In 2008, when California first extended marriage to same-sex couples, Karen Golinski, an attorney and 19-year employee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, married Amy Cunninghis.
[6] In response, the U.S. House of Representatives formed the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to defend DOMA in this case, as well as Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services.
On BLAG's behalf, former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a motion to dismiss, raising arguments previously avoided by the Department of Justice that DOMA's definition of marriage is valid "because only a man and a woman can beget a child together, and because historical experience has shown that a family consisting of a married father and mother is an effective social structure for raising children".
[7][8] On July 1, 2011, the DOJ filed a brief in support of Golinski's suit, in which it detailed for the first time its case for heightened scrutiny based on "a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities" and its arguments that DOMA Section 3 fails to meet that standard.
[12] On February 22, 2012, White ruled for Golinski finding DOMA "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
He wrote,[13] The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests.
[17] On July 3, the DOJ filed its response to the Ninth Circuit appeal and at the same time asked the Supreme Court to review the case before the Ninth Circuit decides it (a writ of certiorari before judgment), so it can be heard together with two other cases in which DOMA Section 3 was held unconstitutional, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services.
[19] On July 27, 2012, the Ninth Circuit canceled the oral argument scheduled for September 10 and put the case in abeyance pending action by the Supreme Court on the DOJ's certiorari petition.
[21][n 5] Following the Supreme Court's decision in Windsor that found Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, on July 23, with the consent of all parties, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeals.