Bankruptcy Court in California Finds DOMA Unconstitutional


Posted on June 14th, 2011 by Katherine Franke
 3 comments  

Yesterday the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California released an opinion finding Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in a bankruptcy filing brought by a married same-sex couple, Gene Douglas Balas and Carlos A. Morales.  Balas and Morales had been married in California during the window when marriages of same-sex couples were legal, and filed for bankruptcy on Feb. 24, one day after Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Obama Administration’s position that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional.

The Bankruptcy Court relied heavily on AG Holder’s letter explaining the grounds upon which the Administration took the view that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional and that sexual orientation-based discrimination be granted the highest level of constitutional scrutiny.

Two things are worth noting about the case, apart from the finding that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation:

1. 20 of the judges sitting on the bankruptcy court for the central district of California signed the decision – signaling that an overwhelming majority of the judges in that district are in agreement with the outcome of the case;

2. The House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which hired Paul Clement to serve as their counsel in the defense of DOMA after the Administration announced that it would no longer defend the law in court, made a last minute motion to intervene in the case, yet never followed up with papers doing so.  My guess is that Clement and his crack legal team over at Bancroft have their hands full with defending DOMA in numerous other cases and simply weren’t equipped to take on another matter.  This is one of the implications of Clement’s representation of DOMA moving from King and Spalding (a large firm) to the Bancroft firm (a small, boutique firm) – Bancroft simply doesn’t have the staff to “man up” a full legal team in all of the DOMA challenges underway.

3 comments

  1. Bankruptcy Court in California Finds DOMA Unconstitutional http://t.co/rbAQoww

  2. Getting a property venture absent the ground works as a significant confront. So a good solid startup labeled GroundBreaker has introduced a white-label crowdfunding program that house entrepreneurs may to raise funds for their ..

  3. Nice blog. I will keep reading. Please take the time to visit my blog about FARMAKER costruisce

Add a comment


Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.

FEATURED POSTS

CATEGORY CLOUD

"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Activism Adoption adultery Advocacy Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Clinic Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Earth Day Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Feminism Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy Gender Justice GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Intersectional Feminism Islamophobia Israel Jobs Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Marriage Equality Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Obergefell Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Exemptions Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work Silencing of voices SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Solidarity Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Work Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.