Windsor v. The United States Of America

Filing 100

Letter addressed to Judge Barbara S. Jones from Roberta A. Kaplan dated 5/29/2012 re: We write to follow up on our March 28 letter, in which we enclosed the Motion to Consolidate and Expedite Appeals filed by the United States Department of Justice in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the Golinski case (the "DOJ Br."). For many of the same reasons stated in the DOJ's motion to expedite in Golinski, Ms. Windsor respectfully requests that this Court issue a decision on her pending motion for summary judgment (and defendant-intervenor's motion to dismiss) as promptly as possible. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor.(ama)

Download PDF
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 12.85 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS UNIT .3601, FORTUNE PLAZA OFFICE TOWER A NO. 7 DONG SANHUAN ZHONGLU CHAO YANG DISTRICT NEW YORK, NEW YORK I 0019-6064 BEIJING 100020 TELEPHONE (212) 373,3000 PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA LLOYD K. GARRISON RANDOLPH E. PAUL SIMON H. RIFKIND LOUIS S, WEISS \1946-1991) 11946-1956) {1950-1995) i.1927-i950l JOHN F. WHARTON t 1927-19771 TELEPHONE f86·1 0) 5828-6300 12TH FLOOR, HONG KONG CLUB BUILDING 3A CHATER ROAD, CENTRAL HONG KONG TELEPHONE i852) 2846-0300 ALDER CASTLE i 0 NOBLE STREET LONDON EC2V 7JU, U.K WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER TELEPHONE (44 20) 7367 1600 (212) 373-3086 F'UKOKU SEIMEI BUILDING 2-2 UCH!SAIWAICHO 2-CHOME WRITER'S DIREC1" FACSIMILE CHIYODA+KU, TOKYO I 00-0011, JAPAN TELEPHONE \81-3) 3597-8101 (212) 373-2037 TORONTO-DOMINION CENTRE 77 KING STREET WEST, SUITE 3100 RO. BOX 226 WRITER'S DIRECT E-MAIL ADDRESS rkaplan@paulweiss.com TORONTO, ONTARlO M5K IJ3 TELEPHONE !416} 504·0520 2001 K STREET, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20006~1047 TELEPHONE (202i 223-7300 500 DELAWARE AVENUE, SUITE 200 POST OFFICE BOX 32 WILMINGTON, DE 19699-0032 TELEPHONE (3021 655-44! 0 AU ORA TARUN ERIC A AIDAN ROBYN . Y MONICA K. THURMOND DANIEL J. TOAL LIZA M. VELAZQUEZ MARIA T. VULLO NEI ERI ERlC CHAR JR. ANDR UDIGR NICHOLAS GROOMBR!OGE BRUCE A. GUTENPLAN GAINES GWATHMEY. Ill ALAN S. HALPERIN JUSTIN G_ HAMILL AUDIA HAMMERMAN E. HARPER LAWRENCE G WEE THEODORE V. WELLS, JR BETH A. WILKINSON STEVEN J. WILLIAMS LAWRENCE I. WITDORCHlC . WLAZLO M. WOOD E. YARETT YOSHINO HERMANN M. HIRSH HIRSHMAN HUANG HUNTINGTON H J. KANE A. KAPLAN *NOT AOMITTEO TO THI: NEW YORK BAR March 29, 2012 USDC SD.NY VIA FACSIMILE AND HAND The Honorable Barbara S. Jones United States District Court Southern District ofNew York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 nocul , ~rr ll /1 ELFCifoNiiDALLY FII E.D ~I r 1 • I n.DATE FiLifu-;-~ I .J I• l.~ ' -~· r-... ...,..._~ ::::::=- III 1-----=::-~ Windsor v. United States, 10 Civ. 8435 (BSJ) (JCF) Dear Judge Jones: We write to follow up on our March 28letter, in which we enclosed the Motion to Consolidate and Expedite Appeals filed by the United States Department of Justice in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the Golinski case (the "DOJ Br."). For many of the same reasons stated in the DOJ's motion to expedite in Golinski, Ms. Windsor respectfully requests that this Court issue a decision on her pending motion for summary judgment (and defendant-intervenor's motion to dismiss) as promptly as possible. We have spoken to counsel for the United States, Jean Lin, Esq. (cc-ed below), and we understand that defendant the United States joins in this request. More specifically, given the recent decisions oftwo district courts declaring Section 3 ofDOMA unconstitutional, Gill v. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 699 F. Supp. 2d 374 (D. Mass. 2010); Golinski v. US Office of Personnel Mgmt., ---F. Supp. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2 The Honorable Barbara S. Jones 2d.---, 2012 WL 569685 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2012), there is now significant uncertainty with respect to the constitutionality of Section 3 ofDOMA. (DOJ Br. at 5.) This problem is arguably most acute in New York since it is currently the largest state in the United States to permit same-sex couples to get married. Moreover, the current uncertainty adversely affects not only Ms. Windsor and others similarly situated to her, but also the federal government in the administration of many federal programs. (/d.) "[G]iven the number of statutes affected by Section 3 and the significant uncertainty and harm under which the Executive Branch must operate in enforcing a statute determined to be unconstitutional by the President and Attorney General," swift consideration of these issues is warranted. (Id. at 2.) Further, because the federal government continues to enforce DOMA, Ms. Windsor and many others continue to be denied the same benefits that are available to other married couples. (/d. at 5-6.) Thus here, as in Golinski, "it is in the strong interest of every party [] to have [this case] resolved as promptly as possible." (/d. at 2.) Finally, as the Court is aware, Ms. Windsor is elderly and in failing health. She very much hopes that she can see a resolution of this litigation while she is alive and well enough to fully participate in her case. Respectfully submitted, Roberta A. Kaplan cc (via email): Paul D. Clement, Esq. H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Esq. James D. Esseks, Esq. Jean Lin, Esq.