Jump to content

Talk:Gill v. Office of Personnel Management

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5th Amendment

[edit]

I am not sure why the article says "fifth amendment" grounds for the unconstiutionality. I have read the decision, and I am certain it is 14th Amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.73.219 (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the introduction of the ruling:
Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that, due to the operation of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, they have been denied certain federal marriage-based benefits that are available to similarly-situated heterosexual couples, in violation of the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.3 Because this court agrees, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#20] is DENIED and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [#25] is ALLOWED,...
Now, that's what's in the introduction and that's what i think we should go with as a result here. However, If you want the legal answer of "which is involved, the 5th or the 14th?", as a matter of background, they're both involved. The 5th amendment says that the federal government has to give "due process" in it's legislation. The 14th amendment says that states shall not deny citizens equal protection or other rights. The 14th has been interpreted, through what is called "incorportation", of saying that many of rights in the BIll of Rights (including the 5th) apply to state actions as well, because the 14th says states can't deny citizens basic rights, and due process is such a right. There's a lot of fussy legal technalities there, but the right answer is that both amendments are implicated. I think "5th" is the appropriate one for us to cite, since it's the key amednment included at the introduction of the ruling. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Mr. Decker. In fact, a footnote in Tauro's judgment addresses this very question." Though the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not contain an Equal Protection Clause, as the Fourteenth Amendment does, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause includes an Equal Protection component. See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954)."[1] I also, however, wholly agree with 1st concerned raise as the 14th amendment is more commonly discussed in matters concerning equal protection. Might it be prudent in terms of clarification to add content that discusses the distinction between ideas of equal protection in the 5th and 14th amendments and why Judge Tauro may have chosen one and not the other? Ptfescewl (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2009cv10309/120672/70/0.pdf

Parallel case

[edit]

I understand this is one of a pair of cases in MA just now; can a link to the other be made available? I tried looking into this and apparently the search engines are smarter than me today. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38154952 Uberhill 21:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

The companion case does not have its own entry on wikipedia. If you search for it as "Commonwealth v. United States Department of Health and Human Services" you are redirected to "Defense of Marriage Act#Constitutionality". So someone would have to create that new entry in place of the redirect. The article on DOMA is such a mess that it's not clear where info on these cases should be inserted. It's in two places at present, under the headings "Legal history" and "Challenges in federal court". So the redirect to "Defense of Marriage Act#Constitutionality" makes no sense, since the cases are not discussed at all under "Constitutionality". I've just changed that so the redirect goes to "Defense of Marriage Act#Challenges in federal court". If no one else creates "Commonwealth v. United States Department of Health and Human Services" I will do so in a few hours. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! See Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services -- it's a start. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stay? Appeal?

[edit]

I don't understand.. what does his decision is stayed for "Two weeks" mean? It's been far from two weeks since the decision. Should we really be looking at the Early Sept. deadline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.182.81 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dept of Justice did not appeal. Tauro decision is now final and applies in MA only. I can't update the entry at present -- on Amtrak with my iPhone-- but see www.towleroad.com

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Feds have until 8Sep to appeal; the towleroad.com article cites no source at DoJ or the courts. If nothing happens by THEN, it's news. Uberhill 18:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

Thanks 4 the attitude. It all means the 60 day clock started Aug 12. See: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/08/11/glad-60-days-for-doma-appeal-havent-yet-started/ and comments on towleroad. And: And as I read GLAD's FAQ, the automatic 14-day stay starts along with the 60-day clock. Despite what Ari says on towleroad about no stay. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; no attitude was intended. The Blade article clears up the matter nicely, thanks for it. Uberhill 21:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)
No prob. Guess I'm just sensitive to ALL CAPS, especially when frustrated by lack of connectivity. I'll try some updating shortly.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

En Banc Petition

[edit]

A petition for en banc review had recently been filed by the plaintiffs and it should be included under status 96.229.217.189 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Michael Ejercito[reply]

I assume your edit was reversed because you also changed the name of the case to Nancy Gill et al. etc. I'll get the info about the late June business back and edit it some. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

En banc

[edit]

"On June 21, 2011, plaintiffs filed a petition for en banc review to expedite the case by moving it more quickly through the judicial review process."

It doesn't say whether this request was granted, but I'm assuming it wasn't since it was only 3 judges that ruled. Can someone clarify? 69.242.186.39 (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's right, but you shouldn't take my word for it, and I can't find a reliable source. GLAD has the requests for en banc but not the response. --joe deckertalk to me 04:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(As a separate issue, I suppose BLAG could try again for en banc at the 1st circuit, but I'm not a lawyer.) --joe deckertalk to me 04:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The en banc petition was denied, but I only learned that when one of the documents filed by the BLAG mentioned the fact in passing. It's really of no interest at this point so I will remove the line (which I added in the first place).

As for the separate issue, several people have already pointed out that the 1st Circuit only has 5 active judges, so having all 5 review the 3-0 decision makes no sense. The best the BLAG could hope for is a 3-2 loss. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second thought. Reading the whole paragraph, it's hard to remove the line about the request for en banc. I'll try to track down teh rejection. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5 active judges? Wow, I live in the 9th circuit, whole different game here.  :) --joe deckertalk to me 15:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gill has not had cert denied at SCOTUS, not yet

[edit]

As I understand it, it is not accurate to say that cert has been denied in this case. It simply has not been granted. You can see this at a primary source [1], and at a less reliable but in this case accurate secondary source [2]. Had cert been denied in Gill, the appellate ruling in Gill would have been effectively upheld, and DOMA section 3 would be history. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gill v. Office of Personnel Management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Gill v. Office of Personnel Management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gill_v._Office_of_Personnel_Management&oldid=1207426517"