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)

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 [phone]

[phone]
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

[phone]

TORONTO-DOMINION CENTRE
77 KING STREET WEST, SUITE 3100
RO. BOX 226

WRITER'S DIRECT E-MAIL ADDRESS

[e-mail]

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 [phone]! 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.