Case: Windsor v. United States

1:10-cv-08435 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: Nov. 9, 2010

Closed Date: May 30, 2014

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is the case in which, on June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court held the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, because it stigmatizes same sex couples and violates the Equal Protection Clause. On November 9, 2010, a woman serving as the executor of the estate of her late same-sex spouse filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 26 U.S.C. § 7422 against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff, represented by the national and state ACL…

This is the case in which, on June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court held the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, because it stigmatizes same sex couples and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

On November 9, 2010, a woman serving as the executor of the estate of her late same-sex spouse filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 26 U.S.C. § 7422 against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff, represented by the national and state ACLU and by private counsel, asked the court for injunctive and monetary relief, alleging a violation of equal protection. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that operation of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to require her to pay federal estate tax, a tax from which opposite-sex spouses are exempt, on the estate of her same-sex spouse violated the equal protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The plaintiff first met her late spouse in 1963, in New York City, and entered into a committed relationship with her shortly thereafter. On 1993, the couple registered as domestic partners in New York City, and in 2007, with the late spouse's health failing, the couple decided to marry in Canada, where same-sex marriage was legal. In 2009, plaintiff's late-spouse passed away, and plaintiff was forced to pay $363,053 in federal estate tax, because under DOMA she did not qualify for the unqualified marital deduction. Plaintiff decided to commence a suit seeking to enjoin DOMA and to receive a refund of the tax she had been made to pay under it.

On February 25, 2011, the Department of Justice, representing the defendant, notified the court that it had come to the conclusion that DOMA is unconstitutional and that it would thus cease defending it. In response, on April 18, 2011, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives (BLAG) moved to intervene in defense of the act, and the Court (Magistrate Judge James C. Francis) granted its motion on June 2, 2011.

On June 24, 2011, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and on August 1, BLAG moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint.

On June 6, 2012, the Court (Judge Barbara S. Jones) addressed both motions, denying BLAG's motion to dismiss and granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Windsor v. United States, No. 1:10-cv-08435, 2012 WL 2019716 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2012). The Court found as a threshold matter that plaintiff had standing to pursue the suit because the State of New York recognized same-sex marriages legally conducted in other jurisdictions in 2009, and thus plaintiff's Canadian marriage was recognized under New York law. It went on to find that there was no rational basis for Section 3 of DOMA, and declared that section unconstitutional and awarded plaintiff the $363,053 refund she sought.

BLAG appealed the District Court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 8, 2012, and the Department of Justice appealed on June 14. The plaintiff filed a motion to expedite the appeal, and on June 22, 2012 the Court of Appeals granted the motion and scheduled oral argument for the week of September 24, 2012.

On July 16, 2012, the plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court before judgment in the Court of Appeals, citing her age and failing health and the number of other petitions before the Court on the same issue (e.g. Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives v. Gill , No. 12-13, Department of Health & Human Services v. Massachusetts, No. 12-15, Office of Personnel Management v. Golinski, No. 12-16) as considerations.

On October 18, 2012, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment in a 2-to-1 decision. Windsor v. United States, No. 12-2335 (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2012). The majority, in an opinion penned by Chief Judge Dennis G. Jacobs, held that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to intermediate scrutiny, and that Section 3 of DOMA could not withstand that standard of review. They declined to address whether Section 3 would pass muster under a lower standard. Judge Chester J. Straub, in dissent, would have held that rational basis review was the appropriate level of scrutiny and that DOMA passed it.

On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted certiorari review, ordering briefing on the questions (1) whether DOMA was constitutional, under the Equal Protection Clause, (2) whether the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and (3) whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case. Argument is scheduled for March 27, 2013. On December 11, the Supreme Court appointed Vicki Jackson, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, as an amicus curiae to argue questions (2) and (3).

(On December 27, BLAG sought certiorari in its own right to ensure that the Supreme Court can still rule on Section 3 of DOMA in the event that the Supreme Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to rule due to the DOJ's agreement with the 2nd Circuit.)

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court held that the case was justiciable, and struck down DOMA as an affront to the Equal Protection rights of same-sex couples. Justice Kennedy wrote for the 5-person majority, and explained:

"The Constitution's guarantee of equality 'must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot' justify disparate treatment of that group. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534-535 (1973). In determining whether a law is motived by animproper animus or purpose, '[d]iscriminations of an unusual character'" especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633). DOMA cannot survive under these principles." "DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality."

The Court emphasized that it was NOT holding that states had to allow same-sex marriages: "This opinion and its holding are confined to . . . lawful marriages," it said.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote separately to emphasize that the decision rested on federalism principles, and did not entail the unconstitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. Justice Scalia wrote separately (joined by Justice Thomas and by the Chief Justice in part) to opine that the Court lacked Article III jurisdiction over the case, and that DOMA was constitutional. Justice Alito wrote separately (joined on the merits by Justice Thomas), taking the position that "BLAG" (the House Republicans) had standing, and that DOMA was constitutional.

	Document
0:12-00307	Docket United States v. Windsor Supreme Court of the United States	June 26, 2013	June 26, 2013 Docket
1:10-cv-08435	Docket [PACER]	May 30, 2014	May 30, 2014 Docket
9 1:10-cv-08435	Amended Complaint	Feb. 2, 2011	Feb. 2, 2011 Complaint
93 1:10-cv-08435	Order [Denying Defendants' Motions to Dimiss and Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment]	June 6, 2012	June 6, 2012 Order/Opinion 833 F.Supp.2d 394
12-00063	[Plaintiff's] Petition for Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment Supreme Court of the United States	July 16, 2012	July 16, 2012 Pleading / Motion / Brief
12-00063	[BLAG's] Brief in Opposition [to Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment] U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit	Aug. 31, 2012	Aug. 31, 2012 Pleading / Motion / Brief
12-00063	[United States'] Petition for Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment United States v. Windsor U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit	Aug. 31, 2012	Aug. 31, 2012 Pleading / Motion / Brief
12-00063	[Plaintiff's] Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment New York state appellate court	Sept. 5, 2012	Sept. 5, 2012 Pleading / Motion / Brief
0:12-00307	[Plaintiff's] Response in Support of Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment United States v. Windsor Supreme Court of the United States	Oct. 10, 2012	Oct. 10, 2012 Pleading / Motion / Brief
12-02335 12-02435	[Second Circuit] Opinion [Affirming the District Court's Judgment] U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit	Oct. 18, 2012	Oct. 18, 2012 Order/Opinion 699 F.3d 169

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against The United States Of America. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 920552)Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor.(ama) (Entered: 11/09/2010)	Nov. 9, 2010	Nov. 9, 2010 PACER
2	SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint served. The United States Of America served on 11/9/2010, answer due 1/8/2011. Service was accepted by Calvin Coleman, Legal Technician. Service was made by Certified Mail. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 11/10/2010)	Nov. 10, 2010	Nov. 10, 2010 PACER
3	ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement). Referred to Magistrate Judge James C. Francis. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 11/23/10) (djc) (Entered: 11/23/2010)	Nov. 23, 2010	Nov. 23, 2010 PACER
4	NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jean Lin on behalf of The United States Of America (Lin, Jean) (Entered: 12/02/2010)	Dec. 2, 2010	Dec. 2, 2010 PACER
5	NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Alexis Brie Karteron on behalf of Edith Schlain Windsor. New Address: New York Civil Liberties Union, 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor, New York, NY, US 10004, 212-607-3300. (Karteron, Alexis) (Entered: 12/02/2010)	Dec. 2, 2010	Dec. 2, 2010 PACER
6	ORDER: By February 9, 2011 the defendant shall serve and file its motion to dismiss. Plaintiff shall answer the motion by March 11, 2011 and shall make any cross-motion for summary judgment. By March 25, 2011, defendant shall submit its reply on its motion to dismiss and submit any application to stay plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. If defendant does not apply for a stay, it shall answer plaintiff's motion for summary judgment by April 8, 2011. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 12/3/2010) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (jpo) Modified on 1/5/2011 (jpo). (Entered: 12/03/2010)	Dec. 3, 2010	Dec. 3, 2010 PACER
7	NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Melissa Goodman on behalf of Edith Schlain Windsor (Goodman, Melissa) (Entered: 12/28/2010)	Dec. 28, 2010	Dec. 28, 2010 RECAP
8	SCHEDULING ORDER: This Court's December 3, 2010 Order is revised as follow: By March 11, 2011, the defendant shall serve and file its motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Sha11 answer the motion by April 11, 2011 and shall make any cross-motion for summary judgment. By April 25, 2011, defendant shall submit its reply on its motion to dismiss and submit any application to stay plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. If defendant does not apply for a stay, it shall answer plaintiff's motion for summary judgment by May 9, 2011. (Motions due by 3/11/2011. Cross Motions due by 4/11/2011. Responses due by 4/11/2011)(Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 1/26/11) (djc) (Entered: 01/28/2011)	Jan. 28, 2011	Jan. 28, 2011 PACER
9	AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 1 Complaint against The United States Of America.Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. Related document: 1 Complaint filed by Edith Schlain Windsor.(mbe) (Entered: 02/03/2011)	Feb. 2, 2011	Feb. 2, 2011 Clearinghouse
10	NOTICE of Notice to the Court by Defendant the United States of America (with attachments). Document filed by The United States Of America. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment, # 2 Attachment)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 02/25/2011) 1 Attachment View on PACER 2 Attachment View on PACER	Feb. 25, 2011	Feb. 25, 2011 PACER
11	ORDER that: 1) Congress, should it wish to intervene in this matter, shall do so by April 18, 2011 by motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 24(a), consistent with 28 U.S.C. §530D; and 2) Counsel for the plaintiff, the Department of Justice, and any Congressional intervenor shall appear on May 9, 2011 at 9:30 am for a conference with the Court to discuss how this case should proceed in light of the President's decision, as announced by the Attorney General on February 23, 2011, that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), 1 U.S.C. § 7 as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. SO ORDERED. (Status Conference set for 5/9/2011 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge James C. Francis) (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 3/15/2011) (lnl) (Entered: 03/15/2011)	March 15, 2011	March 15, 2011 RECAP
12	MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 proposed order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Clement, Paul) (Entered: 04/18/2011) 1 proposed order View on PACER 2 Certificate of Service View on PACER	April 18, 2011	April 18, 2011 RECAP
13	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 12 MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7. MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Clement, Paul) (Entered: 04/18/2011) 1 Exhibit 1 View on PACER 2 Certificate of Service View on PACER	April 18, 2011	April 18, 2011 RECAP
14	MOTION for Paul D. Clement, Richard A. Cirillo and the law firm of King & Spalding LLP to Withdraw as Attorney. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. Return Date set for 5/25/2011 at 09:30 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Cirillo, Richard) (Entered: 04/25/2011) 1 Certificate of Service View on PACER	April 25, 2011	April 25, 2011 RECAP
15	DECLARATION of Richard A. Cirillo in Support re: 14 MOTION for Paul D. Clement, Richard A. Cirillo and the law firm of King & Spalding LLP to Withdraw as Attorney.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Cirillo, Richard) (Entered: 04/25/2011)	April 25, 2011	April 25, 2011 RECAP
16	STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL: that Bancroft PLLC is hereby substituted for King & Spalding LLP as counsel in this action for intervenor Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. Motions terminated: 14 MOTION for Paul D. Clement, Richard A. Cirillo and the law firm of King & Spalding LLP to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 4/26/2011) (tro) (Entered: 04/29/2011)	April 26, 2011	April 26, 2011 RECAP
17	NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Conor Dugan on behalf of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (Dugan, Conor) (Entered: 05/02/2011)	May 2, 2011	May 2, 2011 PACER
18	NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Conor Dugan on behalf of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (Dugan, Conor) (Entered: 05/02/2011)	May 2, 2011	May 2, 2011 PACER
19	NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by H Christopher Bartolomucci on behalf of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (Bartolomucci, H) (Entered: 05/02/2011)	May 2, 2011	May 2, 2011 PACER
20	RESPONSE to Motion re: 12 MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7. MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7.. Document filed by The United States Of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 05/05/2011) 1 Text of Proposed Order View on PACER	May 5, 2011	May 5, 2011 RECAP
21	NOTICE of Notice of Intent to File Reply re: 20 Response to Motion,, 12 MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7. MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 05/05/2011)	May 5, 2011	May 5, 2011 PACER
22	REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER: Plaintiff's summary judgment Motions due by 7/15/2011 (unless the House has not identified any experts pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 above, in which case plaintiff's motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before June 24, 2011); Responses due by 8/15/2011; Replies due by 9/2/2011. All fact and Expert Discovery due by 7/11/2011. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 5/11/11). (djc) (Entered: 05/11/2011)	May 11, 2011	May 11, 2011 RECAP
23	REPLY to Response to Motion re: 12 MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7. MOTION to Intervene a party defendant in this matter for the limited purpose of litigating the constitutionality of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7.. Document filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 05/12/2011)	May 12, 2011	May 12, 2011 RECAP
24	NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Melissa Goodman on behalf of Edith Schlain Windsor. New Address: NYCLU, 125 Broad St, 19th Floor, New York, NY, USA 10004, 212.607.3300. (Goodman, Melissa) (Entered: 05/12/2011)	May 12, 2011	May 12, 2011 PACER
25	STIPULATION AND ORDER GOVERNING PROTECTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material...This order may be modified by further order of the Court. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 5/26/11) (cd) (Entered: 05/27/2011)	May 27, 2011	May 27, 2011 RECAP
26	MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 12 Motion to Intervene as a party defendant. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 6/2/11); Copies mailed by Chambers. (djc) (Entered: 06/02/2011)	June 2, 2011	June 2, 2011 PACER
27	ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV from Roberta A. Kaplan dated 6/9/2011 re: Counsel for the Plaintiff writes to provide the Court with an update concerning the schedule in the above-captioned matter and to request permission to file an initial moving brief of up to 45 pages. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 6/13/2011) (ab) (Entered: 06/13/2011)	June 13, 2011	June 13, 2011 PACER
28	MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor.(Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011)	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 PACER
29	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011)	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 RECAP
30	AFFIDAVIT of Andrew J. Ehrlich in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011) 1 Exhibit 1 View on PACER 2 Exhibit 2 View on PACER 3 Exhibit 3 View on PACER 4 Exhibit 4 View on PACER 5 Exhibit 5 View on PACER 6 Exhibit 6 View on PACER 7 Exhibit 7 View on PACER 8 Exhibit 8 View on PACER	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 PACER
31	AFFIDAVIT of Edith Schlain Windsor in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011) 1 Exhibit A View on PACER 2 Exhibit B View on PACER 3 Exhibit C View on PACER 4 Exhibit D View on PACER 5 Exhibit E View on PACER 6 Exhibit F View on PACER 7 Exhibit G View on PACER 8 Exhibit H View on PACER 9 Exhibit I View on PACER 10 Exhibit J View on PACER 11 Exhibit K View on PACER 12 Exhibit L View on PACER	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 PACER
32	AFFIDAVIT of Letitia Anne Peplau, Ph.D. in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011)	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 PACER
33	AFFIDAVIT of Nancy F. Cott, Ph.D. in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011)	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 PACER
34	AFFIDAVIT of Michael Lamb, Ph.D. in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011)	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 PACER
35	AFFIDAVIT of George Chauncey, Ph.D. in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011)	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 PACER
36	AFFIDAVIT of Gary Segura, Ph.D. in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011)	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 PACER
37	RULE 56.1 STATEMENT. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor. (Ehrlich, Andrew) (Entered: 06/24/2011)	June 24, 2011	June 24, 2011 RECAP
42	ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Barbara S. Jones and Magistrate Judge James C. Francis from Conor B. Dugan dated 7/26/11 re: counsel for Defendant-Intervenor the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives respectfully writes to request permission to file briefs totaling 70 pages for our opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and in support of our separate motion to dismiss, to be apportioned as necessary. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones on 7/26/11) (pl) Modified on 7/27/2011 (pl). (Entered: 07/27/2011)	July 26, 2011	July 26, 2011 PACER
38	FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MOTION for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae of New York State in Support of Plaintiff. Document filed by New York State. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support, # 2 Proposed Brief)(Heller, Simon) Modified on 7/26/2011 (ldi). (Entered: 07/26/2011) 1 Memorandum of Law in Support View on PACER 2 Proposed Brief View on PACER	July 26, 2011	July 26, 2011 PACER
39	FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 38 MOTION for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae of New York State in Support of Plaintiff. Document filed by New York State. (Heller, Simon) Modified on 7/27/2011 (ldi). (Entered: 07/26/2011)	July 26, 2011	July 26, 2011 RECAP

Case: Windsor v. United States

1:10-cv-08435 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details