r 11 - 0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COtttfcT"*'1 ~£ kti £: " ^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EDWIN BLESCH, TIMOTHY SMULIAN, FRANCES HERBERT, TAKAKO UEDA, SANTIAGO ORTIZ, PABLO GARCIA, KELLI RYAN, LUCY TRUMAN, HEATHER MORGAN and MARIA DEL MAR VERDUGO,
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. COMPLAINT

v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General; JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; ROBERT M. COWAN, Center Director, National Benefits Center, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and DANIEL M. RENAUD, Director, Vermont Service Center, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Defendants.

AMON, CH.J.

J i \ V q * V ^ S •Has

1 ? * ^

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This is a constitutional challenge to the so-called Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as it applies to the immigration rights of lesbian and gay bi-national couples.
1. Plaintiffs are five committed, loving couples, lawfully married by the government of South Africa and the States of Vermont, Connecticut, and New York. In each couple, one spouse is an American citizen and the other spouse a foreign national. If they were different-sex couples, the federal government would recognize the foreign spouse as an "immediate relative" of a United States citizen, thereby allowing the

American spouse to petition for an immigrant visa for the foreign spouse and place the foreign spouse on the path to lawful permanent residence and citizenship. Solely because of DOMA and its unconstitutional discrimination against same-sex couples, however, these Plaintiffs are being denied the immigration rights afforded to other similarly situated bi-national couples. This is an action to remedy that hateful, harmful, and unlawful discrimination.
2. Each of the Plaintiff couples were legally married, and there is no question that each couple's marriage is recognized in the jurisdiction in which the American spouse resides. For example, Frances Herbert and Takako Ueda were lawfully married in 2011 in Vermont. Thus, if Takako were a man instead of a woman, she would have already been recognized as an "immediate relative," allowing her to attain lawful permanent residence and to remain in the United States.
3. Section 3 of DOMA, however, upends that normal operation of the law. DOMA creates, for the first time in our nation's history, a federal definition of marriage that excludes same-sex couples. While DOMA is not an immigration statute, its restrictive definition of marriage affects over 1,000 federal laws, including laws relating to immigration. Thus, although federal immigration laws apply on their face to all lawfully married couples, same-sex couples, such as Frances and Takako, are denied their rights by operation of DOMA.
4. The discriminatory impact of DOMA is particularly acute in the immigration context. For immigration purposes, whether the federal government recognizes a couple's marriage can determine whether a family may remain in the United States and live together, or may be torn apart.

5. The ability to maintain their families together is, of course, of the highest
concern for the Plaintiff couples and for thousands of other bi-national couples in this
country. But the federal government also has set the preservation of families as a
national priority. That is why the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") allows a
United States citizen to file a petition with United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services ("USCIS") on behalf of a foreign national spouse for classification as an
immediate relative and allows immediate relatives to apply for lawful permanent resident
status and to remain lawfully in the United States. There is no annual limit on the
number of visas available to foreign national spouses of American citizens. As a nation,
we want to keep families together, not rip them apart.
6. Those values have been reaffirmed repeatedly in federal laws and policies
and in statements by members of Congress (Democrats and Republicans alike):
Family unification is the cornerstone of immigration to the United States. Prolonging the separation of spouses from each other, and from their children, is inconsistent with the principles on which this nation was founded. . . . The family structure is one of our great Nation's strongest assets.
136 Cong. Rec. H8631 (daily ed. Oct. 2, 1990) (statement of Rep. McGrath (R)).
The reunification of families serves the national interest not only through the humaneness of the policy itself, but also through the promotion of the public order and well-being of the nation. Psychologically and socially, the reunion of family members with their close relatives promotes the health and welfare of the United States.
U.S. Select Comm'n on Immigr. and Refugee Pol'y, U.S. Immigration Policy and the
National Interest 112-13 (1981).
7. Ironically, it is the federal government that threatens to tear bi-national
families apart. Because of DOMA, the federal government does not recognize the

marriages of same-sex couples and, therefore, denies them the immigration rights afforded to other married couples. As a result, these couples live their lives at constant risk of separation.
8. As described below, the five Plaintiff couples are like other married couples. They met, fell in love, and chose to build a life together. They too committed themselves to one another in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. They have honored and kept that commitment to one another. They have chosen to be together and to make the United States their family's home. However, because they are married to someone of the same sex, they are denied the federal immigration benefits to which different-sex married couples are entitled. They are at constant risk of being forced apart or forced to leave the United States to stay together.
9. Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to immigration laws, is unconstitutional. JURISDICTION
10. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United States. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has authority to grant declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 and to grant mandamus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1361.
VENUE 11. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (e) because the defendants are officers and employees of the United States of America, and because Plaintiffs Edwin Blesch, Timothy Smulian, Santiago Ortiz and Pablo Garcia reside in this judicial district. There is no real property involved in the action.

PARTIES 12. Plaintiff Edwin Blesch is a United States citizen. He is married to Plaintiff Timothy Smulian, a native of South Africa. They live together in Orient, New York. 13. Plaintiff Frances Herbert is a United States citizen. She is married to Plaintiff Takako Ueda, a native of Japan. They live together in Dummerston, Vermont. 14. Plaintiff Heather Morgan is a United States citizen. She is married to Plaintiff Maria del Mar Verdugo, a native of Spain. They live together in New York, New York. 15. Plaintiff Santiago Ortiz is a United States citizen. He is married to Plaintiff Pablo Garcia, a native of Venezuela. They live together in Elmhurst, New York. 16. Plaintiff Kelli Ryan is a United States citizen. She is married to Plaintiff Lucy Truman, a native of the United Kingdom. They live together in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. 17. Defendant Eric H. Holder, Jr. is currently the Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General is the chief federal officer responsible for the enforcement of all federal statutes in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. He is sued in his official capacity. 18. Defendant Janet Napolitano is currently the Secretary of Homeland Security. The Secretary of Homeland Security is charged with the administration and enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act. She is sued in her official capacity. 19. Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas is currently the Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is charged with operating the immigration system

and is ultimately responsible for granting immigration and citizenship benefits. He is sued in his official capacity.
20. Defendant Robert M. Cowan is currently the Center Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services National Benefits Center. Defendant Cowan denied Plaintiff Frances Herbert's 1-130 Petition for Alien Relative and Plaintiff Takako Ueda's 1-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. He is sued in his official capacity.
21. Defendant Daniel M. Renaud is currently the Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Vermont Service Center. Defendant Renaud denied Plaintiff Edwin Blesch's 1-130 Petition for Alien Relative and Plaintiff Kelli Ryan's 1-130 Petition for Alien Relative. He is sued in his official capacity.
FACTS PARTICULAR TO INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 22. Plaintiffs are all U.S. citizens or the legal spouses of U.S. citizens, residing in New York, Connecticut, or Vermont. Each of the Plaintiff couples is made up of one spouse who is a United States citizen and one spouse who is a foreign national. All of the Plaintiff couples were legally married and are recognized as lawfully married spouses under the laws of the state in which they live. 23. For each of the Plaintiff couples, the citizen spouse has petitioned for an immigrant visa so that the foreign national spouse might become a lawful permanent resident of the United States. These petitions would be considered on the merits if the spouses were of a different sex. However, all of Plaintiffs' petitions have been or will be denied solely by operation of Section 3 of DOMA because they are the same sex as their spouse.

Plaintiffs Edwin Blesch and Timothy Smulian 24. Edwin and Tim are a dedicated and loving couple. They have been
together for nearly thirteen years. They live together in Orient, New York. 25. Edwin, who was bom in 1940 in New York, worked as a professor of
English at Nassau Community College in Garden City, New York for more than thirty years until he retired. Tim, a citizen of South Africa and Great Britain, born in 1946, also is retired after working as an architectural designer, a film and television make-up artist and an environmental education officer.
26. Edwin and Tim met in Cape Town, South Africa on August 13, 1999. Edwin, who was 58 at the time, had been traveling in South Africa with friends. When Edwin's friends had to leave unexpectedly, he decided to stay in South Africa and explore Cape Town. He met Tim when he walked into a British tea and coffee emporium where Tim was working. They felt an immediate connection; after talking for hours, they made plans to meet the following day. They spent the remainder of Edwin's stay together.
27. Edwin learned that he was HIV-positive in 1987 and discussed his status with Tim the first time they met. Tim, himself HIV-negative, had been working as an AIDS counselor for a number of years before he met Edwin. Edwin's HIV status did not change the way Tim felt for Edwin.
28. Before he met Tim, Edwin had never had a relationship where he lived with anyone, though he had longed for a committed relationship all of his life. When he retired, he resigned himself to being single. But when Edwin met Tim, he knew that his life had changed. Tim had also believed he would not meet anyone with whom he would want to share his life. He was in the process of buying a house in the country in South

Africa and planned to live out his retirement there alone. When he met Edwin, he knew his life had changed as well.
29. Unfortunately, Edwin had to leave South Africa soon after he and Tim met. When Edwin returned to the United States, he contacted Tim immediately and invited him to visit. Having shared briefly in Tim's life in South Africa, Edwin wanted to share his own life in the United States with Tim. Tim came for a visit and stayed for ten days.
30. After Tim's visit, Edwin knew that he had to find a way to be with Tim, but they did not want to violate any of the United States' immigration laws. Therefore, for each of the next eleven years, Tim and Edwin spent six months in the United States and then six months abroad.
31. After successfully petitioning their town on Long Island to recognize domestic partnerships, Edwin and Tim proudly became one of the first couples in the town to register as domestic partners on June 13, 2005. Then when Suffolk County began registering domestic partnerships two years later, Edwin and Tim were, again, one of the first couples in line. They married in South Africa on August 13, 2007, shortly after marriage equality passed in that country and on the eighth anniversary of the day they met. Their South African marriage is legally recognized in their home state of New York, and would be recognized by the United States but for DOMA.
32. A few years ago, multiple health conditions including HIV/AIDS, complications of HIV therapies, cardiac conditions and degenerative spine disease began to take a toll on Edwin's health. He was no longer able to spend six months in South Africa because it was too far from his doctors. To continue to comply with United States

immigration law, Edwin and Tim began to spend much of each year in Canada. Because Edwin's Medicare does not cover him in Canada, however, he was twice forced to return to the United States for necessary medical care. Tim, heartbroken, could not accompany Edwin to his doctors (as he always does), fearful he would be denied entry to the United States during those six-month periods.
33. On March 29,2011, Edwin filed an 1-130 Petition for Alien Relative with USCIS on behalf of Tim, his legal spouse. On March 14, 2012, USCIS notified Edwin that his petition was denied, stating: "DOMA applies as a matter of federal law whether or not your marriage is recognized under state law. Your spouse is not a person of the opposite sex. Therefore, under the DOMA, your petition must be denied." Plaintiffs Frances Herbert and Takako Ueda
34. Frances and Takako are a loving and committed married couple who live together in the Dummerston, Vermont home that they have shared for eleven years.
35. Frances was bom in Michigan in 1960 and has been living in Vermont for the past twenty-two years. She works as an in-home elder-care provider.
36. Takako was bom in Japan in 1955. In 1979, Takako left Japan to come to the United States to study at Aquinas College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. It was during her first Fall semester at Aquinas College that Takako met Frances, and their lives changed forever.
37. Frances and Takako shared a strong bond from the moment they met. Since Takako was far from home, Frances welcomed Takako into her own family, inviting her to family events and holidays. Their relationship grew stronger as time passed.

38. Sadly, when Takako graduated from college in 1983, she was forced to return to Japan and leave Frances. Although they were far apart, Frances and Takako did not forget about each other. Upon Takako's departure, Frances began writing Takako letters. She would continue to write until she and Takako were reunited in the United States years later.
39. Upon returning to Japan, Takako, bound to family and societal pressure, married a man. But she never stopped thinking of Frances; she never stopped loving her.
40. Frances, too, could not stop thinking of Takako. In 1996, when Frances was about to undergo open heart surgery, Frances realized that she longed to have Takako in her life and started writing to Takako more fervently. In 1999, Frances went to' Japan to visit Takako, needing to see the woman she loved.
41. During the three weeks Frances was in Japan, the connection that the two women felt toward one another was rekindled. Those three weeks changed how they would live the next twelve years.
42. Takako divorced her husband to be with Frances. In 2000, twenty years after they first met, Takako left her family, friends, country and culture behind and came to the United States on a B1/B2 visitor visa.
43. In 2001, Takako was granted Fl student status, and she began nine years of college study. She graduated with an associate's degree with honors in 2004 and graduated magna cum laude with a bachelor's degree from Keene State College in May 2010. She then entered a twelve-month period of Optional Practical Training ("OPT").
44. The couple held a commitment ceremony on September 30, 2000, surrounded by family and friends. Among those participating were Frances's parents and
10

sister, who traveled from Michigan. The ceremony was filled with joy and love. On April 26, 2011, Frances and Takako legally married each other in their home in Dummerston, Vermont. This simple ceremony, too, was deeply meaningful, celebrating Frances and Takako's eleven years together as a family.
45. On September 2, 2011, Frances filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative with USCIS on behalf of Takako. That same day, Takako filed an 1-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. The Petition and Application were both filed within the grace period following the expiration of Takako's OPT status.
46. On December 1, 2011, USCIS notified Frances that her petition was denied, stating: "DOMA applies as a matter of federal law whether or not your marriage is recognized under state law. Your spouse is not a person of the opposite sex. Therefore, under the DOMA your petition must be denied." Because it was predicated upon approval of the 1-130 Petition, Takako's 1-485 Application was also denied. Plaintiffs Heather Morgan and Maria del Mar Verdguo
47. Heather and Maria del Mar ("Mar") are a devoted and loving couple. They are newlyweds, but have known each other for fourteen years.
48. Heather was bom in 1976 and raised in New Jersey. She holds a bachelor's degree in psychology from Cornell University, graduating in 1998. She is a marketing director for a global non-profit organization in New York.
49. Mar is a native of Madrid, Spain, where she was bom in 1969. In Madrid, she worked for a Spanish newspaper company for sixteen years, then for Spain's leading business school and for the American company, General Electric. Mar currently works in marketing for a Spanish-language newspaper in New York.
11

50. Heather and Mar met in 1998, when Heather moved to Madrid to teach English after college. They met through a mutual friend who asked Mar to look after Heather. Mar and her friends immediately accepted Heather and treated her like an old friend. Mar in particular took a special interest in Heather. Mar would often invite Heather to stay with her and her family for weekends.
51. After Heather left Spain and moved back to New Jersey, she and Mar stayed in touch and remained close. That following summer, in 1999, Mar came to visit Heather and her family in New Jersey for three weeks. Heather's family immediately welcomed Mar, just as Mar's family had welcomed Heather. During the ensuing years, Heather always took her vacations with Mar and their friends. Although separated by distance and circumstance, the two remained incredibly close.
52. In January 2007, Mar came to the United States to study English. For the first time, she and Heather were able to spend time together on a day-to-day basis while Heather worked and Mar studied. Although at this time they were still just friends, it was clear that their relationship was far more intimate than just friendship. Heather and Mar spent all of their significant moments together, talked regularly, and took care of each other. Simply, they loved each other.
53. In May 2007, Mar returned to Spain to start a new job. The following summer—as she always did when she had time for vacation—Heather returned to Spain to see Mar. The two shared a wonderful few weeks together.
54. After Heather returned to the United States, though, she felt differently than she usually did after visiting Spain. While she usually was energized and upbeat,
12

this time she felt a profound longing to go back. In October 2008, Heather returned to Madrid and to Mar. It was on this trip that Heather and Mar realized they were in love.
55. In November 2008, anxious to see Heather, Mar came to New York and the two were able to spend time together as a couple for the first time. In February 2009, Mar returned to the United States on a tourist visa and then decided to stay and go to school. In February 2011, Mar was fortunate to find an employer to sponsor her for a temporary Hl-B skilled worker visa, which she currently holds.
56. With Mar in New York, their relationship blossomed. All of their friends and family observed how they lit up when they were together. Everyone immediately knew what had taken Heather and Mar ten years to discover—that they are soul-mates.
57. Heather could not wait to propose to Mar, which she did in November 2009. On August 19, 2011, in front of forty of their closest friends and family, Heather and Mar were married in New York City by a Rabbi. It was one of the best days of their lives.
58. For Mar, Heather is her dream come true. She is "home" to her. Heather considers herself the luckiest person in the world to have Mar in her life. Now married, they are longing to grow their family. As Heather says, "Mar is magical with children and it would be an injustice for Mar not to have kids." Unfortunately, Heather and Mar have been forced to put those plans on hold because they are not sure whether they will be able to raise their children together in the United States.
59. On March 28, 2012, Heather filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative with USCIS on behalf of Mar, her legal spouse. Because of DOMA, this Petition is certain to be denied.
13

Plaintiffs Santiago Ortiz and Pablo Garcia 60. Santiago and Pablo have maintained a loving and committed relationship
for over twenty years. 61. Santiago is a Puerto Rican American who was born in New York City in
1955. He worked as a school psychologist with the Rochester City School District, the New York City School District and for a time at Island Academy at Rikers Island. He holds a bachelor's degree from the University of Puerto Rico and a master's degree in school psychology from Alfred University. Santiago retired in 1995.
62. Pablo was bom in 1960 in Venezuela. In Caracas, he worked as a copywriter in an advertising agency and as a playwright. In New York, he writes Spanish-language plays for local theaters. He has an associate's degree, a bachelor's degree and a master's degree and is currently in his second year at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York working toward his Ph.D. He volunteers teaching a Spanish GED class at Columbia University and volunteers with a number of arts programs targeting youth.
63. Pablo and Santiago met in 1991 in Caracas. They became enamored with each other immediately.
64. Soon after meeting, Pablo accompanied Santiago to Puerto Rico to meet Santiago's family. Santiago then returned to Caracas with his mother to meet Pablo's family. Although they were both afraid of how their families would react to their relationship, all agreed that the two men were made for each other and accepted them immediately.
65. Santiago learned that he was living with HIV in 1987. Pablo is HIVnegative. At the time they met, no effective treatments were available for HIV.
14

Santiago, therefore, knew that he could die, and he wanted more than anything for Pablo to be with him during the rest of his life. Santiago asked Pablo to come to New York, promising Pablo's mother that he would take care of him. To be with the man he loved, Pablo left his family, friends and culture behind.
66. Living together as a couple, their romance blossomed, and Pablo extended his lawful stay in the United States. After that time expired, the couple made the difficult decision to have Pablo remain in the United States without an authorized immigration status. That means, for Pablo, that he cannot go to Venezuela and visit his mother or the rest of his family. He could not attend his father's funeral, or visit his grave. He has given that up out of love for his spouse. Santiago, in return, has made the trip to Venezuela on Pablo's behalf, bringing Pablo's love and respect to his family from whom he is separated because of DOMA.
67. In 1993, they registered as domestic partners in New York City. They were legally married in Stamford, Connecticut on May 2, 2011.
68. On March 29, 2012, Santiago filed an 1-130 Petition for Alien Relative with USCIS on behalf of Pablo, his legal spouse. That same day, Pablo filed an 1-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. Because of DOMA, the Petition and Application are certain to be denied. Plaintiffs Kelli Ryan and Lucy Truman
69. Kelli and Lucy have been a couple for over eleven years. They are both highly educated, talented and respected immunologists.
70. Kelli was bom in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1972. She holds a bachelor of science from Marquette University and a doctorate in immunology from the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Emory University. After obtaining her doctorate,
15

Kelli relocated to the United Kingdom for postdoctoral training at the University of Edinburgh and later for further training at the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom. She is currently a Senior Scientist at Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals in Ridgefield, Connecticut.
71. Lucy was bom in the United Kingdom in 1968. She holds a bachelor of science in biochemistry and physiology from the University of London, a bachelor of medicine from the University of Southampton (UK), and a doctorate in philosophy in immunology from the University of Edinburgh. Currently, Lucy is a Postdoctoral Fellow in Human Translational Immunology at Yale University, where she is the recipient of an International Fellowship from the UK charity, Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research.
72. Kelli and Lucy first met in Edinburgh, Scotland in 2000 when Kelli was completing her postdoctoral training and Lucy was training as an ear, nose and throat surgeon. As fate would have it, they started working in the same lab on the same day, where they shared a very small office with two other researchers. They quickly developed a friendship, which over time evolved into a romantic relationship. By 2001, they were a couple.
73. In 2004, Kelli and Lucy moved to Newcastle, United Kingdom. Eager to formalize their already strong commitment to each other, they entered into a civil partnership on July 20, 2006. For Kelli, Lucy and their friends and family, this was a celebration filled with happiness and love. It was held in an old maritime building in Tynemouth, England. Lucy's nephews were the ring bearers and Lucy's sister helped organize the flowers. They continued their celebration into the weekend at Alnmouth, a
16

small town on the Northumberland coast, where they danced and enjoyed the company of their loved ones.
74. In 2007, Kelli was offered a job in Connecticut. Lucy decided to remain in the United Kingdom to finish her studies and training. Samson, their brown-spotted cat, went with Kelli to Connecticut, but not before Kelli and Lucy obtained a European Union pet passport for him, listing both of them as his owners.
75. During their time apart, Lucy visited Kelli often. With Lucy's frequent travels to the United States, she feared each time that she would not be allowed entry to be with her partner.
76. In May 2009, Lucy came to the United States with a B1/B2 visitor visa. She then received a post-doctoral fellowship at Yale and was granted a temporary H1B skilled worker visa in July 2009.
77. On March 18, 2010, Lucy and Kelli were legally married in Newtown, Connecticut.
78. Throughout their friendship, courtship, civil union and marriage, Kelli and Lucy have lived their lives as any other loving, committed couple. They have enjoyed each other in good times—^vacations in Belgium, Switzerland and Spain—and supported each other in bad times—the loss of Kelli's mother following a long fight with cancer. They have become a part of each other's families and have been embraced by each other's friends.
79. Lucy's buoyant exuberance perfectly complements Kelli's calm, gentle nature. Their friends say that they are perfect for each other. Now, they seek only to remain together, legally, in the United States.
17

80. On November 14, 2011, Kelli filed an 1-130 Petition for Alien Relative

with USCIS on Lucy's behalf. On March 27,2012, USCIS notified Kelli that her petition

was denied, stating: "DOMA applies as a matter of federal law whether or not your

marriage is recognized under state law. Your spouse is not a person of the opposite sex.

Therefore, under the DOMA your petition must be denied."

*

*

*

81. As couples, Kelli and Lucy, Edwin and Tim, Frances and Takako, Santiago and Pablo, and Heather and Mar are as different from each other as are any couples. And they are as similar to each other as are all couples. They love each other, with all the joy and pain that love encompasses. They are married, with all of the promise that marriage brings. Unlike married, different-sex couples, however, they face a risk of being torn apart by the United States government, perhaps forced to live separately or to leave the country. DOMA threatens their marriages while purporting to "defend" marriage. It does violence not only to these five couples, not only to the institution of marriage, but to the Constitution of the United States.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK The Relevant Immigration Framework
82. Under the INA, United States citizens may petition for their "children, spouses, and parents" to be classified as "immediate relatives," who are therefore eligible for an immigrant visa and lawful permanent residence in the United States. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), 1154.
83. To petition for an immigrant visa on behalf of his or her spouse, the United States citizen must file an 1-130 Petition for Alien Relative with USCIS. 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a)(1) (2009). If the adjudicator "determines that the facts stated in the petition

18

are true and that the alien in behalf of whom the petition is made is an immediate relative," then the adjudicator "shall.. . approve the petition." 8 U.S.C. §1154(b). Therefore, an 1-130 is approved where the foreign national is a bona fide "spouse" of an American citizen under the INA. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b), 1154(b), (c).
84. The INA does not define the term "spouse." Rather, an individual's marital status typically is governed by the law where the marriage was celebrated. See Matter ofDela Cruz, 141. & N. Dec. 686 (BIA 1974) ("the law is clear .. . [t]he validity of a marriage is generally governed by the law of the place of celebration").
85. At the same time or after the citizen spouse files the Form 1-130 Petition, the foreign national spouse may file a Form 1-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status in order to gain status as a lawful permanent resident of the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 245.2. The foreign national's status may be adjusted if: "(1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment, (2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and (3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed." 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a); see also 8 C.F.R. § 245.1.
86. Lawful permanent residency allows a foreign national to reside in the United States, to work here, and to travel in and out of the country with limited restrictions. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20); 8 C.F.R. §§ 274a. 12(a)(1), 316.5(c)(1). As the name implies, that status is permanent—a lawful permanent resident may remain in the United States indefinitely, so long as the person abides by the nation's immigration laws. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20). Three years after obtaining lawful permanent residence, the spouse of a United States citizen may apply to naturalize to become a United States
19

citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1430(a). The naturalization statute again recognizes the primacy of the marital relationship by reducing the time to apply from five years to three for spouses of United States citizens. 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a); 8 U.S.C. § 1430(a). The Defense of Marriage Act
87. The federal government defers to the states' determinations of whether a couple is validly married, because marriage is within the states' core powers. See Elk Grove Unified Sch Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1,12 (2004); Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 716 (1992) (Blackmun, J., concurring).
88. When DOMA was enacted in 1996, it changed that longstanding practice, but only for same-sex couples. Specifically, Section 3 of DOMA provides that "[i]n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse5 refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." 1 U.S.C. § 7.
89. When DOMA was enacted, six justifications were given for this unequal treatment of gay men and lesbians: (1) defending and nurturing the institution of heterosexual marriage; (2) promoting and encouraging heterosexuality; (3) protecting "democratic self-governance"; (4) preserving government resources; (5) promoting moral disapproval of homosexuality; and (6) encouraging "responsible procreation" and childrearing. H.R. Rep. No. 104-664(1996). None of these purported justifications provides even a rational basis for DOMA, nor is there any other rational basis for the law.
90. Congress's proffered interests in defending heterosexual marriage and promoting heterosexuality are both invalid and illogical. Tradition alone cannot provide
20

a legitimate basis for a discriminatory law. See Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 326 (1993). Even if it could, DOMA does not promote heterosexuality or "heterosexual marriage," as DOMA confers no rights on different-sex couples. It gives them nothing. It just denies rights to same-sex couples.
91. DOMA likewise cannot be justified by claims that it protects state sovereignty or preserves scarce resources. DOMA does just the opposite. It eliminates states' longstanding sovereign power to define marriage, and creates inconsistency between the federal and state definitions of marriage. The Congressional Budget Office also has recognized that DOMA does not save the federal government even one penny. Instead, DOMA costs the federal government billions of dollars. Cong. Budget Office, U.S. Cong., The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages 1 (June 21,2004), http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/55xx/ doc5 5 59/06-2 l-samesexmarriage.pdf.
92. Moral disapproval of homosexuality—though surely the real motive behind DOMA—cannot serve as a legitimate basis for a discriminatory law. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 577-78 (2003); Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631-35 (1996). As the Supreme Court explained in Romer, "if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." 517 U.S. at 634-35 (quoting Dep 't ofAgric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528,534(1973)).
93. Finally, DOMA does nothing to promote either "responsible procreation" or responsible child-rearing. To the contrary, DOMA injures children by denying them
21

the safety and security of having the marriages of their parents federally recognized, and, for bi-national couples, possibly forcing their parents apart.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF 94. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 95. As a direct result of DOMA, USCIS treats legally married same-sex couples differently than legally married different-sex couples. Solely because theirs are marriages between two people of the same sex, the United States citizen Plaintiffs were or will be denied the 1-130 Petition for Alien Relative they filed on behalf of their samesex, foreign-national spouses. In addition, solely because theirs are marriages between two people of the same sex, the foreign-national Plaintiffs were or will be denied a Form 1-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. Had they been different-sex couples, Plaintiffs' 1-130 Petitions and 1-485 Applications would have been considered on the merits and would have been granted. Accordingly, DOMA discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. 96. Because DOMA, as applied by USCIS, requires this disparity of treatment with regard to the adjudication of Plaintiffs' Petitions for Alien Relative and, ultimately, Applications for Lawful Permanent Residence Status for the foreign-national Plaintiffs, it creates a classification that singles out one class of valid marriages—those of same-sex couples—and subjects persons in those marriages to differential treatment compared to other similarly situated couples. This disparate treatment is without justification and in violation of the right of equal protection secured by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
22

97. Additionally, DOMA violates the right of equal protection secured by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution because it discriminates on the basis of sex. DOMA recognizes marriages where one spouse is a man and the other spouse is a woman. But where both spouses are women, or both spouses are men, DOMA prevents federal recognition of these valid marriages. For example, if Edwin were female instead of male, he would have had his 1-130 petition for his spouse Tim granted. Because the only difference between different-sex and same-sex bi-national spouses is the sex of the spouses, DOMA unlawfully discriminates on the basis of an individual's sex.
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray that this Court:
1. Declare DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7, unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs. 2. Enjoin the Defendants from continuing to discriminate against Plaintiffs by treating them differently based on their sexual orientation and sex. 3. Compel USCIS to adjudicate the 1-130 petition of Santiago Ortiz on behalf of his spouse, Pablo Garcia, on the merits, without regard to sex or sexual orientation. 4. Compel USCIS to adjudicate the 1-130 petition of Heather Morgan on behalf of her spouse, Maria del Mar Verdugo, on the merits, without regard to sex or sexual orientation. 5. Compel USCIS to reopen and re-adjudicate the 1-130 petition of Edwin Blesch on behalf of his spouse, Timothy Smulian, on the merits, without regard to sex or sexual orientation.
23

6. Compel USCIS to reopen and re-adjudicate the 1-130 petition of Frances Herbert on behalf of her spouse, Takako Ueda, on the merits, without regard to sex or sexual orientation.

7. Compel USCIS to reopen and re-adjudicate the 1-130 petition of Kelli Ryan on behalf of her spouse, Lucy Truman, on the merits, without regard to sex or sexual orientation.

8. proper.

Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and

9. Award Plaintiffs reasonable costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2412.

24

Dated: New York, New York April 2, 2012

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP

Eric Alan Stone Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019-6064 (212) 373-3326 estone@paulweiss.com
Victoria Neilson Thomas R. Plummer (application for admission to
EDNY in process) Immigration Equality 40 Exchange Place, #1705 New York, New York 10005-2701 (212)714-2904 vneilson@immigrationequality.org tplummer@immigrationequality.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

25

 </s> Case 1:12-cv-01578-CBA Document 31 Filed 08/26/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 406

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EDWIN BLESCH, TIMOTHY SMULIAN, FRANCES HERBERT, TAKAKO UEDA, SANTIAGO ORTIZ, PABLO GARCiA, KELLI RYAN, LUCY TRUMAN, HEATHER MORGAN and MARIA DEL MAR VERDUGO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General; JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; ROBERT M. COWAN, Center Director, National Benefits Center, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and DANIEL M. RENAUD, Director, Vermont Service Center, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Defendants.

No. 1:12-cv-01578-CBA
NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
FILED
IN CLERifS OFFICE
* * U.S. DISTRICT CGURT E.D.N.Y. AUG 26 20\3
BROOKLYN OFFICE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, whereas no answer or motion for summary judgment have been served, Plaintiffs Edwin Blesch, Timothy Smulian, Frances Herbert, Takako Ueda, Santiago Ortiz, Pablo Garcia, Kelli Ryan, Lucy Truman, Heather Morgan and Maria del Mar Verdugo, through their undersigned counsel, hereby dismiss without prejudice this action against Defendants pursuant to Rule 4!(a)(l)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Doc# USI 878314Svl

Case 1:12-cv-01578-CBA Document 31 Filed 08/26/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 407

CV-12-1578 (CBA) Dated: New York, New York August 23, 2013

PAUL, WEISS, RIF
qGARRISONLL

D, WHARTON &

Eric Alan Stone Julie E. Fink 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019-6064 (212) 373-3326 estone@paulweiss.com

Victoria Neilson Tom Plummer IMMIGRATION EQUALITY 40 Exchange Plaza, #1300 New York, New York 10005-2701 (212) 714-2904 vneilson@immigrationequality.org tplummer@immigrationequality.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SO ORDERED:
August .21o , 2013

s/Carol Bagley Amon

zr o 7

USDJ

2

 </s> Case: 1:12-cv-01578-CBA As of: 02/13/2015 07:48 PM EST 1 of 9
CLOSED,MJSELECT−JO
U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:12−cv−01578−CBA

Blesch et al v. Holder et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon Cause: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff Edwin Blesch

Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Date Terminated: 08/26/2013 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 465 Other Immigration Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
represented by Eric Alan Stone Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton &Garrison 1285 Avenue Of The Americas New York, NY 10019 212−373−3000 Fax: 212−757−3990 Email: estone@paulweiss.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victoria F. Neilson Immigration Equality 40 Exchange Place Suite 1705 New York, NY 10005 212−714−2904 Email: vneilson@immigrationequality.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Roy Plummer Immigration Equality 40 Exchange Place, Suite 1705 New York, NY 10005 212−714−2904 Fax: 212−714−2904 Email: tplummer@immigrationequality.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Timothy Smulian

represented by Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victoria F. Neilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Frances Herbert

represented by Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:12-cv-01578-CBA As of: 02/13/2015 07:48 PM EST 2 of 9

Plaintiff Takako Ueda
Plaintiff Santiago Ortiz
Plaintiff Pablo Garcia
Plaintiff Kelli Ryan

Victoria F. Neilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victoria F. Neilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victoria F. Neilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victoria F. Neilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victoria F. Neilson

Case: 1:12-cv-01578-CBA As of: 02/13/2015 07:48 PM EST 3 of 9

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lucy Truman

represented by Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victoria F. Neilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Heather Morgan

represented by Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victoria F. Neilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Maria Del Mar Verdugo

represented by Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victoria F. Neilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Eric H. Holder, Jr. United States Attorney General

represented by Aaron Goldsmith Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Dis Po Box 868, Ben Franlin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202)532−4107

Case: 1:12-cv-01578-CBA As of: 02/13/2015 07:48 PM EST 4 of 9

Fax: (202)305−7000 Email: aaron.goldsmith@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jesi J. Carlson US Dept of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Li Po Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−305−7037 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: jesi.j.carlson@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Dunn United States Attorneys Office Civil Division Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201−1820 (718) 254−6029 Fax: 718−254−6081 Email: Scott.Dunn@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy M. Belsan U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Office Of Immigration Litigation District Court Section Po Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4596 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: timothy.m.belsan@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Janet Napolitano Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

represented by Aaron Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jesi J. Carlson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Dunn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy M. Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Alejandro Mayorkas Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

represented by Aaron Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:12-cv-01578-CBA As of: 02/13/2015 07:48 PM EST 5 of 9

Jesi J. Carlson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Dunn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy M. Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Robert M. Cowan Center Director, National Benefits Center, United Stats Citizenship and Immigration Services

represented by Aaron Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jesi J. Carlson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Dunn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy M. Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Daniel M. Renaud Director, Vermont Service Center, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

represented by Aaron Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jesi J. Carlson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Dunn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy M. Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Defendant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group

represented by H Christopher Bartolomucci Bancroft PLLC 1919 M Street, N.W. Suite 470 Washington, DC 20036 202−234−0090 Fax: 202−234−2806 Email: cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com

Case: 1:12-cv-01578-CBA As of: 02/13/2015 07:48 PM EST 6 of 9
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kerry W. Kircher Office of General Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives Office Of General Counsel 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 202−225−9700 Fax: 202−226−1360 Email: kerry.kircher@mail.house.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/02/2012
04/02/2012 04/02/2012 04/04/2012 04/09/2012 04/10/2012
04/10/2012
04/10/2012
04/10/2012
04/10/2012
05/15/2012 05/15/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Robert M. Cowan, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, Daniel M. Renaud, filed by Heather Morgan, Maria Del Mar Verdugo, Frances Herbert, Lucy Truman, Edwin Blesch, Timothy Smulian, Takako Ueda, Pablo Garcia, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Davis, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
Summons Issued as to Robert M. Cowan, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, Daniel M. Renaud, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Davis, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
FILING FEE: $ 350.00, receipt number 4653041905 (Davis, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Dunn on behalf of All Defendants (aty to be noticed) (Dunn, Scott) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Jesi J. Carlson on behalf of All Defendants (aty to be noticed) (Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Heather Morgan, Maria Del Mar Verdugo, Frances Herbert, Lucy Truman, Edwin Blesch, Timothy Smulian, Takako Ueda, Pablo Garcia, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan. Daniel M. Renaud served on 4/3/2012, answer due 6/4/2012. (Stone, Eric) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Heather Morgan, Maria Del Mar Verdugo, Frances Herbert, Lucy Truman, Edwin Blesch, Timothy Smulian, Takako Ueda, Pablo Garcia, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan. Robert M. Cowan served on 4/3/2012, answer due 6/4/2012. (Stone, Eric) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Heather Morgan, Maria Del Mar Verdugo, Frances Herbert, Lucy Truman, Edwin Blesch, Timothy Smulian, Takako Ueda, Pablo Garcia, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan. Janet Napolitano served on 4/3/2012, answer due 6/4/2012. (Stone, Eric) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Heather Morgan, Maria Del Mar Verdugo, Frances Herbert, Lucy Truman, Edwin Blesch, Timothy Smulian, Takako Ueda, Pablo Garcia, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan. Alejandro Mayorkas served on 4/3/2012, answer due 6/4/2012. (Stone, Eric) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Heather Morgan, Maria Del Mar Verdugo, Frances Herbert, Lucy Truman, Edwin Blesch, Timothy Smulian, Takako Ueda, Pablo Garcia, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan. Eric H. Holder, Jr served on 4/3/2012, answer due 6/4/2012. (Stone, Eric) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
9 Notice of MOTION to Intervene and Unopposed Motion to Intervene by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Proposed Order) (Bartolomucci, H) (Entered: 05/15/2012)
10 MEMORANDUM in Support re 9 Notice of MOTION to Intervene and Unopposed Motion to Intervene filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5

Case: 1:12-cv-01578-CBA As of: 02/13/2015 07:48 PM EST 7 of 9

05/15/2012 05/16/2012 05/24/2012 05/25/2012 05/29/2012 05/30/2012 05/31/2012
06/01/2012
06/12/2012 06/15/2012 06/18/2012 07/16/2012 07/17/2012 07/25/2012

Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L) (Bartolomucci, H) (Entered: 05/15/2012)
11 Letter Re: Motion to Intervene Pursuant to Chief Judge Amon's Motion Practice Rule 3(D) by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (Bartolomucci, H) (Entered: 05/15/2012)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas Roy Plummer on behalf of Edwin Blesch, Pablo Garcia, Frances Herbert, Heather Morgan, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan, Timothy Smulian, Lucy Truman, Takako Ueda, Maria Del Mar Verdugo (aty to be noticed) (Plummer, Thomas) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
13 NOTICE by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B) (Bartolomucci, H) (Entered: 05/24/2012)
14 NOTICE by Robert M. Cowan, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, Daniel M. Renaud (Attachments: # 1 Attachments 1−3) (Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
15 RESPONSE to Motion re 9 Notice of MOTION to Intervene and Unopposed Motion to Intervene filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
16 STIPULATION re 1 Complaint, Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint by Robert M. Cowan, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, Daniel M. Renaud (Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 05/30/2012)
17 ORDER granting 9 Unopposed Motion to Intervene by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives. The House's motion to intervene in this matter to defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7, is granted. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 5/30/2012. (Turner−Dodge, Lee) (Entered: 05/31/2012)
ORDER: re 16 Stipulation filed. The parties and proposed intervenor, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives, have stipulated to a 14−day extension of the responsive pleading deadline. The new responsive pleading deadline will be June 18, 2012. Application for the extension is GRANTED. So Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 6/1/2012. (Liberatore, Marie) (Entered: 06/01/2012)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Kerry W. Kircher on behalf of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (aty to be noticed) (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
19 STIPULATION re 1 Complaint, Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (Bartolomucci, H) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
ORDER : re 19 Stipulation − the parties have agreed, contingent on the Court's approval, to a (30) day extension of the responsive pleading deadline in this action to July 18, 2012. APPLICATION GRANTED. So Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 6/15/2012. (Liberatore, Marie) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
20 Proposed Scheduling Order re: Proposed Motion to Stay Proceeding and Responsive Pleading Deadline by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (Bartolomucci, H) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
NOTICE OF TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE: Re: 20 . A status conference will be held by telephone on July 25, 2012 at 4:00pm before Chief Judge Amon. Mr. Bartolomucci is directed to coordinate the conference call to chambers 718−613−2410. (Liberatore, Marie) (Entered: 07/17/2012)
21 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon:Status Conference held on 7/25/2012. Counsel for parties present. Status conference held by telephone before Chief Judge Amon on 7/25/12. The case is stayed pending the Second Circuit's resolution of Windsor v. United States, No. 12 CV 2335 (2d Cir) (Court Reporter Charisse Kitt.) (Fernandez, Erica) (Entered: 07/26/2012)

Case: 1:12-cv-01578-CBA As of: 02/13/2015 07:48 PM EST 8 of 9

11/01/2012 11/05/2012
11/14/2012 11/27/2012
11/27/2012 12/04/2012 12/10/2012
12/18/2012 07/08/2013 07/19/2013
07/24/2013 07/26/2013
08/02/2013 08/23/2013

22 NOTICE OF PERTINENT RECENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS (Marziliano, August) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
23 NOTICE by Edwin Blesch, Pablo Garcia, Frances Herbert, Heather Morgan, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan, Timothy Smulian, Lucy Truman, Takako Ueda, Maria Del Mar Verdugo re 22 Notice (Other) / Response to Intervenor−Defendant's Notice of Pertinent Recent Legal Developments (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Stone, Eric) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
24 NOTICE by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Regarding Second Notice of Pertinent Recent Legal Developments (Bartolomucci, H) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
ORDER EXTENDING STAY: Upon consent of the parties, the stay imposed by this Court on July 25, 2012 is extended, pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions on eight certiorari petitions that ask the Court to review the constitutionality of DOMA. Consideration of these petitions is currently scheduled for Nov. 30, 2012. A status conference will be scheduled sometime after Nov. 30 to determine the schedule for this case. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 11/27/2012. (Baek, Hanna) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by Timothy M. Belsan on behalf of All Defendants (aty to be noticed) (Belsan, Timothy) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by Aaron Goldsmith on behalf of All Defendants (aty to be noticed) (Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 12/04/2012)
SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephone Status Conference set for 12/18/2012 at 2:30 PM before Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon. Plaintiff's counsel Eric Stone is directed to set up the conference with all involved parties and telephone chambers at 718−613−2410. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 12/10/2012. (Baek, Hanna) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
27 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon:Status Conference held on 12/18/2012. Counsel for parties present. Stay is continued pending US Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor. (Court Reporter Victoria Torres Butler.) (Fernandez, Erica) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
28 Letter re Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Intervenor−Defendant by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (Bartolomucci, H) Modified on 7/10/2013 (Fernandez, Erica). (Entered: 07/08/2013)
SCHEDULING ORDER: Re 28 A premotion conference will be held by telephone on Friday, July 26, 2013 at 3:00pm before Chief Judge Amon. Mr. Bartolomucci is directed to coordinate the call to chambers 718−613−2410. So Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 7/19/2013. (Liberatore, Marie) (Entered: 07/19/2013)
RESCHEDULING ORDER: All counsel consent to changing the time only to 4:30pm for the premotion telephone conference set for July 26, 2013 before Chief Judge Amon. (Liberatore, Marie) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
Minute Entry: Premotion conference held by telephone before Chief Judge Amon on 7/26/13. Appearances: for Plaintiff − Eric Stone (Julie Fink, Victoria Neilson, Thomas Plummer). For Defendants − Aaron Goldsmith (AUSA Scott Dunn). For Intervenor−Defendant − H. Christopher Bartolomucci. Intervenor−Defendant's motion to withdraw as party defendant is GRANTED. Remaining parties to file a letter with the Court by August 21, 2013 apprising Court of status of the case.(Court Reporter Lisa Schmid.) (Liberatore, Marie) (Entered: 07/26/2013)
29 Letter re: Status Update by Edwin Blesch, Pablo Garcia, Frances Herbert, Heather Morgan, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan, Timothy Smulian, Lucy Truman, Takako Ueda, Maria Del Mar Verdugo (Stone, Eric) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
30 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Edwin Blesch, Pablo Garcia, Frances Herbert, Heather Morgan, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan, Timothy Smulian, Lucy Truman, Takako Ueda, Maria Del Mar Verdugo Without Prejudice (Stone, Eric) (Entered: 08/23/2013)

Case: 1:12-cv-01578-CBA As of: 02/13/2015 07:48 PM EST 9 of 9

08/26/2013

31 ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Plaintiffs through their undersigned counsel, hereby dismiss without prejudice this action against Defendants pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of the F.R.C.P.. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 8/26/2013. (Fernandez, Erica) (Entered: 08/26/2013)


[CONTENT] Defense of Marriage Act | 1 | lesbian ||| April 2, 2012 | five | South Africa | Vermont | New York | Connecticut | the U.S. District Court | the Eastern District | New York ||| Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services | USCIS | DHS ||| one | one ||| 1 ||| one | American | American ||| USCIS ||| the Equal Protection Clause ||| Obama ||| Bipartizan Legal Advisory Group | Republican | House of Representatives ||| BLAG | May 31, 2012 ||| July 25, 2012 | Amon | the Second Circuit Court of Appeals | Windsor v. United States | 12 | CV | 2335 ||| Clearinghouse |||  ||| July 8, 2013 | the Supreme Court's | BLAG ||| August 26, 2013 | Court [SUMMARY] This is a constitutional challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as it applies to the immigration rights of lesbian and gay bi-national couples.  It was filed on April 2, 2012, by five such couples, each lawfully married in South Africa, Vermont, New York, or Connecticut, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  Represented by Immigration Equality and private pro bono counsel, plaintiffs sued the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS -- a component agency of DHS), seeking to compel recognition of their same-sex marriages and non-discriminatory adjudication of marriage-based immigrant benefits. 

Under DOMA, marriage "means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." 1 U.S.C. § 7.  In each of the plaintiff couples, one spouse is American and the other foreign; if the marriage were not same-sex, the American spouse could petition for an immigrant visa for the foreign spouse and place the foreign spouse on the path to lawful permanent residence and citizenship. However, following DOMA's direction, USCIS has denied plaintiffs those immigration benefits.  Plaintiffs argue that this denial is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, constituting discrimination on account of both sexual orientation and sex. 

The Obama administration has announced that in its view, DOMA is unconstitutional and has therefore declined to defend it in court (although the federal government continues to enforce the statute).  Accordingly, a "Bipartizan Legal Advisory Group" (BLAG) has been appointed by the (Republican) House of Representatives to appear in cases like this one and defend the constitutionality of DOMA.  BLAG filed papers in this case on May 31, 2012.  

On July 25, 2012, the district court (Judge Amon) stayed proceedings in the case--including immigration enforcement against any of the plaintiffs--pending the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Windsor v. United States, No. 12 CV 2335 (2d Cir), a case already pending on appeal similarly challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.  (<a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12113">PB-NY-0017</a> in the Clearinghouse.)  Since the government had declined to stay immigration enforcement, this was reported as a small victory by the plaintiffs.  

On July 8, 2013, following the Supreme Court's decision in <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12113">Windsor</a>, BLAG withdrew as intevenor-defendant. On August 26, 2013, after the Plaintiffs' notice of voluntary dismissal, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice.