Amended-Complaint Second Amended Complaint]. April 14, 2011. Retrieved June 8, 2011</ref> Following the Attorney General's decision to no longer defend DOMA,<ref name=holder>[https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act], February 23, 2011. Retrieved July 5, 2012.</ref> the [[Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group]] (BLAG), an arm of the House of Representatives, took up the defense. Former [[United States Solicitor General]] [[Paul Clement]] filed, on BLAG's behalf, a motion to dismiss raising arguments previously avoided by the Department of Justice: that DOMA's definition of marriage is valid "because only a man and a woman can beget a child together, and because historical experience has shown that a family consisting of a married father and mother is an effective social structure for raising children."<ref>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/06/house-gop-leadership-defends-t.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=House GOP Leadership Defends 'Traditional' Marriage From Being 'Radically Redefined' |date=June 10, 2011 |access-date=June 13, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110612043147/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/06/house-gop-leadership-defends-t.html |archive-date=June 12, 2011 |df=mdy }}</ref><ref>''Golinski v. OPM'', [http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/Golinski-MtDMemorandum-BLAG.pdf Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120507103259/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/Golinski-MtDMemorandum-BLAG.pdf |date=May 7, 2012 }}. June 3, 2011. Retrieved July 4, 2012.</ref> On July 1, 2011, the DOJ filed a brief in support of Golinski's suit, in which it detailed for the first time its case for heightened scrutiny based on "a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities" and its arguments that DOMA Section 3 fails to meet that standard.<ref name=dojgol>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/doj-court-should-not-dismiss-k.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=DOJ: Court Should Not Dismiss Karen Golinski's Health Benefits Claim, Should Instead Find DOMA Unconstitutional |date=July 1, 2011 |access-date=July 2, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110703040825/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/doj-court-should-not-dismiss-k.html |archive-date=July 3, 2011 |df=mdy }}</ref><ref>''Golinski v. OPM'', [http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/DOJ-OppToBLAGMtD.pdf Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120507112757/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/DOJ-OppToBLAGMtD.pdf |date=May 7, 2012 }}. July 1, 2011. Retrieved July 2, 2011.</ref>

On February 22, 2012, White ruled for Golinski, finding DOMA "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." He wrote that Section 3 of DOMA could not pass the "[[intermediate scrutiny|heightened scrutiny]]" or the "[[rational basis review|rational basis]]" test. He wrote,<ref name=metrogol>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/domas-federal-definition-of-ma.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=DOMA's Federal Definition of Marriage Unconstitutional, Judge Rules in Golinski Case |date=February 22, 2012 |access-date=February 22, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120223010011/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/domas-federal-definition-of-ma.html |archive-date=February 23, 2012 |df=mdy }}</ref>

<blockquote>The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.</blockquote>

While the case was on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, on July 3, 2012, the DOJ asked the Supreme Court to review the case before the Ninth Circuit decides it so it can be heard together with two other cases in which DOMA Section 3 was held unconstitutional, ''[[Gill v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' and ''[[Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services]]''.<ref name=dojcert>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/07/breaking-doj-asks-supreme-court-to-take-two-doma-c.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Take Two DOMA Cases, Maintains Law Is Unconstitutional |date=July 3, 2012 |access-date=July 3, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120704043440/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/07/breaking-doj-asks-supreme-court-to-take-two-doma-c.html |archive-date=July 4, 2012 |df=mdy }}</ref> The Supreme Court chose to hear ''Windsor'' instead of these cases, and following the Supreme Court decision in ''Windsor'' the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal in ''Golinski'' with the consent of all parties on July 23.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/golinski_us_20130723_order |title=Order: ''Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management'' |publisher=Lambda Legal |access-date=July 23, 2013}}</ref>

===''Gill'' and ''Massachusetts''===
On March 3, 2009, [[Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders|GLAD]] filed a federal court challenge, ''[[Gill v. Office of Personnel Management]]'', based on the Equal Protection Clause and the federal government's consistent deference to each state's definition of marriage prior to the enactment of DOMA. The case questioned only the DOMA provision that the federal government defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.<ref>{{cite news |first1=Abby |last1=Goodnough |first2=Katie |last2=Zezima |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/us/03marriage.html |title=Suit Seeks to Force Government to Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Couples |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=March 2, 2009 |access-date=November 6, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.glad.org/doma/lawsuit |title="DOMA" Means Federal Discrimination Against Married Same-Sex Couples |publisher=GLAD |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090306233900/http://www.glad.org/doma/lawsuit |archive-date=March 6, 2009 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> On May 6, 2010, Judge [[Joseph Louis Tauro|Joseph L. Tauro]] heard arguments in the [[United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts|U.S. District Court in Boston]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/us/07doma.html|title=Marriage Law Is Challenged as Equaling Discrimination|date=May 6, 2010|access-date=June 5, 2010|work=[[The New York Times]]|first=Katharine Q.|last=Seelye}}</ref>

On July 8, 2009, Massachusetts Attorney General [[Martha Coakley]] filed a suit, ''[[Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services]]'', challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. The suit claims that Congress "overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people."<ref name="BG07-08">{{cite news |url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/mass_to_challen.html |title=Mass. challenges federal Defense of Marriage Act| last=Finucane |first=Martin |date=July 8, 2009 |work=[[The Boston Globe]] |access-date=November 6, 2009}}</ref> Tauro, the judge also handling ''Gill'', heard arguments on May 26, 2010.<ref>{{cite news|title=Massachusetts challenges Marriage Act|url=http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2010/05/26/Massachusetts-challenges-Marriage-Act/UPI-48791274884096/|access-date=June 28, 2013|newspaper=UPI|date=May 26, 2010}}</ref>

On July 8, 2010, Tauro issued his rulings in both ''Gill'' and ''Massachusetts'', granting [[summary judgment]] for the plaintiffs in both cases.<ref>''[http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2009cv10309/120672/70/0.pdf Gill v. Office of Personnel Management]'', 699 F.Supp.2d 374 (D.Mass. 2010). Retrieved February 10, 2012.</ref><ref>''[http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2009cv11156/123233/58/0.pdf Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services]'', 698 F.Supp.2d 234 (D.Mass. 2010). Retrieved February 10, 2012.</ref> He found in ''Gill'' that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]]. In ''Massachusetts'' he held that the same section of DOMA violates the [[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Tenth Amendment]] and falls outside Congress' authority under the [[Taxing and Spending Clause|Spending Clause]] of the Constitution.<ref name="metroweekly">{{cite news |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/07/federal-court-rules-doma-viola.html |title=Federal Court Rules DOMA Sec. 3 Violates Equal Protection |last=Geidner |first=Chris |date=July 8, 2010 |access-date=July 8, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100712061020/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/07/federal-court-rules-doma-viola.html |archive-date=July 12, 2010 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref name="baywindows">[https://web.archive.org/web/20100711133445/http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=107807 DOMA decisions released] Bay Windows. July 8, 2010.</ref> Those decisions were stayed after the DOJ filed an appeal on October 12, 2010.<ref name="boston.com">{{cite news |work=[[The Boston Globe]] |url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/10/12/feds_appeal_mass_rulings_against_us_marriage_law/ |title=Feds Appeal Mass Rulings against U.S. Marriage Law |date=October 12, 2010 |access-date=October 13, 2010 |first=Denise |last=Lavoie}}</ref>

On November 3, 2011, 133 House Democrats filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in ''Gill'' and ''Massachusetts'', asserting their belief that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional.<ref name="PoliticoHouse133">{{cite news |title=DOMA opposed by 133 House Democrats |url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67556.html |author=Mackenzie Weinger |newspaper=Politico |date=November 3, 2011|access-date=November 3, 2011}}</ref> Included among the members of Congress signing the brief were 14 members who had voted for the bill in 1996.<ref name="PoliticoHouse133"/> Seventy major employers also filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs.<ref name="Forbes">{{cite news |work=Forbes |title=Seventy Major Employers Line Up Against DOMA |date=November 4, 2011 |first=Peter J. |last=Reilly |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2011/11/04/seventy-major-employers-line-up-against-doma/ }}</ref> A three-judge panel heard arguments in the case on April 4, 2012, during which the DOJ for the first time took the position that it could not defend Section 3 of DOMA under any level of scrutiny.<ref>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/04/federal-appeals-judges-consider-whether-doma-is.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Federal Appeals Judges Consider Whether DOMA Is Constitutional in Historic Hearing in Boston |date=April 4, 2012 |access-date=April 4, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120405041721/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/04/federal-appeals-judges-consider-whether-doma-is.html |archive-date=April 5, 2012 }}</ref> On May 31, 2012, the panel unanimously affirmed Tauro's ruling, finding Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional.<ref name=bb1st>{{cite news |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-31/defense-of-marriage-act-unconstitutional-appeals-court-says-1-.html |title=Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional, Appeals Court Says |publisher=Bloomberg |last1=Jeffrey |first1=Don |date=May 31, 2012 |last2=Dolmetsch |first2=Chris |access-date=July 5, 2012}}</ref><ref name=dec1st>''[http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-2204P.01A Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120601081149/http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-2204P.01A |date=June 1, 2012 }}'', No. 10-2204, slip op. (May 31, 2012).</ref> On June 29, BLAG filed a petition for [[Certiorari#United States|certiorari]] with the Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite web |work=Washington Blade |url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/06/29/breaking-boehner-appeals-doma-cases-to-supreme-court/ |first=Chris |last=Johnson |title=Boehner appeals DOMA cases to Supreme Court |date=June 20, 2012 |access-date=June 29, 2012}}</ref> The DOJ did so on July 3, while asking the Supreme Court to review ''Golinski'' as well.<ref name=dojcert /> The Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a response to both petitions adding the Spending Clause and Tenth Amendment issues as questions presented.<ref group=n>The Commonwealth also filed its own petition in ''Massachusetts'' in case the court found the response was not the proper way to raise those issues.</ref> The Supreme Court denied these petitions on June 27, 2013, following its decision in ''Windsor''.

===''United States v. Windsor''===
{{Main|United States v. Windsor}}
On November 9, 2010, the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] filed ''[[United States v. Windsor]]'' in New York on behalf of a surviving same-sex spouse whose inheritance from her deceased spouse had been subject to federal taxation as if they were unmarried.<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/us/09marriage.html |first=John |last=Schwartz |title=Gay Couples to Sue Over U.S. Marriage Law |date=November 8, 2010 |access-date=February 23, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Widow's $363,000 Tax Bill Led to Obama Shift on Marriage Act |author=Andrew M. Harris |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-28/a-363-000-tax-bill-to-widow-led-to-obama-shift-in-defense-of-marriage-act.html |newspaper=Bloomberg Businessweek |date=February 28, 2011 |access-date=July 31, 2011}}</ref> New York is part of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|Second Circuit]], where no precedent exists for the standard of review to be followed in sexual-orientation discrimination cases.

New York Attorney General [[Eric Schneiderman]] filed a brief supporting Windsor's claim on July 26, 2011.<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/new-york-attorney-general-take.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=New York Attorney General Takes Edith Windsor's Side in DOMA Challenge |date=July 26, 2011 |access-date=July 27, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110806181726/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/new-york-attorney-general-take.html |archive-date=August 6, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>[[File:Mommy, Mama and Baby Georgie (9181858236).jpg|thumb|Same-sex couple celebrating legal victory at San Francisco Pride 2013]]

On June 6, 2012, Judge [[Barbara S. Jones|Barbara Jones]] ruled that based on rational basis review Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and ordered the requested tax refund be paid to Windsor. The plaintiff commented, "It's thrilling to have a court finally recognize how unfair it is for the government to have treated us as though we were strangers."<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/another-federal-judge-finds-doma-marriage-definiti.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Another Federal Judge Finds DOMA Marriage Definition Unconstitutional, Now in Widow's Case |date=June 6, 2012 |access-date=June 6, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120607051055/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/another-federal-judge-finds-doma-marriage-definiti.html |archive-date=June 7, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Windsor's attorneys filed a petition of certiorari with the Supreme Court on July 16, asking for the case to be considered without waiting for the Second Circuit's review.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/07/widow-petitions-doma-case-to-the-supreme-court.html |first=Justin |last=Snow |title=Widow Petitions DOMA Case to the Supreme Court |date=July 16, 2012 |access-date=July 16, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120722133026/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/07/widow-petitions-doma-case-to-the-supreme-court.html |archive-date=July 22, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> On October 18, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite news|last=Baynes|first=Terry|title=Appeals court rules against Defense of Marriage Act|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gaymarriage-appeal-idUSBRE89H12L20121018|access-date=October 18, 2012|newspaper=[[Reuters]]|date=October 18, 2012}}</ref><ref name=2ndCir>{{cite web|title=Windsor v. USA |url=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/436f323b-5e40-411a-9026-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf |publisher=[[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] |access-date=October 18, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130108041134/http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/436f323b-5e40-411a-9026-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf |archive-date=January 8, 2013 }}</ref> According to an ACLU press release, this ruling was "the first federal appeals court decision to decide that government discrimination against gay people [[Intermediate scrutiny|gets a more exacting level of judicial review]]".<ref>{{cite news|publisher=ACLU Press Release|title=Federal Appeals Court Declares "Defense of Marriage Act" Unconstitutional|url=https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/federal-appeals-court-declares-defense-marriage-act-unconstitutional|access-date = July 25, 2013}}</ref> In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated:<ref>{{cite news|last=Weiss|first=Debra Cassens|title=2nd Circuit Rules for Surviving Gay Spouse, Says DOMA Violates Equal Protection Clause|url=http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/2nd_circuit_rules_for_surviving_gay_spouse_seeking_estate_tax_deduction_in_/|access-date=18 October 2012|newspaper=ABA Journal|date=18 October 2012}}</ref>

<blockquote>Our straightforward legal analysis sidesteps the fair point that same-sex marriage is unknown to history and tradition, but law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status—however fundamental—and New York has elected to extend that status to same-sex couples.</blockquote>

On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments were heard on March 27, 2013.<ref>{{cite news| first = Jonathan | last = Stempel | title = Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases in late March | work = Reuters| date = January 7, 2013 | url = https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSBRE9060N820130107| access-date=January 7, 2013}}</ref> In a 5–4 decision on June 26, 2013, the Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, declaring it "a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment."<ref name="Opinion" />{{rp|25}}

On July 18, 2013, the [[Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group]] (BLAG), which had mounted a defense of Section 3 when the administration declined to, acknowledged that in ''Windsor'' "[t]he Supreme Court recently resolved the issue of DOMA Section 3's constitutionality" and said "it no longer will defend that statute."<ref>{{cite news|last=Geidner|first=Chris|title=House Republicans Cave On Marriage Fight |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/house-republicans-cave-on-marriage-fight |access-date=July 18, 2013|newspaper=BuzzFeed |date=July 18, 2013}}</ref>

===''Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management''===
''[[Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' is a case filed by GLAD in Connecticut on behalf of same-sex couples in Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire, in which GLAD repeats the arguments it made in ''Gill''.

On July 31, 2012, Judge [[Vanessa Lynne Bryant]] ruled that "having considered the purported rational bases proffered by both BLAG and Congress and concluded that such objectives bear no rational relationship to Section 3 of DOMA as a legislative scheme, the Court finds that that no conceivable rational basis exists for the provision. The provision therefore violates the equal protection principles incorporated in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."<ref>{{cite web|last=Bolcer|first=Julie|title=Judge Rules DOMA Unconstitutional in Pedersen Case|url=http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/07/31/breaking-judge-rules-doma-unconstitutional-pedersen-case|date=31 July 2012|access-date=31 July 2012}}</ref> She held that "laws that classify people based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny by courts" but determined Section 3 of DOMA "fails to pass constitutional muster under even the most deferential level of judicial scrutiny."<ref name=buzz>{{cite web |last=Geidner |first=Chris |title=Federal Trial Court In Connecticut Strikes Down DOMA's Marriage Definition|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-trial-court-in-connecticut-strikes-down-do|publisher=BuzzFeed Politics |date=31 July 2012 |access-date=31 July 2012}}</ref><ref name=tpm1>{{cite web|last=Geidner |first=Ryan J. |title=Bush Appointee Rules DOMA Unconstitutional |url=http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/bush_appointee_rules_doma_unconstitutional.php |publisher=Talking Points Memo |date=31 July 2012 |access-date=31 July 2012}}</ref> The case was appealed to the Second Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, Pedersen asked the Supreme Court to review the case before the Second Circuit decides it so it can be heard together with ''[[Gill v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' and ''[[Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services]]''.<ref>''Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management'', [http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/pedersen-v-opm/pedersen-plaintiffs-cert-petition-08-21-12.pdf Petition for Certiorari Before Judgment] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924022459/http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/pedersen-v-opm/pedersen-plaintiffs-cert-petition-08-21-12.pdf |date=September 24, 2015 }}. Retrieved August 21, 2012.</ref> The Supreme Court denied these petitions on June 27, 2013, following its decision in ''Windsor''.

===Other cases===
Other cases that challenged DOMA include:<ref>{{cite web |date=February 28, 2011 |title=Pending cases where the Defense of Marriage Act is being challenged |url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/49755370/List-of-Pending-DOMA-Cases}}</ref>
* ''Dragovich v. Department of the Treasury'', No. 10-1564 (N.D. Cal.), a class action in which California same-sex couples seek equal access to California's long-term care insurance program for public employees and their families. U.S. District Court Judge [[Claudia Wilken]] on May 24, 2012, found Section 3 of DOMA and certain IRS regulations violated the plaintiffs' equal protection rights.<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/05/on-thursday-evening-a-federal.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Federal Judge Rules DOMA, Tax Code Force Unconstitutional Treatment For Same-Sex Couples |date=May 25, 2012 |access-date=May 25, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120525155710/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/05/on-thursday-evening-a-federal.html |archive-date=May 25, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
* ''Hara v. Office of Personnel Management'', No. 09-3134 (Fed. Cir.) Hara is one of the plaintiffs in ''Gill''.
* ''Torres-Barragan v. Holder'', No. 10-55768 (9th Cir.) An immigration-related DOMA challenge in which the district court rejected the constitutional challenges.<ref>{{cite web|title=Torres-Barragan v. Holder|url=http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12588|work=Civilo Rights Litigation Clearinghouse|publisher=University of Michigan Law School|access-date=January 14, 2013}}</ref>
* ''Cozen O'Connor v. Tobits'', No. 11-00045-CDJ, Pennsylvania, in which two parties dispute who inherits the proceeds of a law firm's profit-sharing plan under ERISA and DOMA. The DOJ filed a brief arguing the unconstitutionality of DOMA.<ref>{{cite news |work=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette |url=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12009/1201860-499.stm |first=Gina |last=Passarella |title=U.S. Justice Department argues that Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional |date=January 9, 2012 |access-date=February 12, 2012}}</ref> Following the decision in ''Windsor'', Judge [[C. Darnell Jones II]] ruled that the widow qualified as the deceased's spouse since Illinois, their state of domicile, recognized them as spouses in a civil union as defined by Illinois.<ref>{{cite news|last=Geidner|first=Chris|title=Federal Judge Says DOMA Ruling Changes Private Companies' Retirement Plans|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-judge-says-doma-ruling-changes-private-companies-ret|access-date=August 2, 2013|newspaper=BuzzFeed|date=July 29, 2013}}</ref> The deceased's parents dropped their appeal on August 30.<ref>{{cite news|last=Packel|first=Dan|title=Late Cozen Atty's Family Drops Same-Sex Benefits Fight|url=http://www.law360.com/m/articles/469086/late-cozen-atty-s-family-drops-same-sex-benefits-fight|access-date=August 31, 2013|newspaper=Law 360|date=August 30, 2013}}</ref>
* On April 5, 2012, Chief Judge [[James Ware (judge)|James Ware]] of the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California|U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California]] ordered the federal court clerk to reimburse Christopher Nathan, a court employee, for the costs of health insurance coverage for his same-sex spouse comparable to that denied him by Section 3 of DOMA.<ref>{{cite news |work=San Francisco Chronicle |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/05/BAOM1NV12O.DTL |first=Bob |last=Egelko |title=Same-sex benefits denial is ruled discriminatory |date=April 5, 2012 |access-date=April 5, 2012}}</ref> On November 21, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference affirmed Ware's decision and ordered the court to determine the amount due Nathan and pay him within 10 days.<ref>{{cite news|last=Egelko|first=Bob|title=Same-sex case ruling favors gay employee|url=http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Same-sex-case-ruling-favors-gay-employee-4063964.php|access-date=November 26, 2012|newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle|date=November 25, 2012}}</ref>

==== Military and veterans cases ====
On October 13, 2011, Carmen Cardona, a U.S. Navy veteran, filed a lawsuit in the [[United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims]] seeking disability benefits for her wife that the Veterans Administration and the Board of Veterans Appeals had denied.<ref>{{cite news|last=Dao|first=James|title=Denied Veterans Benefits Over Same-Sex Marriage, Ex-Sailor Challenges Law|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/us/denied-veterans-benefits-over-same-sex-marriage-carmen-cardona-sues.html|access-date=3 October 2012|newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=12 October 2011}}</ref> Cardona was represented by the Yale Law School Legal Services Clinic.<ref>{{cite web|title=Cardona v. Shinseki|url=http://www.law.yale.edu/academics/vlsc_cardona.htm|work=Veterans Legal Services Clinic|publisher=Yale Law School|access-date=3 October 2012}}</ref> At the request of BLAG, which defended the government's action, and over Cardona's objections, the court postponed oral argument in ''[[Cardona v. Shinseki]]'' pending the Supreme Court's disposition of writs of certiorari in other DOMA cases.<ref>Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: [https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=ShowDoc/01202223555 Number:11-3083], accessed November 26, 2012</ref>

On October 27, 2011, the [[Servicemembers Legal Defense Network]] (SLDN) brought suit in federal court on behalf of several military servicemembers and veterans in same-sex marriages. In a November 21 filing in the case of ''McLaughlin v. Panetta'', they wrote, "Any claim that DOMA, as applied to military spousal benefits, survives rational basis review is strained because paying unequal benefits to service members runs directly counter to the military values of uniformity, fairness and unit cohesion." The benefits at issue include medical and dental benefits, basic housing and transportation allowances, family separation benefits, visitation rights in military hospitals, and survivor benefit plans.<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=6798 |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=SLDN Takes Aim at DOMA |date=November 23, 2011 |access-date=February 11, 2012}}</ref> The case was assigned to Judge [[Richard Gaylore Stearns|Richard G. Stearns]]. One of the plaintiffs in the case, lesbian Charlie Morgan, who was undergoing chemotherapy, met with an assistant to Boehner on February 9, 2012, to ask him to consider not defending DOMA.<ref>{{cite news |work=Huffington Post |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/charlie-morgan-lesbian-guardsman-cancer-john-boehner-doma_n_1263814.html |first=Andrea |last=Stone |title=Charlie Morgan, Lesbian Guardsman With Cancer, Meets John Boehner Staffer To Push DOMA Repeal |date=February 9, 2012 |access-date=February 11, 2012}}</ref> The case is on hold at the request of both sides in anticipation of the outcome of two other First Circuit cases on appeal, ''[[Gill v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' and ''[[Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services]]''.<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/sldn-doj-agree-to-60-day-delay.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=SLDN, DOJ Agree to 60-Day Delay in Case Challenging Gay Servicemembers' Spousal Benefits |date=February 16, 2012 |access-date=February 17, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120216212841/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/sldn-doj-agree-to-60-day-delay.html |archive-date=February 16, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> On February 17, the DOJ announced it could not defend the constitutionality of the statutes challenged in the case.<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/doj-wont-defend-laws-preventin.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=DOJ Won't Defend Laws Preventing Equal Treatment for Servicemembers With Same-Sex Spouses |date=February 17, 2012 |access-date=February 17, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120219223955/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/doj-wont-defend-laws-preventin.html |archive-date=February 19, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> In May 2012, the parties filed briefs arguing whether BLAG has a right to intervene.<ref>{{cite web |work=Wisconsin Gazette |url=http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/boehner-moves-to-defend-anti-gay-doma-in-military-case.html |title=Boehner moves to defend anti-gay DOMA in military case |date=May 4, 2012 |access-date=June 13, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130209080712/http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/boehner-moves-to-defend-anti-gay-doma-in-military-case.html |archive-date=February 9, 2013 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> On June 27, Stearns asked the parties to explain by July 18 why given the decision in ''Windsor'' he should not find for the plaintiffs.<ref>{{cite news|last=Geidner|first=Chris|title=House Republicans Face Decision On Fighting Gay Veterans' Spousal Benefits|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/house-republicans-face-decision-on-fighting-gay-veterans-spo |access-date=July 17, 2013|newspaper=BuzzFeed|date=July 17, 2013}}</ref> On July 18, BLAG's response acknowledged that "[t]he Supreme Court recently resolved the issue of DOMA Section 3's constitutionality" and asked to be allowed to withdraw from the case. It took no position on the two statutes at issue in the case, which define a "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex", except to say that "the question of whether [that definition] is constitutional remains open".<ref>{{cite news|last=Geidner|first=Chris|title=House Republicans Cave On Marriage Fight |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/house-republicans-cave-on-marriage-fight|access-date=July 18, 2013|newspaper=BuzzFeed |date=July 18, 2013}}</ref>

Tracey Cooper-Harris, an Army veteran from California, sued the [[United States Department of Veterans Affairs|Veterans Administration]] and the DOJ in federal court on February 1, 2012, asking for her wife to receive the benefits normally granted to spouses of disabled veterans.<ref>{{cite web |work=Pasadena Sun |url=http://articles.pasadenasun.com/2012-02-01/news/31014248_1_marriage-act-sexual-orientation-spouses |title=Pasadena same-sex couple sues VA over benefits |date=February 1, 2012 |access-date=February 11, 2012 |archive-date=May 11, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120511030224/http://articles.pasadenasun.com/2012-02-01/news/31014248_1_marriage-act-sexual-orientation-spouses |url-status=dead }}</ref> BLAG sought a delay in ''Cooper-Harris v. United States'' pending the resolution of ''Golinski'', which the attorneys for Cooper-Harris, the [[Southern Poverty Law Center]], opposed. The court denied BLAG's motion on August 4.<ref>{{cite web|last=Snow|first=Justin|title=Court Denies Motion To Stay DOMA Case Proceedings|url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/08/court-denies-motion-to-stay-doma-case-proceedings.html|publisher=Metro Weekly|date=August 3, 2012|access-date=August 3, 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120806020807/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/08/court-denies-motion-to-stay-doma-case-proceedings.html|archive-date=August 6, 2012|df=mdy-all}}</ref> In February 2013, Judge [[Consuelo Bland Marshall|Consuelo Marshall]] rejected the DOJ's argument that the case could only be heard by the [[Board of Veterans' Appeals]] and allowed the case to proceed.<ref>{{cite news|title=Tracey Cooper-Harris, Gay California Veteran, Moves Forward With DOMA Lawsuit |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/tracey-cooper-harris-gay-california-veteran-doma-suit_n_2765302.html |access-date=July 18, 2013|newspaper=Huffington Post|date=February 25, 2013}}</ref> BLAG asked to withdraw from the lawsuit on July 22.<ref>[https://www.scribd.com/doc/155453235/2-12-cv-00887-136 Application to Withdraw], accessed July 23, 2013</ref>

==== Bankruptcy court ====
In May 2011, DOMA-based challenges by the Department of Justice to joint petitions for bankruptcy by married same-sex couples were denied in two cases, one in the Southern District of New York on May 4 and one in the Eastern District of California on May 31. Both rulings stressed practical considerations and avoided ruling on DOMA.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=American Bankruptcy Institute |url=http://blog.startfreshtoday.com/2011/06/articles/practicing-bankruptcy-law/bankruptcy-judge-bypasses-doma-to-allow-joint-bankruptcy-filing-by-samesex-spouses/ |title=Bankruptcy Judge Bypasses DOMA to Allow Joint Bankruptcy Filing by Same-Sex Spouses |date=June 3, 2011 |access-date=June 9, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110610152647/http://blog.startfreshtoday.com/2011/06/articles/practicing-bankruptcy-law/bankruptcy-judge-bypasses-doma-to-allow-joint-bankruptcy-filing-by-samesex-spouses/ |archive-date=June 10, 2011 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>''[http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/opinions/cgm/204950_31_opinion.pdf In re Somers and Caggiano] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120916131020/http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/opinions/cgm/204950_31_opinion.pdf |date=September 16, 2012 }}'', 10-38296, slip op. (Bky.S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2011). Retrieved June 9, 2011.</ref>

On June 13, 2011, 20 of the 25 judges of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California signed an opinion in the case ''in re Balas and Morales'' that found that a same-sex married couple filing for bankruptcy "have made their case persuasively that DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled." The decision found DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional and dismissed BLAG's objections to the joint filing:<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/06/bankruptcy-court-doma-unconsti.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Bankruptcy Court: DOMA Unconstitutionally Limits Same-Sex Married Couples From Joint Bankruptcy Filing |date=June 13, 2011 |access-date=June 13, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110617033106/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/06/bankruptcy-court-doma-unconsti.html |archive-date=June 17, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://sdgln.com/causes/2011/06/13/bankruptcy-court-rules-section-3-doma-unconstitutional |title=Bankruptcy Court rules section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional |publisher=SDGLN |date=June 13, 2011 |access-date=June 13, 2011}}</ref>

<blockquote>Although individual members of Congress have every right to express their views and the views of their constituents with respect to their religious beliefs and principles and their personal standards of who may marry whom, this court cannot conclude that Congress is entitled to solemnize such views in the laws of this nation in disregard of the views, legal status and living arrangements of a significant segment of our citizenry that includes the Debtors in this case. To do so violates the Debtors' right to equal protection of those laws embodied in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. This court cannot conclude from the evidence or the record in this case that any valid governmental interest is advanced by DOMA as applied to the Debtors.</blockquote>

A spokesman for House Speaker Boehner said BLAG would not appeal the ruling,<ref>{{cite news |title=A California Bankruptcy Court Rejects U.S. Law Barring Same-Sex Marriage |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/us/politics/15bankruptcy.html |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=June 14, 2011 |access-date=June 16, 2011 |first=John |last=Schwartz}}</ref> On July 7, 2011, the DOJ announced that after consultation with BLAG it would no longer raise objections to "bankruptcy petitions filed jointly by same-sex couples who are married under state law".<ref>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/us-trustee-withdraws-appeal-of.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=U.S. Trustee Withdraws Appeal of Gay Couple's Bankruptcy Court DOMA Victory |date=July 7, 2011 |access-date=July 7, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110710021212/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/us-trustee-withdraws-appeal-of.html |archive-date=July 10, 2011 |df=mdy }}</ref>

==== Immigration cases ====
Bi-national same-sex couples were kept from legally living in the United States by DOMA's Section 3, which prevented one spouse from sponsoring the other for a [[Permanent residence (United States)|green card]].<ref>{{cite news |work=New York Daily News |url=http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/vermont-senator-urges-same-sex-marriages-immigrant-spouses-article-1.375661 |first=Allan |last=Wernick |title=Vermont Senator urges same-sex marriages OK for 'immigrant spouses' |date=June 10, 2009 |access-date=December 19, 2011}}</ref> Following some uncertainty after the Obama Administration determined Section 3 to be unconstitutional, the [[United States Citizenship and Immigration Services]] (USCIS) reaffirmed its policy of denying such applications.<ref>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/03/immigration-official-the-hold.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Immigration Official: 'The Hold Is Over' |date=March 30, 2011 |access-date=March 30, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110401043538/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/03/immigration-official-the-hold.html |archive-date=April 1, 2011 |df=mdy }}</ref> With respect to obtaining a visitor's visa, Bureau rules treated bi-national same-sex spouses the same as bi-national opposite-sex unmarried partners under the classification "cohabiting partners".<ref>{{cite web|publisher=Travel.state.gov |url=https://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_1414.html |title=B2 Classification for Cohabiting Partners |access-date=March 28, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110326164945/http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_1414.html |archive-date=March 26, 2011 |df=mdy }}</ref>

[[Tim Coco]] and Genesio J. Oliveira, a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts in 2005, successfully challenged this policy and developed a model since followed by other immigration activists.<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/us/09marriage.html |first=Julia |last=Preston |title=Justice Dept. to Continue Policy Against Same-Sex Marriage |date=May 8, 2011 |access-date=August 7, 2011}}</ref> The U.S. refused to recognize their marriage, and in 2007 Oliveira, a Brazilian national, accepted "voluntary departure" and returned to Brazil. They conducted a national press campaign<ref>{{cite web |work=AdWeek |url=http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/mass-ad-exec-fights-two-battles-ads-15930 |title=Mass. ad exec fights two battles with ads |date=April 29, 2008 |access-date=August 7, 2011}}</ref> A ''[[Boston Globe]]'' editorial commented, "Great strides toward equality for gays have been made in this country, but the woeful fate of Tim Coco and Genesio Oliveira shows that thousands of same-sex couples, even in Massachusetts, still aren't really full citizens."<ref>{{cite news|work=[[Boston Globe]] |url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/08/27/reunite_this_family/ |title=Reunite this family |date=August 27, 2007 |access-date=August 7, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100620145355/http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/08/27/reunite_this_family/ |archive-date=June 20, 2010 }}</ref> The editorial gained the attention of Senator [[John F. Kerry]], who first lobbied [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Eric Holder]] without success.<ref>{{cite news |work=Huffington Post |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/20/kerry-seeks-asylum-for-ga_n_177504.html |first=Meilssa |last=Trujillo |title=Kerry Seeks Asylum For Gay Brazilian Wed In Mass. |date=March 20, 2009 |access-date=August 7, 2011}}</ref> He then gained the support of [[United States Secretary of Homeland Security|Homeland Security Secretary]] [[Janet Napolitano]], who granted Oliveira [[Parole (United States immigration)|humanitarian parole]], enabling the couple to reunite in the U.S. in June 2010.<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The Boston Globe]] |url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/04/gay_couple_get_a_boost_in_winning_bid_to_reunite/ |first=Maria |last=Sacchetti |title=Gay couple get a boost in winning bid to reunite |date=June 4, 2010 |access-date=August 7, 2011}}</ref> Humanitarian parole is granted on a case-by-case basis at the Secretary's discretion.<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/14/nyregion/14orphan.html |first=Nina |last=Bernstein |title=A Contest of Suffering, With the U.S. as a Prize |date=October 14, 2005 |access-date=August 7, 2011}}</ref>

On September 28, 2011, in ''Lui v. Holder'', U.S. District Court Judge [[Stephen Victor Wilson|Stephen V. Wilson]] rejected a challenge to DOMA, citing ''[[Adams v. Howerton]]'' (1982).<ref>673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982).</ref> The plaintiffs in that case had unsuccessfully challenged the denial of immediate relative status to the same-sex spouse of an American citizen.<ref>''[http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/LuiVHolder-Order.pdf Lui v. Holder] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111010102841/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/LuiVHolder-Order.pdf |date=October 10, 2011 }}'', No: 2:11-CV-01267-SVW (JCGx) (C.D. Cal. September 28, 2011). Retrieved October 4, 2011.</ref><ref>{{cite web |work=The Advocate |url=http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/09/29/Judge_Throws_Out_Binational_Couple_s_DOMA_Suit/ |first=Andrew |last=Harmon |title=Judge Throws Out Binational Couple's DOMA Lawsuit |date=September 29, 2011 |access-date=October 4, 2011}}</ref> Early in 2012, two bi-national same-sex couples were granted "deferred action" status, suspending deportation proceedings against the non-U.S. citizen for a year.<ref>{{cite news |work=Huffington Post |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/bradford-wells-anthony-john-makk-deportation-reprieve_n_1186291.html |title=Bradford Wells and Anthony John Makk, San Francisco Gay Married Couple, Win Deportation Reprieve For Two Years |date=January 5, 2012 |access-date=February 9, 2012 |first=Curtis |last=Wong}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |work=Huffington Post |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/same-sex-immigration-relief_n_1266829.html |first=Elise |last=Foley |title=Same-Sex Couple Wins Immigration Relief, Despite Defense Of Marriage Act |date=February 9, 2012 |access-date=February 9, 2012}}</ref> A similar Texas couple had a deportation case dismissed in March 2012, leaving the non-citizen spouse unable to work legally in the United States but no longer subject to the threat of deportation.<ref>{{cite web |work=Houston Chronicle |url=http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Gay-married-immigrant-spared-from-deportation-3395916.php |first=Susan |last=Carroll |title=Gay, married immigrant spared from deportation |date=March 9, 2012 |access-date=March 10, 2012}}</ref>

On January 5, 2012, the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois|U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois]] in Chicago decided the suit of a same-sex binational couple. Demos Revelis and Marcel Maas, married in Iowa in 2010, sought to prevent the USCIS from applying Section 3 of DOMA to Revelis's application for a permanent residence visa for Maas and, in the court's words, "that their petition be reviewed and decided on the same basis as other married couples."<ref>''[http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2011cv01991/253811/34/0.pdf?1325850164 Revelis v. Napolitano] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120916113239/http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2011cv01991/253811/34/0.pdf?1325850164 |date=September 16, 2012 }}'', 11 C 1991, slip op. (N.D. Ill. January 5, 2012). Retrieved March 2, 2012.</ref> Judge [[Harry Daniel Leinenweber|Harry D. Leinenweber]], a Reagan appointee, denied the government's motion to dismiss. BLAG has argued for the suit to be dismissed.<ref name=blesch /> In July the court stayed proceedings until mid-October because the USCIS was considering denying the plaintiffs' request on grounds unrelated to DOMA.<ref>[http://www.abisoft.org/opinions/2012/1_11-cv-01991_20120712.pdf ''Revelis v. Napolitano'', granting motion to stay] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120916131020/http://www.abisoft.org/opinions/2012/1_11-cv-01991_20120712.pdf |date=September 16, 2012 }}, July 12, 2012. Retrieved August 2, 2012</ref>

On April 2, 2012, five bi-national same-sex couples represented by [[Immigration Equality (organization)|Immigration Equality]] and Paul, Weiss filed a lawsuit, ''Blesch v. Holder'', in the [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York|District Court for the Eastern District of New York]], claiming that Section 3 of DOMA violated their equal protection rights by denying the U.S. citizen in the relationship the same rights in the green card application process granted a U.S. citizen who is in a relationship of partners of the opposite sex.<ref name=blesch>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/04/immigration-equality-files-doma-challenge-obama-ad.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Immigration Equality Files DOMA Challenge, Obama Administration Left Them 'No Choice' |date=April 2, 2012 |access-date=April 2, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120406194353/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/04/immigration-equality-files-doma-challenge-obama-ad.html |archive-date=April 6, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> On July 25, Chief Judge [[Carol Amon]] stayed the case pending the resolution of ''Windsor'' by the Second Circuit.<ref>{{cite web|title=Blesch v. Holder (Immigration Equality's DOMA case) put on hold|url=http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/qh/blesch-v-holder-immigration-equalitys-doma-case-put-on-hold/|publisher=Prop8TrialTracker|access-date=30 July 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130201002207/http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/qh/blesch-v-holder-immigration-equalitys-doma-case-put-on-hold/|archive-date=February 1, 2013|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

Immigration rights advocate Lavi Soloway reported on June 19, 2012, that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had in four cases responded to green card denials on the part of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by asking the USCIS to document the marital status of the same-sex couples and determine whether the foreign national would qualify for a green card in the absence of DOMA Section 3. He said the BIA is "essentially setting the stage for being able to approve the petitions in a post-DOMA universe."<ref>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/mote-than-a-year-ago.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Same-Sex Couples Facing Immigration Questions Receive Temporary Relief From DOJ Immigration Board |date=June 19, 2012 |access-date=June 19, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120621040500/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/mote-than-a-year-ago.html |archive-date=June 21, 2012 |df=mdy }}</ref>

On April 19, 2013, U.S. District Judge [[Consuelo Bland Marshall|Consuelo Marshall]] ordered that a suit brought in July 2012 by Jane DeLeon, a Philippine citizen, and her spouse, Irma Rodriguez, a U.S. citizen, could proceed as a class action. The plaintiffs, represented by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, contended that DeLeon was denied a residency waiver because of DOMA Section 3.<ref>{{cite news|title=Judge rules lesbian immigrant can challenge DOMA |url=http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/apr/20/judge-rules-lesbian-immigrant-can-challenge-doma/|access-date=April 23, 2013 |newspaper=U-T San Diego |date=April 20, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Dobuzinskis|first=Alex|title=Lesbian immigrant from PH challenges US gay marriage ban|url=http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-filipino/07/13/12/lesbian-immigrant-ph-challenges-us-gay-marriage-ban|access-date=April 23, 2013|newspaper=ABS-CBN News|date=July 13, 2012}}</ref>

On June 28, 2013, the USCIS notified U.S. citizen Julian Marsh that it had approved the green card petition for his Bulgarian husband Traian Popov. Both are residents of Florida.<ref>{{cite news|title=Gay Couple Receives Green Card After Supreme Court Ruling: DOMA Project|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/gay-couple-green-card_n_3522323.html|access-date=June 30, 2013|newspaper=Huffington Post|date=June 29, 2013|first=Mollie|last=Reilly}}</ref> On July 3, the USCIS office in Centennial, Colorado, granted Cathy Davis, a citizen of Ireland, a green card based on her marriage to U.S. citizen Catriona Dowling.<ref>{{cite news |title=Boulder lesbian couple gets green card after DOMA falls - The Denver Post|url=http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23604690/lesbian-couple-from-boulder-get-green-card-after|access-date=July 6, 2013|newspaper=Denver Post|date=July 5, 2013|first=Joey|last=Bunch}}</ref>

==== Tribunals ====
In 2009, [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] Judge [[Stephen Reinhardt]] declared DOMA unconstitutional in ''in re Levenson'', an employment dispute resolution tribunal case, where the federal government refused to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson.<ref>560 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2009).</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/gay-marriage.html |title=Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same-sex spouse unconstitutional |work=Los Angeles Times |date=February 9, 2009 |access-date=November 6, 2009}}</ref> As an employee of the federal judiciary, Levenson is prohibited from suing his employer in federal court. Rather, employment disputes are handled at employment dispute resolution tribunals in which a federal judge hears the dispute in their capacity as a dispute resolution official.