Warning: realpath() [function.realpath]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/home/hunterog/images) is not within the allowed path(s): (/home/hunterog/public_html:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php:/tmp:/opt/cpanel/ea-php54/root/usr/share/pear:/opt/cpanel/ea-php55/root/usr/share/pear:/opt/cpanel/ea-php56/root/usr/share/pear:/opt/cpanel/ea-php70/root/usr/share/pear:/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php54:/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php55:/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php56:/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php70) in /home/hunterog/public_html/site/wp-includes/functions.php on line 1385

Warning: realpath() [function.realpath]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/home/hunterog/images) is not within the allowed path(s): (/home/hunterog/public_html:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php:/tmp:/opt/cpanel/ea-php54/root/usr/share/pear:/opt/cpanel/ea-php55/root/usr/share/pear:/opt/cpanel/ea-php56/root/usr/share/pear:/opt/cpanel/ea-php70/root/usr/share/pear:/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php54:/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php55:/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php56:/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php70) in /home/hunterog/public_html/site/wp-includes/functions.php on line 1385
New timeline in Gill v. OPM | Hunter of Justice

New timeline in Gill v. OPM

by on June 26, 2009  •  In DoMA

Widely known as "the GLAD case," Gill v OPM is the Boston-based challenge to key portions of DoMA and is also probably the next case in which the Justice Department will have to file a brief on the constitutionality of that statute.  For various reasons, the plaintiffs plan to file an amended complaint, which will in turn push back the due date for DoJ's response. The expected new date for DoJ is September 18.  This is good news – it will give DoJ more time to think through its arguments and do the right thing….I hope.

About

2 Responses to New timeline in Gill v. OPM

  1. Steve June 26, 2009 at 3:45 PM

    But, Nan, what do you think the government’s brief should say? The Smelt brief was the standard defense of a marriage ban.

    Can the DOJ both abide by its rules regarding its duty to defend but also argue that heightened scrutiny applies to sexual orientation-based classifications? Or that the right of privacy is not to be narrowly restricted?

    If the DOJ just uses technical and/or novel arguments that evade the big issues, how is that consistent with their ethical obligation toward their client, the U.S.?

    Don’t get me wrong. I think GLAD was supremely irresponsible to bring this suit now. But now that it’s been brought, how does the DOJ both insistent upon defending DOMA and also avoid embracing anti-progressive interpretations of the Consitution?

  2. Steve June 26, 2009 at 3:49 PM

    How about this? The DOJ says it does not agree with the interpretation of the constitution that would be necessary to vigorously defend DOMA, so it appoints a special counsel to handle the Gill case.

    It’s better for GLAD to have the political oversight that comes with DOJ defense. But if the DOJ is just going to endorse really harmful interpretations of the constitution, then, at the end of the day, I’d rather not have the Administration associated with those interpretations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *