2:12-cv-00887 #91
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #91
1/12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
WilmerHale
350SouthG
randAvenue,
Suite2100
LosA
n
elesCA
90071
JOSEPH J. LEVIN, JR. Pro Hac Vice)[email protected] P. SUN (SBN 218701)[email protected] E. SHORT (Pro Hac Vice)[email protected]
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER400 Washington AvenueMontgomery, AL 36104Telephone: (334) 956-8200Facsimile: (334) 956-8481
(Caption Continued on Next Page)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
TRACEY COOPER-HARRIS and )
MAGGIE COOPER-HARRIS, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; )
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official )
capacity as Attorney General; and )
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, in his official )
capacity as Secretary of Veterans )
Affairs, )
)
Defendants, )
)
BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY )
GROUP OF THE U.S. HOUSE )
OF REPRESENTATIVES, ))
Intervenor-Defendant. )
No. 2:12-CV-887-CBM-AJW
Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall
NOTICE OF
SUPPLEMENTAL
AUTHORITY RE: FEDERAL
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91 Filed 02/22/13 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:1808
-
7/29/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #91
2/12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY2
W
ilmerHale
350SouthGra
ndAvenue,
Suite2100
LosAn
eles,
CA
90071
Randall R. Lee (SBN 152672)[email protected] Benedetto (SBN 252379)[email protected] CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100Los Angeles, CA 90071Telephone: (213) 443-5300Facsimile: (213) 443-5400
Adam P. Romero (Pro Hac Vice)[email protected] Ali (Pro Hac Vice)[email protected] CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP7 World Trade Center
New York, NY 10007Telephone: (212) 230-8800
Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
Eugene Marder (SBN 275762)[email protected] CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP950 Page Mill RoadPalo Alto, California 94304Telephone: (650) 858-6000Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91 Filed 02/22/13 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:1809
-
7/29/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #91
3/12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY3
W
ilmerHale
350SouthGra
ndAvenue,
Suite2100
LosAn
eles,
CA
90071
Plaintiffs respectfully advise this Court of a recent decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that is relevant to Federal Defendants Motion
to Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (ECF No. 68-1) and Plaintiffs
opposition thereto (ECF No. 79). The motion is scheduled to be heard by the Court
on Monday, February 25, 2013 at 2 p.m.
As Plaintiffs contend in their opposition, the Veterans Judicial Review Act
(VJRA) does not preclude this Court from hearing Plaintiffs constitutional
challenge to the definition of spouse as established by Congress in Title 38 and
Section 3 of DOMA. (ECF No. 79). After Plaintiffs filed their opposition papers, the
Ninth Circuit issuedRecinto v. U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs, No. 11-16341, F.3d, 2013 WL 458252 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2013). On facts identical by all relevant
measures to those here, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that the VJRA d[oes] not bar
jurisdiction over a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute because review
of that challenge would not require consideration of decisions affecting the
provision of benefits to any individual claimant[]. Id. at *4 (alteration in original;
internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki,
678 F.3d 1013, 1034 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc)).
InRecinto,the plaintiffs brought a facial equal protection claim against a
federal statute that they argued discriminated against a class of veterans who served in
World War II. Id. at *4-5. In overruling the district courts dismissal of the claim for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit explained that the evaluation of
that claim only requires us to look at the text of the [challenged statute], nothing
more. Id. at *4. Although the plaintiffs claim related to veterans benefits and if
successful, would have had the practical effect of ultimately providing benefits to
some veterans, the Ninth Circuit recognized that the VJRA did not bar jurisdiction
because [t]o assess this claim we need not assess whether individual claimants have a
right to veterans benefits. Id.
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91 Filed 02/22/13 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:1810
-
7/29/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #91
4/12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY4
W
ilmerHale
350SouthGra
ndAvenue,
Suite2100
LosAn
eles,
CA
90071
Here, as inRecinto, the assessment of Plaintiffs equal protection claims against
Title 38 and DOMA requires nothing more than reviewing those statutes.
Accordingly, Ninth Circuit precedent mandates a denial of Federal Defendants
Motion to Dismiss.
Federal Defendants attempt to distinguish Plaintiffs claims from the equal
protection claim inRecinto fails. (ECF No. 81 at 6 n.2.) Adjudication of Plaintiffs
claims would not, as Federal Defendants assert, plainly require the Court to decide
whether they are entitled to VA benefits. Id. The Complaint does not ask for an
award of benefits at all, either prospectively or retroactively, but instead asks for
declaratory and injunctive relief against two acts of Congress: Title 38 and DOMA.(ECF No. 1 at 18.) Moreover, contrary to Federal Defendants suggestion, the fact
that certain of the plaintiffs inRecinto had not submitted claims for compensation to
the VA played absolutely no part in the Ninth Circuits analysis and conclusion that
the court had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs facial equal protection claim. Recinto,
2013 WL 458252 at *4.
A copy of the Ninth Circuits decision inRecinto is attached as Exhibit A.
DATE: February 22, 2013 Respectfully Submitted,
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALEAND DORR LLP
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
BY: /s/ Christine P. SunCHRISTINE P. SUN
400 Washington Ave.Montgomery, AL 36104
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91 Filed 02/22/13 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:1811
-
7/29/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #91
5/12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on February 22, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing
Plaintiffs Notice of Supplemental Authority with the Clerk of Court by using the
CM/ECF system, which provided an electronic notice and electronic link of the same
to the following attorneys of record through the Courts CM/ECF system:
Paul D. Clement, [email protected]
H. Christopher Bartolomucci, [email protected]
Nicholas J. Nelson, [email protected]
Michael H. McGinley, [email protected]
BANCROFT PLLC
1919 M Street, N.W., Suite 470
Washington, D.C. 20036
Kerry W. Kircher, [email protected]
William Pittard, [email protected]
Christine Davenport, [email protected]
Todd B. Tatelman, [email protected]
Mary Beth Walker, [email protected]
Eleni M. Roumel, [email protected]
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES219 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Jean Lin, [email protected]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Division - Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, Northwest
Washington, District of Columbia 20530
/s/Adam P. Romero
Adam P. Romero
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91 Filed 02/22/13 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:1812
-
7/29/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #91
6/12
EXHIBIT A
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91-1 Filed 02/22/13 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:1813
-
7/29/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #91
7/12
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91-1 Filed 02/22/13 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:1814
-
7/29/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #91
8/12
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91-1 Filed 02/22/13 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:1815
-
7/29/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #91
9/12
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91-1 Filed 02/22/13 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:1816
-
7/29/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #91
10/12
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91-1 Filed 02/22/13 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:1817
-
7/29/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #91
11/12
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91-1 Filed 02/22/13 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:1818
-
7/29/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #91
12/12
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 91-1 Filed 02/22/13 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:1819