Windsor v. The United States Of America

Filing 91

NOTICE of Recent Decisions re: 50 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion, 53 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Kircher, Kerry)

Exhibit B

Case 2:11-cv-01267-SVW -JCG Document 38

Filed 09/28/11 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:692

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

No: 2:11-CV-01267-SVW (JCGx)

Title

Handi Lui, et al. V. Eric H. Holder, U.S. Attorney General, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

September 28, 2011

STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul M. Cruz

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A

N/A

Proceedings:

I.

IN CHAMBERS ORDER re DEFENDANTS’ PARTIAL MOTION TO
DISMISS; INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO DISMISS [18] [19]

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Hamdi Lui (“Lui”) and Michael Ernest Roberts,(“Roberts”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”)
bring this suit challenging Defendants’ denial of Roberts’ Form I-130 Petition (the “Petition”). Roberts
filed the Petition on behalf of Lui, seeking to classify Lui as an “immediate relative” in order for Lui to
gain lawful permanent resident status in the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a). Plaintiffs challenge
the denial of the Petition on two grounds. First, Plaintiffs claim that the denial of the Petition violates
the Immigration and Nationaity Act’s (“INA”) anti-discrimination provision based on alleged “sex”
discrimination. (Compl., ¶¶ 8, 32, 35). Second, Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the denial of
the Petition as a result of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (“USCIS”)
interpretation of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996),
codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7.
On June 17, 2011 Defendants filed their Partial Motion to Dismiss, which focuses solely on the
INA “sex” discrimination claim. On the same day, Intervenor the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group for
the U.S. House of Representatives (“Intervernor”) filed its Motion to Dismiss, which focuses solely on
Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge to Section 3 of DOMA. Plaintiffs and Defendants filed separate
Oppositions to Intervenor’s Motion to Dismiss.1

1

As Intervenor notes, in February of this year, the Department of Justice decided to forego
defending the constitutionality of DOMA. Accordingly, Defendants filed an Opposition to Intervenor’s
Motion to Dismiss in order to argue that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

PMC
Page 1 of 5

Case 2:11-cv-01267-SVW -JCG Document 38

Filed 09/28/11 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:693

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

No: 2:11-CV-01267-SVW (JCGx)

Title

Handi Lui, et al. V. Eric H. Holder, U.S. Attorney General, et al.

II.

Date

September 28, 2011

BACKGROUND FACTS

Plaintiff Lui is a native and citizen of Indonesia. Plaintiff Roberts is a U.S. Citizen. Plaintiffs,
same-sex couple, were legally married under the laws of Massachusetts on April 9, 2009. On the same
day, Plaintiff Roberts filed the Petition on behalf of Plaintiff Lui with the USCIS California Service
Center. (Id. ¶ 28). On August 28, 2009, Plaintiffs’ Petition was denied. On January 20, 2011, the BIA
dismissed Plaintiffs’ appeal of the I-130 Petition Denial.
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ refusal to grant the Petition on the basis of Plaintiffs’ same-sex
marriage constitutes “sex” discrimination in violation of the INA’s anti-discrimination provision, 8
U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A). (Compl. ¶ 8). Plaintiffs further contend that Defendants’ application of
DOMA’s definition of marriage in making the determination that a same-sex spouse is not an
“immediate relative” for I-130 petition purposes violated their constitutional due process and equal
protection rights. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 18).
III.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the legal sufficiency of the claims stated in
the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s complaint
“must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. A complaint that offers mere “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572
F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (Citing Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1951).
In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must accept all allegations of material fact as true
and construe the allegations in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Daniel v. County of
Santa Barbara, 288 F.3d 375, 380 (9th Cir. 2002). While a court does not need to accept a pleader's
legal conclusions as true, the court reviews the complaint, accepting all factual allegations as true, and
drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068,
1072 (9th Cir. 2005).
The court may grant a plaintiff leave to amend a deficient claim "when justice so requires." Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). "Five factors are frequently used to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to
amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4)
futility of amendment; and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his Complaint." Allen v. City
of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990) (Citing Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

PMC
Page 2 of 5

Case 2:11-cv-01267-SVW -JCG Document 38

Filed 09/28/11 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:694

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

No: 2:11-CV-01267-SVW (JCGx)

Date

Title

September 28, 2011

Handi Lui, et al. V. Eric H. Holder, U.S. Attorney General, et al.

F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989)).
Where a motion to dismiss is granted, “leave to amend should be granted ‘unless the court
determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly
cure the deficiency.’” DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th
Cir. 1992) (quoting Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir.
1986)). In other words, where leave to amend would be futile, the Court may deny leave to amend. See
Desoto, 957 F.2d at 658; Schreiber, 806 F.2d at 1401.
IV.

DISCUSSION

The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ complaint is that Roberts’ Petition was improperly rejected
because Lui, as Roberts’ same-sex spouse, qualifies as an immediate relative under the INA.
Defendants maintain that the USCIS and the BIA do not engage in impermissible sex discrimination
under the INA when they refuse to grant an I-130 petition under these circumstances. The Court finds
that this proposition is well settled under Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982), which also
involved an I-130 immediate relative petition filed by a party to a same-sex marriage. See Adams, 673
F.2d at 1036 (holding that the agency’s interpretation of marriage in the INA, 8. U.S.C. § 1151(b), as
excluding same-sex couples did not violate plaintiffs’ due process or equal protection rights under
rational basis review).2 Furthermore, Plaintiffs have failed to assert any facts to suggest the Defendants
discriminated against them on the basis of their sex, as opposed to their sexual orientation. Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.
As noted above, USCIS relied on the definitions of marriage and spouse contained in Section 3
of DOMA in denying Plaintiffs’ Petition. In this instance, Defendants walk a fine line, on the one hand

2

As Intervenor notes, eleven federal circuits have held that homosexuals are not a suspect class.
See Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42, 61-62 (1st Cir. 2008), cert. denied, Pietrangelo v. Gates, 129 S. Ct.
2763 (2009); Citizens for Equal Prot., v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, 866 (8th Cir. 2006); Lofton v. Sec. of
Dept. of Children & Fam. Servs., 358 F.3d 804, 818 & n.16 (11th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S.
1081 (2005); Equal. Found. of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 128 F.3d 289 (6th Cir.
1997); Holmes v. Cal. Army Nat'l Guard, 124 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 1997); Richenberg v. Perry, 97 F.3d
256 (7th Cir. 1996); Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir. 1996); Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d 677
(D.C. Cir. 1994); Ben-Shalom v. Marsh, 881 F.2d 454 (7th Cir. 1989); Woodward v. United States, 871
F.2d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Town of Ball v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 746 F.2d 1049 (5th Cir. 1984);
Rich v. Sec'y of the Army, 735 F.2d 1220 (10th Cir. 1984); see also Able v. United States, 155 F.3d 628,
632 (2d Cir. 1998) (not applying heightened scrutiny).
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

PMC
Page 3 of 5

Case 2:11-cv-01267-SVW -JCG Document 38

Filed 09/28/11 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:695

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

No: 2:11-CV-01267-SVW (JCGx)

Date

Title

September 28, 2011

Handi Lui, et al. V. Eric H. Holder, U.S. Attorney General, et al.

arguing in their Partial Motion to Dismiss that they did not violate the INA by discriminating against
Plaintiffs on the basis of their same-sex marriage while simultaneously arguing that Section 3 of
DOMA, which excludes same-sex couples from the definitions of marriage and spouse for purposes of
federal law, violates equal protection.
To the extent that Plaintiffs Challenge Section 3 of DOMA on equal protection grounds, that
issue has been decided by Adams.3 673 F.2d at 1041.4 In Adams, the Ninth Circuit held that
“Congress's decision to confer spouse status . . . only upon the parties to heterosexual marriages has a
rational basis and therefore comports with the due process clause and its equal protection
requirements.”5 Id. at 1042. The fact that DOMA was enacted years after the Ninth Circuit’s decision
in Adams is not persuasive given that marriage as defined in Section 3 of DOMA is consistent with
Adams.
While Plaintiffs and Defendants point out the alleged deficiencies in the reasoning in
Adams, this Court is not in a position to decline to follow Adams or critique its reasoning simply
because Plaintiffs and Defendants believe that Adams is poorly reasoned.6 Furthermore, as Intervenor

3

In addition to Adams, Intervenor argues that Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) controls. In
Baker, plaintiffs, a same-sex couple, appealed a decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court affirming
rejecting a constitutional challenge to the rejection of their application for a Minnesota marriage license.
Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971), aff’d, 409 U.S. 810 (1972). The Supreme Court
unanimously dismissed plaintiffs’ appeal “for want of a substantial federal question.” The Court need
not determine the effect of a summary disposition of the Supreme Court because we are bound to follow
the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Adams.
4

See also, High-Tech Gays v. Def. Indus. Sec. Clearance Ofc., 895 F.2d 563, 571 (9th Cir. 1990)
(rejecting the argument that “homosexuality should be added to the list of suspect or quasi-suspect
classifications requiring strict or heightened scrutiny”).
5

The Court in Adams noted that Congress “has almost plenary power to admit or exclude aliens,”
and that, as a result, “the decisions of Congress [in the immigration context] are subject only to limited
judicial review.” Adams, 673 F.2d at 1041. While the Court noted that, pursuant to its plenary power in
the immigration context, Congress “may enact statues which, if applied to citizens, would be
unconstitutional,” the Court ultimately upheld the exclusion of same-sex couples from the definition of
marriage under the INA under rational basis review, as opposed to “some lesser standard of review.” Id.
at 1042.
6

The Court is aware of a similar case recently heard by District Judge R.Gary Klausner. See
Torres-Barragan v. Holder, No. 2:09-cv-08564-RGK-MLG (C.D. Cal. April 30, 2010) (ECF No. 24)
appeal docketed, No. 10-55768 (9th Cir.). The only substantive difference between Torres-Barragan
and the instant action is that Torres-Barragan arose prior to the Department of Justice’s change in
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

PMC
Page 4 of 5

Case 2:11-cv-01267-SVW -JCG Document 38

Filed 09/28/11 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:696

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

No: 2:11-CV-01267-SVW (JCGx)

Date

Title

September 28, 2011

Handi Lui, et al. V. Eric H. Holder, U.S. Attorney General, et al.

argues, the

prerogative to overturn Ninth Circuit precedent rests not with this District Court, but with the en banc
Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Entm’t Distrib., 429
F.3d 869, 877 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Palmer v. Sanderson, 9 F.3d 1433, 1437 n.5 (9th Cir. 1993) (“As a
general rule, a panel not sitting en banc may not overturn circuit precedent.”). The Court feels bound by
Ninth Circuit precedent, and believes that those precedents are sufficiently clear.7
V.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth in this Order, Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss and Intervenor’s
Motion to Dismiss are hereby GRANTED without prejudice.

.

policy.
7

The Court is aware of the District of Massachusetts’ decision in Gill v. OPM, 699 F. Supp. 2d
374 (D. Mass. 2010) appeal docketed, No. 10-2204 (1st Cir.), in which the court held that Section 3 of
DOMA violates equal protection under rational basis review. The Court notes that the plaintiffs in Gill
were spouses of federal employees who brought suit on the basis of denial of certain federal marriagebased benefits, thus the context of that case was somewhat different from the present case, which arose
in the context of immigration law. More importantly, the court’s decision in Gill does not affect this
Court’s obligation to follow binding Ninth Circuit precedent.
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

PMC
Page 5 of 5