Commonwealth Of Mass. v. United States Dep't Of Health And Human Serv.

• Citation: 698 F.Supp.2d 234
• Decision Date: 08 July 2010
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 1:09-11156-JLT.
• Parties: Commonwealth of MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; Kathleen Sebelius, in her official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; United States Department of Veterans Affairs; Eric K. Shinseki, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; and the United States of America, Defendants.
• Court: United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts

698 F.Supp.2d 234

Commonwealth of MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; Kathleen Sebelius, in her official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; United States Department of Veterans Affairs; Eric K. Shinseki, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; and the United States of America, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:09-11156-JLT.

United States District Court,

D. Massachusetts.

July 8, 2010.

Christopher K. Barry-Smith, Maura T. Healey, Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, Jonathan B. Miller, Office of the Attorney General, Jessica M. Lindemann, Office of Attorney General Martha Coakley, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.

Christopher R. Hall, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

TAURO, District Judge.

I. Introduction

This action presents a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ¹ as applied to Plaintiff the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the “Commonwealth”).² Specifically, the Commonwealth contends that DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, by intruding on areas of exclusive state authority, as well as the Spending Clause, by forcing the Commonwealth to engage in invidious discrimination against its own citizens in order to receive and retain federal funds in connection with two joint federal-state programs. Because this court agrees Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [# 16] is DENIED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [# 26] is ALLOWED.³

II. Background ⁴

A. The Defense of Marriage Act

Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) in 1996, and President Clinton signed it into law.⁵ The Commonwealth, by this lawsuit, challenges Section 3 of DOMA, which defines the terms “marriage” and “spouse,” for purposes of federal law, to include only the union of one man and one woman. In pertinent part, Section 3 provides:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” ⁶

As of December 31, 2003, there were at least “a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges,” according to estimates from the General Accounting Office. ⁷ These statutory provisions pertain to a variety of subjects, including, but not limited to Social Security, taxes, immigration, and healthcare.⁸

B. The History of Marital Status Determinations in the United States

State control over marital status determinations predates the Constitution. Prior to the American Revolution, colonial legislatures, rather than Parliament, established the rules and regulations regarding marriage in the colonies.⁹ And, when the United States first declared its independence from England, the founding legislation of each state included regulations regarding marital status determinations.¹⁰

In 1787, during the framing of the Constitution, the issue of marriage was not raised when defining the powers of the federal government.¹¹ At that time, “[s]tates had exclusive power over marriage rules as a central part of the individual states' ‘police power’-meaning their responsibility (subject to the requirements and protections of the federal Constitution) for the health, safety and welfare of their populations.” ¹²

In large part, rules and regulations regarding marriage corresponded with local circumstances and preferences.¹³ Changes in regulations regarding marriage also responded to changes in political, economic, religious, and ethnic compositions in the states.¹⁴ Because, to a great extent, rules and regulations regarding marriage respond to local preferences, such regulations have varied significantly from state to state throughout American history.¹⁵ Indeed, since the founding of the United States “there have been many nontrivial differences in states' laws on who was permitted to marry, what steps composed a valid marriage, what spousal roles should be, and what conditions permitted divorce.” ¹⁶

In response to controversies stemming from this “patchwork quilt of marriage rules in the United States,” there have been many attempts to adopt a national definition of marriage.¹⁷ In the mid-1880s, for instance, a constitutional amendment to establish uniform regulations on marriage and divorce was proposed for the first time.¹⁸ Following the failure of that proposal, there were several other unsuccessful efforts to create a uniform definition of marriage by way of constitutional amendment.¹⁹ Similarly, “[l]egislative and constitutional proposals to nationalize the definition of marriage were put before Congress again and again, from the 1880s to 1950s, with a particular burst of activity during and after World War II, because of the war's perceived damage to the stability of marriage and because of a steep upswing in divorce.” ²⁰ None of these proposals succeeded, however, because “few members of Congress were willing to supersede their own states' power over marriage and divorce.” ²¹ And, despite a substantial increase in federal power during the twentieth century, members of Congress jealously guarded their states' sovereign control over marriage. ²²

Several issues relevant to the formation and dissolution of marriages have served historically as the subject of controversy, including common law marriage, divorce, and restrictions regarding race, “hygiene,” and age at marriage.²³ Despite contentious debate on all of these subjects, however, the federal government consistently deferred to state marital status determinations.²⁴

For example, throughout much of American history a great deal of tension surrounded the issue of interracial marriage. But, despite differences in restrictions on interracial marriage from state to state, the federal government consistently accepted all state marital status determinations for the purposes of federal law.²⁵ For that reason, a review of the history of the regulation of interracial marriage is helpful in assessing the federal government's response to the “contentious social issue” ²⁶ now before this court, same-sex marriage.

Rules and regulations regarding interracial marriage varied widely from state to state throughout American history, until 1967, when the Supreme Court declared such restrictions unconstitutional.²⁷ And, indeed, a review of the history of the subject suggests that the strength of state restrictions on interracial marriage largely tracked changes in the social and political climate.

Following the abolition of slavery, many state legislatures imposed additional restrictions on interracial marriage.²⁸ “As many as 41 states and territories of the U.S. banned, nullified, or criminalized marriages across the color line for some period of their history, often using ‘racial’ classifications that are no longer recognized.” ²⁹ Of those states, many imposed severe punishment on relationships that ran afoul of their restrictions.³⁰ Alabama, for instance, “penalized marriage, adultery, or fornication between a white and ‘any negro, or the descendant of any negro to the third generation,’ with hard labor of up to seven years.” ³¹

In contrast, some states, like Vermont, did not bar interracial marriage.³² Similarly, Massachusetts, a hub of antislavery activism, repealed its prohibition on interracial marriage in the 1840s.³³

The issue of interracial marriage again came to the legislative fore in the early twentieth century.³⁴ The controversy was rekindled at that time by the decline of stringent Victorian era sexual standards and the migration of many African-Americans to the northern states.³⁵ Legislators in fourteen states introduced bills to institute or strengthen prohibitions on interracial marriage in response to the marriage of the African-American boxer Jack Johnson to a young white woman.³⁶ These bills were universally defeated in northern states, however, as a result of organized pressure from African-American voters.³⁷

In the decades after World War II, in response to the civil rights movement, many states began to eliminate laws restricting interracial marriage. ³⁸ And, ultimately, such restrictions were completely voided by the courts.³⁹ Throughout this entire period, however, the federal government consistently relied on state determinations with regard to marriage, when they were relevant to federal law.⁴⁰

C. Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts

In 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that excluding same-sex couples from marriage violated the equality and liberty provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution.⁴¹ In accordance with this decision, on May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.⁴² And, since then, the Commonwealth has recognized “a single marital status that is open and available to every qualifying couple, whether same-sex or different-sex.” ⁴³ The Massachusetts legislature rejected both citizen-initiated and legislatively-proposed constitutional amendments to bar the recognition of same-sex marriages.⁴⁴

As of February 12, 2010, the Commonwealth had issued marriage licenses to at least 15,214 same-sex couples.⁴⁵ But, as Section 3 of DOMA bars federal recognition of these marriages, the Commonwealth contends that the statute has a significant negative impact on the operation of certain state programs, discussed in further detail below.

D. Relevant Programs

1. The State Cemetery Grants Program

There are two cemeteries in the Commonwealth that are used for the burial of eligible military veterans, their spouses, and their children.⁴⁶ These cemeteries, which are...