Court-appointed amica curiae files reply brief in U.S. Supreme Court addressing jurisdiction over challenge to Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
Client(s) Jackson, Vicki C., Prof., as Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae
Jones Day acted as co-counsel to Harvard Law School Professor Vicki Jackson, who was appointed by the Supreme Court to address the Court's jurisdiction over a pending constitutional challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and filed her reply brief on March 20, 2013. The reply brief responds to arguments made by the plaintiffs in the challenge, by the United States (which agrees that the statute is unconstitutional), and by a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives (which has intervened to defend the statute). It contends that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction, because the House committee is not cognizably injured by invalidation of a statute and because neither the United States nor any plaintiff has asked the Court to reverse or modify the judgment below -- only to "review" it. Such freestanding review, outside the context of a request for redress or relief, is not within the judicial power, which Article III of the Constitution restricts to resolution of actual cases and controversies. The reply brief responds to arguments made by the plaintiffs in the challenge, by the United States (which agrees that the statute is unconstitutional), and by a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives (which has intervened to defend the statute). It contends that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction, because the House committee is not cognizably injured by invalidation of a statute and because neither the United States nor any plaintiff has asked the Court to reverse or modify the judgment below -- only to "review" it. Such freestanding review, outside the context of a request for redress or relief, is not within the judicial power, which Article III of the Constitution restricts to resolution of actual cases and controversies.
Windsor v. United States, Case No. 12-307 (U.S. Supreme Court)
