2012) is a United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision that affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the term "marriage" as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

On June 29, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), an arm of the U.S. House of Representatives that is defending the suit, asked the Supreme Court to review the case.

They claimed that various government agencies had denied their applications for benefits that would have been granted to similarly situated different-sex couples or the surviving spouse of such a marriage.

[8][9] On July 8, 2010, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro found for the plaintiffs,[3] saying,[10] As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.Tauro's decision found section 3 failed rational basis review.

[10][11] Tauro issued a decision in Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, which found the same provision of DOMA was also unconstitutional on Tenth Amendment and Spending Clause grounds, on the same day he released his opinion in Gill.

[13] He ordered federal officials to permit several of the plaintiffs to enroll their spouses in various benefit programs and the IRS to process tax returns from several of the couples on the basis of their married status.

[14] On January 14, 2011, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a single brief in the First Circuit Court of Appeals that defended DOMA in both Gill and the related case brought by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

[15][16] GLAD welcomed the appeal, saying it provided "the chance to argue in front of a higher court with a broader reach ... [and] an opportunity to address the harms DOMA Section 3 causes to already married couples across the country.

[18] On April 18, 2011, leaders of the House of Representatives announced they had hired former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement to defend the case.

[23] In its response filed the same day, BLAG agreed to the plaintiffs' request provided that other cases are consolidated with it, notably Massachusetts, and that the briefing schedule be revised.

[37] The court's decision on the previous day in Windsor v. United States, holding Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, covers the issues raised in the Gill case.