Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Judge Throws Out Binational Couple's Lawsuit Challenging DOMA

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 01:32 PM
Original message
Judge Throws Out Binational Couple's Lawsuit Challenging DOMA
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a married binational gay couple in California who were denied a marriage-based green card by immigration officials.

Handi Lui, a citizen of Indonesia who in 2009 married his American spouse, Michael Ernest Roberts, in Massachusetts, sued the government after U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, denied the couple’s marriage-based petition for permanent residency (the Board of Immigration Appeals later upheld that decision). In the lawsuit, Lui argued that in doing so, USCIS violated the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provisions barring sex discrimination. Furthermore, Lui argued, immigration officials’ interpretation of the Defense of Marriage Act in denying the green card petition was unconstitutional.

A House Republican-led advisory group currently defending DOMA in multiple legal challenges had moved to dismiss Lui’s complaint. And in a five-page order issued Wednesday, U.S. district judge Stephen V. Wilson did so, writing that immigration officials did not err in their decision, and that the court is bound by a 1982 case involving a Colorado gay male couple denied immigration sponsorship rights (in the rejection of the couple's petition decades ago, officials wrote that their attorney had "failed to establish that a bona fide marital relationship can exist between two faggots").

SNIP

However, Judge Wilson wrote that the administration is walking “a fine line” by arguing that it must continue to enforce DOMA by denying green card petitions from married same-sex couples 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.”

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/09/29/Judge_Throws_Out_Binational_Couple_s_DOMA_Suit/
Refresh | +3 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. Ah yes - the back of the hand approach to
Marriage equality.

Thanks for all your support, admin. Not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. OK, how do they enforce DOMA when the Department of State isn't enforcing it?
They're paying spousal allowance/transportation for SS couples.

Seems like unequal protection to me. The case used as precedent isn't just irrelevant, it's offensive.

The update attached is interesting--an appeal in the works, perhaps?

Update: Lavi Soloway, cofounder of Stop the Deportations, issued the following statement on Judge Wilson's order:

"Judge Wilson's ruling dismissing this challenge to DOMA by a gay binational couple is a setback in the fight to win equality for all lesbian and gay Americans married to foreign citizens and a rejection of the Obama administration's strong arguments in support of the plaintiffs in this case. Crucially, it sets up a likely appeal to the Ninth Circuit on the question of whether lesbian and gay binational couples in that jurisdiction have the right to challenge DOMA in federal court.

"The Judge sided with the arguments made by House Republicans that discrimination against binational couples is permissible and found that DOMA does not violate the equal protection provision of the U.S. Constitution in the immigration context. This is a surrender to explicit, indefensible discrimination that should outrage any fair-minded person.

"The Judge, a 1985 Reagan-appointee, relied on nothing more than the 30 year old case of Anthony Sullivan and Richard Adams, and refused to consider compelling arguments that the court must consider DOMA's constitutionality based on current legal and social context. Wilson essentially states that no married same-sex binational couples should be allowed to challenge DOMA in federal court in this jurisdiction, a proposition that should concern all Americans greatly. Conservative judges must not be in the business of blocking access to the federal courts because of outdated decisions.

"Judge Wilson's poorly-reasoned decision is an important wake-up call that the momentum toward full equality cannot be taken for granted, even with the Obama administration coming into court on the side of lesbian and gay plaintiffs. We must keep up the fight to end DOMA through the legislative process, in our federal courts, and most importantly in the court of public opinion. Unless DOMA is repealed or struck down by the Supreme Court, lesbian and gay binational couples will not achieve equality
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Because the State Department is, technically, breaking the law.
There's just no one who can really call them on it besides the DOJ and the White House, neither of which want to.

And in any event, it doesn't make much difference, since the ruling is judicial branch, and the case is being pursued by a group representing the legislative, i.e. the Republican Congress; the executive branch decisions don't really come into play here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. They need to fix this nonsense. As a consequence of repeal of DADT, there
are inconsistencies in federal law, and the federal government is engaging in discrimination when it comes to spouses of military personnel. I think if they got rid of DOMA from that end, the other stuff would fall into place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MNBrewer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. Our lives and relationships are "moot"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. The Advocate is wrong. That wasn't what the judge said.
Edited on Thu Sep-29-11 07:14 PM by Unvanguard
The plaintiffs in this case made two claims. The first was that the Immigration and Nationality Act's prohibition of sex discrimination applies here and should force the government to grant their I-130 petition. The second was that the Defense of Marriage Act's bar on including them in the relevant statutory definition of "spouse" is unconstitutional. DOJ argued against the first claim and argued in support of the second claim. That's the "fine line" the judge is referring to. Here's the full quote:

"In this instance, Defendants walk a fine line, on the one hand 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."

Lui V. Holder Order (.pdf)

Edit: This "fine line" is also a "fine line" that has been walked by, e.g., In re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court decision that brought marriage equality to that state, which similarly rejected a sex discrimination claim while embracing a sexual orientation discrimination claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
7. This was a weak case.
Sadly, I expected this. But this doesn't mean other suits are likely to fall into the same trap as this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 22nd 2024, 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC