Case: 20-1735 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 08/03/2020 No. 20-1735 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit __________________ PATRICIA ROLFINGSMEYER, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. Appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board Docket No. PH-0843-16-0235-I-1 __________________ BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE JAMES OBERGEFELL, MICHAEL ELY, AND ANTHONY J. GONZALES SUPPORTING PETITIONER AND REVERSAL Tara L. Borelli Peter C. Renn LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. EDUCATION FUND, INC. 730 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 640 4221 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 280 Atlanta, GA 30308-1210 Los Angeles, CA 90010-3512 (404) 897-1880 (213) 382-7600 August 3, 2020 Case: 20-1735 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 08/03/2020 FORM 9. Certificate of Interest Form 9 (p. 1) July 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST Case Number 20-1735 Short Case Caption Rolfingsmeyer v. Office of Personnel Management Filing Party/Entity Amici curiae James Obergefell; Michael Ely; and Anthony J. Gonzales Instructions: Complete each section of the form. In answering items 2 and 3, be specific as to which represented entities the answers apply; lack of specificity may result in non-compliance. Please enter only one item per box; attach additional pages as needed and check the relevant box. Counsel must immediately file an amended Certificate of Interest if information changes. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(b). I certify the following information and any attached sheets are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. Date: _________________08/03/2020 Signature: /s/ Tara L. Borelli Name: Tara L. Borelli Case: 20-1735 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 08/03/2020 FORM 9. Certificate of Interest Form 9 (p. 2) July 2020 1. Represented 2. Real Party in 3. Parent Corporations Entities. Interest. and Stockholders. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(1). Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(2). Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(3). Provide the full names of Provide the full names of Provide the full names of all entities represented all real parties in interest all parent corporations by undersigned counsel in for the entities. Do not for the entities and all this case. list the real parties if publicly held companies they are the same as the that own 10% or more entities. stock in the entities. ☐ None/Not Applicable ☐✔ None/Not Applicable ☐✔ None/Not Applicable James Obergefell Michael Ely Anthony J. Gonzales Additional pages attached Case: 20-1735 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 08/03/2020 FORM 9. Certificate of Interest Form 9 (p. 3) July 2020 4. Legal Representatives. List all law firms, partners, and associates that (a) appeared for the entities in the originating court or agency or (b) are expected to appear in this court for the entities. Do not include those who have already entered an appearance in this court. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(4). ✔ None/Not Applicable Additional pages attached 5. Related Cases. Provide the case titles and numbers of any case known to be pending in this court or any other court or agency that will directly affect or be directly affected by this court’s decision in the pending appeal. Do not include the originating case number(s) for this case. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(5). See also Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(b). ✔ None/Not Applicable Additional pages attached 6. Organizational Victims and Bankruptcy Cases. Provide any information required under Fed. R. App. P. 26.1(b) (organizational victims in criminal cases) and 26.1(c) (bankruptcy case debtors and trustees). Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(6). ✔ None/Not Applicable Additional pages attached Case: 20-1735 Document: 16 Page: 5 Filed: 08/03/2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii STATEMENT OF AMICI CURIAE’S IDENTITY, INTEREST, AND AUTHORITY TO FILE ............................................................................................ 1 STATEMENTS OF AUTHORSHIP, FUNDING, AND AUTHORITY TO FILE ............................................................................................ 3 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 3 I. As With Petitioner, the Federal Government Relied on Unconstitutional State Laws to Categorically Deny Survivor’s Benefits to Amici Curiae ........ 3 II. Continued Federal Reliance on Unconstitutional Marriage Laws Heaps Further Indignity on Surviving Same-Sex Spouses Such as Amici Curiae, Who Are Categorically Denied Any Pathway to Survivor’s Benefits ............ 5 A. James Obergefell’s Excerpted Testimony ................................................ 7 B. Michael Ely’s Excerpted Testimony ...................................................... 15 C. Anthony Gonzales’ Excerpted Testimony ............................................. 21 III. There is No Constitutional Justification for the Categorical Denial of Survivor’s Benefits to Same-Sex Spouses Unconstitutionally Barred from Nine Months of Marriage ..................................................................... 27 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 28 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 30 i Case: 20-1735 Document: 16 Page: 6 Filed: 08/03/2020 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Daniels v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 1516 (11th Cir. 1992) ...............................................................................28 Driggs v. Comm’r, No. CV-18-03915-PHX-DJH, 2020 WL 2791858 (D. Ariz. May 29, 2020) ........ 4 Ely v. Saul, No. 4:18-cv-00557-BGM, 2020 WL 2744138 (D. Ariz. May 27, 2020) ........................................................................ 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 Harris v. Millennium Hotel, 330 P.3d 330 (Alaska 2014) ................................................................................... 6 Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628 (1974) .............................................................................................28 Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015)............................................................................. 2, 5, 7, 14 Schmoll v. Saul, No. 19-cv-04542-NC (N.D. Cal. Jun 15, 2020) .................................................... 4 Thornton v. Comm’r, No. 2:18-cv-01409-JLR-JRC (W.D. Wash. Jan. 31, 2020) .................................. 5 United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) .............................................................................................10 Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975) .........................................................................................4, 28 ii Case: 20-1735 Document: 16 Page: 7 Filed: 08/03/2020 Statutes 42 U.S.C. § 402(e), (f) ............................................................................................... 3 42 U.S.C. § 416(g) ..................................................................................................... 3 Rules and Regulations Fed. R. App. P. 32(f) ................................................................................................30 Fed. R. App. P. 32(g)(1) ..........................................................................................30 20 C.F.R. § 404.335 ................................................................................................... 3 iii Case: 20-1735 Document: 16 Page: 8 Filed: 08/03/2020 STATEMENT OF AMICI CURIAE’S IDENTITY, INTEREST, AND AUTHORITY TO FILE Amici curiae James Obergefell, Michael Ely, and Anthony Gonzales are class representatives and members in a pending case that, similar to the one here, challenges the categorical denial of survivor’s benefits to surviving same-sex spouses who were unconstitutionally barred from marriage nine months before the deaths of their loved ones. Ely v. Saul, No. 4:18-cv-00557-BGM, 2020 WL 2744138 (D. Ariz. May 27, 2020), appeal docketed, No. 20-16427 (9th Cir. July 24, 2020). Absent judicial relief, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) would otherwise deny each of them access to survivor’s benefits based on a nine- month marriage requirement, even though unconstitutional state laws barred them from marriage at the relevant time. As here, such a denial would revive and replicate unconstitutional state exclusions, perpetrating further harm against survivors who already suffered marriage discrimination for most of their lives. Several courts have now struck down SSA’s reliance on unconstitutional state laws to deny survivor’s benefits to same-sex survivors as unconstitutional. See, e.g., Ely, 2020 WL 2744138, at *1. The legal questions in these cases are closely related to the arguments raised by Petitioner Patricia Rolfingsmeyer, who was similarly denied federal employee survivor’s benefits because of the federal government’s reliance on unconstitutional marriage laws. Because decisions in each of these cases may serve as persuasive authority in the other challenges, amici 1 Case: 20-1735 Document: 16 Page: 9 Filed: 08/03/2020 curiae submit this brief to illustrate why courts have correctly, and unanimously, rejected federal reliance on unconstitutional state laws as itself unconstitutional. Amici curiae share their three first-hand stories below to underscore the gravity of the constitutional injuries inflicted by such practices and the absence of any constitutionally adequate justification