University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management PB-CA-0031
Docket / Court 3:10-cv-00257-JSW ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Public Benefits / Government Services
Special Collection Same-Sex Marriage
Attorney Organization Lambda Legal
Case Summary
On January 20, 2010, an employee of the federal judiciary married to her same-sex partner under California law filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, and the ... read more >
On January 20, 2010, an employee of the federal judiciary married to her same-sex partner under California law filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, against the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The plaintiff, represented by private counsel and Lambda Legal, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief and a review of administrative action, alleging an equal protection violation. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Fifth Amendment by refusing to recognize lawful same-sex marriages for purposes of the laws governing spousal health benefits for federal employees, thereby denying her of a benefit that would be available to her if her spouse were of the opposite sex.

The plaintiff, a 19-year employee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, had applied for health benefits for her wife and been denied, and though the Ninth Circuit (Chief Judge Alex Kozinski) then issued an order as part of the employment dispute procedure finding that she was entitled to spousal health benefits, In re Golinski, 587 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2009), the OPM had refused to comply. As such, the plaintiff's initial complaint requested a writ of mandamus to enforce the Ninth Circuit order. On March 16, 2011, however, the District Court (Judge Jeffrey S. White) dismissed this claim, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to issue mandamus relief, Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 781 F. Supp. 2d 967 (N.D. Cal. 2011), and the plaintiff was forced to amend her complaint to request injunctive relief.

Meanwhile, on February 23, 2011, the Department of Justice indicated that it had come to the conclusion that DOMA was unconstitutional and that it would no longer defend the act in court. In response to this, on May 4, 2011, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives (BLAG) moved to intervene to defend the act, and their motion was granted on June 3. On the same day, the defendants-intervenors moved to dismiss the complaint.

On July 1, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and the Department of Justice filed a brief supporting the plaintiff's claim.

On February 22, 2012, the District Court (Judge White) granted the plaintiff's motion and denied that of the defendant-intervenors. Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 824 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2012). The Court stated that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny, but held that the application of DOMA to deny spousal health benefits in this case did not even have a rational basis and thus constituted a violation of the equal protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. It entered a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from interfering with the enrollment of the plaintiff's wife in her family health benefits plan.

Defendants-intervenors appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On May 22, 2012, the Court of Appeals (Judge Sydney R. Thomas) denied the plaintiff's motion for an initial hearing en banc and scheduled arguments before a three-judge panel for the week of September 10-14. However, the Court vacated the September 10, 2012 oral argument date, pending the resolution of the petition for writ of certiorari submitted to the Supreme Court on July 3, 2012 by the U.S. Department of Justice.

On June 27, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States entered an order denying the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment.

On July 25, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered an order dismissing all appeals of the case, as stipulated by the parties following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor (PB-NY-0017 in this clearinghouse) holding § 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

Christopher Schad - 12/07/2012
Claire Lally - 02/07/2015


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Equal Protection
Discrimination-basis
Sexual orientatation
General
Gay/lesbian/transgender
Marriage
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Defendant(s) Office of Personnel Management
Plaintiff Description an employee of the federal judiciary married to her same-sex partner under California law
Indexed Lawyer Organizations Lambda Legal
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2013
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Limited Partnership
http://www.limitedpartnershipmovie.com/
By: Thomas G. Miller
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  United States Government says L.A. Gay Couple’s 1975 Marriage is Valid
The Pride L.A.
Written: Jun. 07, 2016
By: Troy Masters
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
3:10-cv-00257-JSW (N.D. Cal.) 07/29/2013
PB-CA-0031-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Second Amended Complaint 04/14/2011
PB-CA-0031-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 07/01/2011
PB-CA-0031-0003.pdf | Detail
Order (Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment) 02/22/2012 (824 F.Supp.2d 968) (N.D. Cal.)
PB-CA-0031-0001.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT 02/22/2012
PB-CA-0031-0008.pdf | Detail
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment 07/03/2012
PB-CA-0031-0004.pdf | Detail
BRIEF OF THE RESPONDENT IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT 07/23/2012
PB-CA-0031-0007.pdf | Detail
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Brief in Opposition 08/31/2012
PB-CA-0031-0006.pdf | Detail
REPLY BRIEF FOR THE FEDERAL PETITIONERS 09/11/2012
PB-CA-0031-0005.pdf | Detail
Order 07/23/2013 (724 F.3d 1048)
PB-CA-0031-0009.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Judges Alarcon, Arthur Lawrence (Ninth Circuit)
PB-CA-0031-0009
White, Jeffrey Steven (N.D. Cal.)
PB-CA-0031-0001 | PB-CA-0031-0008 | PB-CA-0031-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Borelli, Tara Lynn (California)
PB-CA-0031-0002 | PB-CA-0031-0007 | PB-CA-0031-9000
Davidson, Jon Warren (California)
PB-CA-0031-0002 | PB-CA-0031-0007 | PB-CA-0031-9000
Day, Shelbi (California)
PB-CA-0031-0007
Dresser, Gregory P. (California)
PB-CA-0031-0002 | PB-CA-0031-0007 | PB-CA-0031-9000
Espinoza-Madrigal, Ivan E (Texas)
PB-CA-0031-0007
Jones, Aaron D. (California)
PB-CA-0031-0002 | PB-CA-0031-0007
Lin, Rita (California)
PB-CA-0031-0002 | PB-CA-0031-0007 | PB-CA-0031-9000
McGuire, James R. (California)
PB-CA-0031-0002 | PB-CA-0031-0007 | PB-CA-0031-9000
Park, Grace Y. (California)
PB-CA-0031-9000
Pizer, Jennifer Carol (California)
PB-CA-0031-9000
Sommer, Susan (New York)
PB-CA-0031-0007 | PB-CA-0031-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Bartolomucci, H. Christopher (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0006 | PB-CA-0031-0008 | PB-CA-0031-9000
Bressler, Steven Y. (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-9000
Clement, Paul D. (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0006 | PB-CA-0031-9000
Davenport, Christine (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0006
Delery, Stuart F. (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0004 | PB-CA-0031-0008
Dugan, Conor Brendan (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-9000
Flentje, August E. (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0004 | PB-CA-0031-0008
Gilbert, Helen L (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0004 | PB-CA-0031-0008
Goldberg, Arthur Robert (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0003 | PB-CA-0031-0008
Haag, Melinda (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0003 | PB-CA-0031-0008
Hall, Christopher R. (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0003 | PB-CA-0031-0008 | PB-CA-0031-9000
Hertz, Michael F. (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0003 | PB-CA-0031-9000
Kircher, Kerry W. (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0006 | PB-CA-0031-9000
Kruger, Leondra R. (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0004 | PB-CA-0031-0008
Nelson, Nicholas J. (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0006
Pittard, William (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0006
Shah, Pratik A. (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0004 | PB-CA-0031-0008
Singer, Michael Jay (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0004 | PB-CA-0031-0008
Srinivasan, Srikanth (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0004 | PB-CA-0031-0008
Tatelman, Todd B. (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0006
Verrilli, Donald B. Jr. (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0004 | PB-CA-0031-0005 | PB-CA-0031-0008
Walker, Mary Beth (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0006
West, Tony (District of Columbia)
PB-CA-0031-0008 | PB-CA-0031-0009 | PB-CA-0031-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -