77MAP2013 Hanes Reply

8/13/2019 77MAP2013 Hanes Reply

1/22

INTHESUPREMECOURTOFPENNSYLVANIA

F i l e d i n S u p r e m e o u r tFEB 4 2 0 1 4

M i d d l e

No. 77 MAP 013COMMONWEALTHOFPENNSYLVANIA,

DEPARTMENTOFHEALTH,A p p e l l e e ,

v .D.BRUCEHANES, n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y a s

Clerk of h e Orphans Court of Montgomery County,A p p e l l a n t .

REPLYBRIEFFORAPPELLANT

Appeal from t h e Order of September 1 2 , 2013 i n t h e CommonwealthCourt of ennsylvania a t Docket No. 379 MD 013

Raymond McGarryJoshua M. t e i nP h i l i p W. ewcomerMaureen E . HerronNatasha Taylor-SmithN i c o l e R. F o r z a t oMontgomery CountyS o l i c i t o r ' s O f f i c eO n e Montgomery P l a z a , S t e . 800P.O. Box 311Norristown,PA 19404-0311(610) 278-3033

Michael P. ClarkeRudolf C l a r k e , i r k , LLCEight Neshaminy I n t e r p l e xTrevose,PA 19053(215) 33-1890

Gerald LawrenceP e t e r D. t . P h i l l i pLowey Dannenbe rg Cohen art, P.C.Four Tow e r Bridge200 Barr Harbor DriveS u i t e 400W. onshohocken,PA 19428(610)941-2760

R e c e i v e d i n S u p r e m e C o u r tF E B 0 4 0 1 4

M i d d l e


2/22

TABLEOFCONTENTSP age

TABLE OFAUTHORITIES i

I . REPLYARGUMENT 1A . T h e Commonwealth Court Erred By Refusing

To llow Hanes To Raise T h e U n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t yOf ennsylvania'sDOMAAsA efense ToT h e Department's Mandamus ction 1

1 . Long-Standing Precedent Of his Court Permits AP u b l i c O f f i c i a l Who s S u e d I n M a n d a m u s ConcerningT h e E x e r c i s e Of i s c r e t i o n a r y Duties To Raise T h eI s s u e Of o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y As A Defense

2. T h e Decision Of he Clerk Of he Orphans CourtTo s s u e O r Deny A Marriage License I s A i s c r e t i o n a r yAct, Allowing Hanes To Raise T h e U n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t yOf ennsylvania'sDOMA As A Defense To his Action 4

B . This Court Should Decid e T h e I s s u e Of h eC o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y Of ennsylvania'sDOMA 8

C . T h e Department Underscores T h e Patent U n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t yOf ennsylvania'sDOMABy a i l i n g To r t i c u l a t e How tAd v ances Any e g i t i m a t e S t a t e I n t e r e s t 0

1 1 . CONCLUSION 14CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCEROOFOFSERVICE v i


3/22

TABLEOFAUTHORITIESCases P a g e

Bishop v . US. x r e l . Holder, F. Supp.2d ,2014 WL 16013, *1 (N.D. Okla. J a n . 14,2014)Com. . B.D.G. 959 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2008) e n bane) 13Com. . S p o n t a n e l l i , 791 A.2d 1254(Pa. Cmwl th. 2002) 3Com. ex r e l . B r ow n v . H eck, 251 Pa. 39,95 A. 929 1915) 3Com. ex r e l . Carson v . Mathues,

210 Pa. 372,59 A. 961 (1904) 2 - 4 , 8 , 1 0Com. ex r e l . Sennett . Sloan,

52 Pa. D.&C.2d 283(Dauphin Co. 1971)Com. ex r e l . Third School D i s t . of h e C i t y of i l k e s B a r r e .

James, 135 Pa.480, 19 A. 950 1890) 1 , 3 , 4 , 6Crozer Chester Med. C t r . v . Dep't of abor n d u s . ,

B u r e a u of Workers Comp., Health C a r e S e r v s .Review D i v . , 610 Pa. 459, 22 A.3d 189 2011) 9

Donnelly's E s t a t e , 113 Pa. Super. 274, 173 A . 876(1934) . 3Eschelman v . Ag e r e Systems, I n c . ,

554 F.3d 426(3d C i r . 2009) 12Garden S t a t e Equal. v . Dow,

216 N . J . 314, 79 A.3d 1036 (Oct. 18,2013)Griego . O l i v e r , .3d

2013 WL 670704 (N.M. ec. 19,2013) 7H a rn ey . Russo, 435 Pa. 183, 255 A.2d 560 1969) 3


4/22

H e b e l v . W e s t , 803 N.Y.S. 242 App. Div.2005,)appeal den'd, 868 N.E.2d 662 (N.Y. 2006)

Kitchen v . Herbert, F . Supp.2d ,2013 WL 697874 D. Utah Dec. 20, 2013) , 1 1

Lockyer . C i t y and County of an Francisco,95 P.3d 459 Cal. 2004)

Marbuty v . Madison, 5 U.S. 137(1803) 7 - 8New ersey v . T .O.,468 U.S. 1214(1984) 2O b e r g e f e l l v . Wymyslo, . Supp.2d ,

2013 WL 726688(S.D. Oh. Dec. 23, 2013) 7Rox Coal Co. . Workers' ompensation

Appeal B o a r d S n i z a s k i ) , 570 Pa. 60, 807 A.2d 906 2002) 2United t a t e s v . Burke, 504 U.S. 229 1992) 12United t a t e s v . Windsor, .S.

133 S. C t . 2675 (2013) 4 , 6 - 7 , 1 0

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Provisions, t a t u t e s u l es of ourtPa. Const. A r t .9 416 P.S. 403

16 P.S. 430220 Pa. C.S. 711(9) , ,923 Pa. C.S. 1102 , 1 423 Pa. C.S. 1306(a)(1) , 7


5/22


6/22

I . REPLYARGUMENTA. T h e C o mmon w e a l t h Co u r t E r r e d By Refusing

To llow H a n e s To aise T h e U n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t yOf ennsylvania's DOMAAsA Defense ToT h e Department's Mandamus ctionRelying i n e r r o r upon Com. ex r e l . Third School D i s t . of h e C i t y of

W i l k e s B a r r e v . James, 135 Pa. 480, 19 A . 950 (1890), t h e CommonwealthCourt r e f u s e d t o h e a r D. Bruce Hanes ( Hanes ), Clerk of t h e Orphans'Court of Montgomery County, argue i n d e f e n s e of t h i s mandam us a c t i o nt h a t t h e p a t e n t l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s t a t u t e which t h e Pennsylvania Departmentof H e a l t h ( Depar tment ) was seeking t o e n f o r c e i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .Opinion a t 29-30. No doubt r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t J a m e s i s r e a d i l yd i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e Department contends a t l e n g t h t h a t

t h e Commonwealth C o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o weigh t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y ofP e n n s y l v a n i a ' s DOMA i s j u s t i f i e d by a c a s e from C a l i f o r n i a 2and a n o t h e rfrom New York.3S e e Department's B r i e f a t 23-27. While t seeks t o

I n t h i s r e p l y , a s i n h i s p r i n c i p a l b r i e f , Hanes r e f e r s t o 23 Pa. C.S. 1102( d e f i n i n g marriage s a c i v i l c o n t r a c t between a man and a woman) nd 23Pa. C.S. 1704 d e c l a r i n g i t t h e p u b l i c p o l i c y of h i s Commonwealth t h a tm a r r i a g e s h a l l be between one man and one woman ) c o l l e c t i v e l y a sP e n n s y l v a n i a ' s Defense of Marriage Act P e n n s y l v a n i a ' s DOMA ).2Lockyer . C i t y and County of an Francisco, 95 P.3d 459 Cal. 2004).3H e b e l . W e s t , 803 N.Y.S. 242 App. Div. 2005), appeal e n ' d , 868 N.E.2d662 N.Y. 2006)


7/22

d i s t r a c t t h i s Court w i t h c a s e s from beyond our Commonwealth's b o r d e r s , t h eDepartment makes no e f f o r t t o a d d r e s s c o n t r o l l i n g a u t h o r i t i e s from t h i s very

Court which p e r m i t Hanes t o r a i s e t h e now-obvious u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y ofP e n n s y l v a n i a ' s DOMA s a d e f e n s e t o t h e Department's mandam us a c t i o n .

1 . Long-Standing Pre cedent Of his Co u r t Permits APublic O f f i c i a l Who s S u e d In Mandamus oncerningT h e Exercise Of iscretionary Duties To Raise T h eIssue Of o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y AsA Defense

I n Com. ex r e l . Carson v . Mathues, 210 Pa. 372, 59 A . 961 (1904), h eA t t o r n e y General brought a mandam us a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e T r e a s u r e r t oo v e r r i d e t h e T r e a s u r e r ' s r e f u s a l t o comply w i t h a s t a t u t e s e t t i n g t h e s a l a r i e sof j u d g e s . 210 Pa. a t 374-75. I n opposing t h e mandam us a c t i o n , t h eT r e a s u r e r argued t h a t t h e s t a t u t e was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , and t h e primary

q u e s t i o n d i s c u s s e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t was whether o r n o t t h e S t a t e T r e a s u r e r ,b e i n g a m i n i s t e r i a l o f f i c e r , had t h e r i g h t i n h i s answer t o r a i s e t h ec o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n a s a d e f e n s e t o h i s r e f u s a l t o honor [ t h e s t a t u t e ] . I d .a t 380. T h e r i a l c o u r t determined t h a t the weight of u t h o r i t y appears t o bei n f a v o r of h e c a s e s which h o l d t o t h e r i g h t , and i n some i n s t a n c e s t h e d u t y ,of e r t a i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e r s t o r e f u s e an a c t under what t h e y h o n e s t l yb e l i e v e t o be an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a c t . I d . a t 390 emphasis a d d e d ) . T h e r i a lc o u r t went on t o c o n s i d e r t h e T r e a s u r e r ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y d e f e n s e andi s s u e d a w r i t of mandam us a f t e r concluding t h a t t h e s t a t u t e was

2


8/22

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . I d . a t 391-412. On p p e a l , t h i s Court a f f i r m e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ,e x p r e s s l y c o n s i d e r i n g t h e T r e a s u r e r ' s d e f e n s e t h a t t h e s t a t u t e a t i s s u e was

u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . I d . a t 422-31.Mathues was t h e f i r s t of a numbe r of mandam us a c t i o n s i n which

P e n n s y l v a n i a ' s c o u r t s , i n c l u d i n g t h i s C o u r t , p e r m i t t e d t h e d e f e n s e of as t a t u t e ' s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n a mandam us a c t i o n . S e e ,e . g . , Com. ex r e l . Brown v . Heck , 251 Pa. 39, 95 A. 929 (1915) a d d r e s s i n gt h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of a s t a t u t e when r a i s e d a s a d e f e n s e t o a mandamusa c t i o n a g a i n s t a u d g e ) ; Ha rn ey v . Russo, 435 Pa . 183, 255 A.2d 560 (1969)( p e r m i t t i n g a m u n i c i p a l i t y t o defend a g a i n s t a mandam us a c t i o n by r a i s i n gt h e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e s t a t u t e a t i s s u e ) ; In r e Donnelly's E s t a t e , 113Pa. S u p e r . 274, 173 A. 876, 878 (1934) mandam us p e t i t i o n e r ' s argumentt h a t respondent county commissioners could n o t r a i s e t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y oft h e law a t i s s u e was without m e r i t ) ; Com. e x r e l . Sennett v . Sloan, 52 a.D.&C.2d 283, 298-308 (Dauphin Co. 1971) f o l l o w i n g Mathues i n h o l d i n gt h a t t h e S t a t e T r e a s u r e r may r a i s e t h e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of a s t a t u t e a s a

d e f e n s e t o a mandam us c t i o n ) .T h e Mathues d e c i s i o n and i t s progeny came a f t e r James, t h e 19

Century d e c i s i o n upon which t h e Commonwealth Court r e s t e d i t s r e f u s a l t oh e a r Hanes argument t h a t P e n n s y l v a n i a ' s DOMA can no l o n g e r be

: 3


9/22

c o n s i d e r e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t h e wake of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Suprem e C o u r t ' sd e c i s i o n i n United S t a t e s v . Windsor, .S. 133 S. C t . 2675 (2013).

T e l l i n g l y , t h e Department f a i l s t o a d d r e s s t h e c r i t i c a l l y i m p o r t a n t andi n d e e d c o n t r o l l i n g Mathues l i n e of a s e s i n i t s b r i e f .

2 . T h e Decision Of h e C l e r k Of h e O r p h a n s C o u r tTo s s u e Or Deny A Marri age License I s A iscretionaryAct, Allowing H a n e s To aise T h e U n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t yOf ennsylvania'sDOMAAsA Defense To his Action

I n i t s d e c i s i o n below, t h e Commonwealth Court a t t e m p t e d , a l b e i tu n p e r s u a s i v e l y , t o do something t h e Depar tment does not u n d e r t a k e i n i t sb r i e f b e f o r e t h i s Court namely, t o d i s t i n g u i s h Mathues from t h e p r e s e n tc a s e . Opinion a t 30-31. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e Commonwealth Court s t a t e d :

[T]he i n s t a n t e a s e [ , l i k e James,] i n v o l v e s a mandam us a c t i o n t ocompel a c o u r t c l e r k w i t h no d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y t o performh i s mandatory m i n i s t e r i a l d u t y , whereas t h e f o r e g o i n g c a s e s[ i . e . Mathues and i t s progeny] i n v o l v e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o f f i c e r sw i t h d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y .

I d . a t 31. T h e Commonwealth Court i s wrong, b o t h about t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a ln a t u r e of Hanes' o f f i c e and about t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y n a t u r e of i s d u t i e s w i t hr e s p e c t t o t h e i s s u a n c e of a m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e .

Hanes s n o t some a p p o i n t e d b u r e a u c r a t i c minion. Hanes, s R e g i s t e rof W i l l s and Clerk of h e Orphans' Court of Montgomery County, h o l d s ane l e c t e d o f f i c e which, l i k e t h e o f f i c e h e l d i n Mathues, i s a c r e a t u r e of t h ePennsylvania C o n s t i t u t i o n . Pa. C o n s t . A r t . 9, 4 enumerating r e g i s t e r of

4


10/22

w i l l s among e l e c t e d county o f f i c e r s ) ; see a l s o 16 P . S . 4302 R e g i s t e r ofW i l l s i s C l e r k of h e Orphans Court i n C l a s s 2 nd 2A o u n t i e s ) .

Moreover, h e Commonwealth Court m i s c l a s s i f i e s Hanes' e c i s i o n ofwhether o r n o t t o i s s u e a m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e a s a m i n i s t e r i a l a c t . Und erPennsylvania law, t i s a d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t performed a s a j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n .S e c t i o n 711(9) of t h e P r o b a t e , E s t a t e s and F i d u c i a r i e s Co d e ( P r o b a t eCode ) p r o v i d e s t h a t [ t ] h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c o u r t of common l e a s overt h e f o l l o w i n g s h a l l be e x e r c i s e d through i t s orphans' c o u r t d i v i s i o n :Marriage l i c e n s e s , a s p r o v i d e d by law. 20 Pa. C.S. 711(9)(emphasisa d d e d ) . S e c t i o n 1306 of h e Marriage Law e q u i r e s Hanes, a s Clerk of h eOrphans' C o u r t , t o examine each a p p l i c a n t f o r a marriage l i c e n s e under o a t ht o d e t e r m i n e t h e l e g a l i t y of t h e contemplated m a r r i a g e . 3 Pa. C.S. 1 3 0 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) (emphasis a d d e d ) . Hanes s h a l l i s s u e a m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e i f i ta p p e a r s from p r o p e r l y completed a p p l i c a t i o n s on b e h a l f of each of t h ep a r t i e s t o t h e proposed m a r r i a g e t h a t t h e r e i s no l e g a l o b j e c t i o n t o t h em a r r i a g e . 3 Pa. C.S. 1307 (emphasis a d d e d ) . Furthermore, [ i ] f t h e

i s s u a n c e of a m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e i s r e f u s e d , upon r e q u e s t of h e a p p l i c a n t s , t h ep r o c e e d i n g s s h a l l immediately be c e r t i f i e d t o t h e c o u r t f o r a pr ompt h e a r i n g b y a judge of t h e courtH 23 Pa. C .S. 1308 (emphasis a d d e d ) . Theses t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s m a k e p l a i n t h a t , when he i s d e t e r m i n i n g whether t o

5


11/22

i s s u e a m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e , Hanes i s charged w i t h making a d e t e r m i n a t i o n oft h e proposed m a r r i a g e ' s l e g a l i t y which i s immediately r e v i e w a b l e by t h e

Orphans Court on r e q u e s t of h e a p p l i c a n t s . At i s s u e h e r e i s a d i s c r e t i o n a r yd e t e r m i n a t i o n of e g a l i t y t h a t i s j u d i c i a l i n n a t u r e n o t a mere m i n i s t e r i a l a c tof i l i n g a p u b l i c r e c o r d , a s w a s a t i s s u e i n James. 19 A. a t 950 d e s c r i b i n gc l e r k of q u a r t e r s e s s i o n s ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r f i l i n g r e s o l u t i o n s of s c h o o lboards a s being p u r e l y m i n i s t e r i a r ) .

Upon h i s e l e c t i o n t o o f f i c e , Hanes took an o a t h of o f f i c e , p r e s c r i b e dby s t a t u t e , i n which h e swore t o s u p p o r t , obey and defend t h e C o n s t i t u t i o nof t h e United S t a t e s , and t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h i s Commonweal t h, and t od i s c h a r g e t h e d u t i e s of h i s o f f i c e w i t h f i d e l i t y [ . ] 16 P . S . 3403. I f Hanesi s t o be t r u e t o h i s o a t h , he cannot i g n o r e t h e obvious c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

i m p l i c a t i o n s of Windsor w h en f a c e d w i t h determining t h e l e g a l i t y of aproposed m a r r i a g e of a same-sex couple a p p l y i n g f o r a l i c e n s e . The impactof h a t w a t e r s h e d Supreme Court d e c i s i o n upon any s t a t e s t a t u t e p r o h i b i t i n gsame-sex m a r r i a g e was p l a i n t o J u s t i c e S c a l i a , who m a d e t h e f o l l o w i n g

o b s e r v a t i o n i n h i s Windsor d i s s e n t :[T]he r e a l r a t i o n a l e of t o d a y ' s o p i n i o n . . . i s t h a t DOMA sm o t i v a t e d by b a r e . . . d e s i r e t o harm' o u p l e s i n same-sexm a r r i a g e s . [ H ] o w i n e v i t a b l e [ i t i s ] t o r e a c h t h e same c o n c l u s i o nw i t h r e g a r d t o s t a t e laws denying same-sex couples m a r i t a ls t a t u s .

6


12/22

133 S. C t . a t 2709 (emphasis added; i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . J u s t sevenmonths p o s t - W i n d s o r , c o u r t s a l r e a d y have invoked t h a t d e c i s i o n w h i l e

s t r i k i n g d o w n s t a t e - l a w impediments t o same-sex m a r r i a g e i n f i v e s t a t e s .4Hanes s aware of no post-Windsor c a s e s r e a c h i n g t h e o p p o s i t e c o n c l u s i o n .

S e c t i o n 1 3 0 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) of t h e Marriage Law charges Hanes w i t h t h er e s p o n s i b i l i t y of making a post-Windsor d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the l e g a l i t y of h econtemplated marriage of same-sex couples w h o a p p l y f o r m a r r i a g el i c e n s e s i n Montgomery County. 23 Pa. C.S. 1 3 0 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) (emphasisa d d e d ) . The Department t h u n d e r s t h a t Hanes must await wor d from t h ec o u r t s on t h i s i s s u e b e c a u s e , under M a r b u r y . Madison, [ i ] t i s e m p h a t i c a l l y

4 Bishop v . US. ex r e l . Holder, F . Supp.2d 2014 WL 16013, *1(N.D. Okla. J a n . 1 4 , 2014) The Court h o l d s t h a t Oklahoma's c o n s t i t u t i o n a lamendment l i m i t i n g m a r r i a g e t o o p p o s i t e - s e x couples v i o l a t e s t h e EqualP r o t e c t i o n Clause of h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendrnent t o t h e U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n ) ;O b e r g e f e l l v . Wymyslo, F. Supp.2d 2013 WL 726688 (S.D. O h .Dec. 23,2013) s t r i k i n g d o w n Ohio's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and s t a t u t o r y bans upont h e r e c o g n i t i o n of l a w f u l same-sex m a r r i a g e s from o t h e r s t a t e s ) ; K i t c h e n v .H e r b e r t , F. Supp.2d 2013 WL 6697874, *18 ( D . Utah Dec. 20,2013) s t r i k i n g d o w n a s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a men d ment p r o h i b i t i n g same-sexm a r r i a g e because t h e s t a t e l a c k e d a r a t i o n a l r e a s o n f o r denying same-sexc o u p l e s t h e r i g h t t o m a r r y ) ; Griego v . O l i v e r , P.3d 2013 WL6670704, *22 ( N . M . Dec. 1 9 , 2013) ( Denying same-gender c o u p l e s t h er i g h t t o marry and t h u s d e p r i v i n g t h e r n and t h e i r f a m i l i e s of t h e r i g h t s ,p r o t e c t i o n s , and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of c i v i l marriage v i o l a t e s t h e e q u a l i t ydemanded by t h e Equal P r o t e c t i o n Clause of t h e New MexicoC o n s t i t u t i o n ) ; Ga r den S t a t e Equal. v . Dow 16 N . J . 314, 319, 79 A.3d1036, 1038 (Oct. 1 8 , 2013) r e f u s i n g t o s t a y t r i a l c o u r t d e c i s i o n t h a t NewJ e r s e y must extend t h e r i g h t of i v i l m a r r i a g e t o same-sex c o u p l e s i n l i g h t ofW i n d s o r ) .

7


13/22

t h e p r o v i n c e and duty of t h e j u d i c i a l department t o say w h a t t h e l a v v i s .M a r b u r y v . Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 1803). W h a t t h e Department and t h e

Commonvvealth Court o v e r l o o k , however, s t h a t Hanes i s f t m c t i o n i n g undert h e Marriage Law a s a p a r t of t h e j u d i c i a l department t h a t b e a r s t h ep r o v i n c e and d u t y of s a y i n g wha t t h e l a v v i s . I d . His d i s c r e t i o n a r yd e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t P e n n s y l v a n i a ' s DOMA s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and t h u s i sn o t a l e g a l impediment t o t h e i s s u a n c e of m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e s t o same-sexc o u p l e s can and should be reviewed h e r e g i v e n t h i s C o u r t ' s c o n t r o l l i n gd e c i s i o n i n Mathues. The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s h o u l d n o t be p u t off f o ranother d a y . Department's B r i e f a t 1 6 ,B . This Cou r t Should Decide T h e I s s u e Of h e

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y Of ennsylvania'sDOMA

I f t h i s Court d e t e r m i n e s , a s i t s h o u l d , t h a t t h e Commonw ea l t h Courte r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o c o n s i d e r 1 - l a n e s argument t h a t P e n n s y l v a n i a ' s DOMA su n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , i t s h o u l d n o t r n e r e l y remand t h e c a s e t o t h e Commonw ea l t hCourt f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n . I n s t e a d , t h i s Courts h o u l d d e c i d e t h e q u e s t i o n now. As e x p l a i n e d i n Hanes' p r i n c i p a l b r i e f , t h eCommonweal t h Court d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r u l e on t h e Department'srnandamus a c t i o n . See Hanes' B r i e f a t 44-54. T h e r e f o r e , a remand t o t h eCommonvvealth Court would be improper. Moreover, j u d i c i a l economy

8


14/22

d i c t a t e s t h a t t h i s Court d e c i d e t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e p r e s e n t e d by t h i sa p p e a l .

An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , of c o u r s e , has a u t h o r i t y t o remand a c a s e t o alower c o u r t f o r c o r r e c t i o n of an e r r o r o r f o r f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of an i s s u e .However, i n t h i s c a s e , t h e Commonw ea l t h Court s h o u l d n o t have a s s e r t e dj u r i s d i c t i o n w h en o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n p r o p e r l y r e s t e d w i t h t h e Sup remeC o u r t . 4 2 Pa. C.S. 7 2 1 ( 2 ) . As s t a t e d above, Hanes f u n c t i o n s a s an a rm oft h e c o u r t and performs d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t s w h en d e c i d i n g whether t o i s s u e am a r r i a g e l i c e n s e p u r s u a n t t o t h e Marriage Law. See 20 Pa. C.S. 7 1 1 ( 9 ) .A c c o r d i n g l y , o r i gi n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r a p e t i t i o n f o r m a n d a m u s r e l i e f a g a i n s tHanes would be w i t h t h i s Court r a t h e r than t h e Comrnonwealth C o u r t . 4 2Pa. C.S. 7 2 1 ( 2 ) .

l n a d d i t i o n , t o remand t h i s c a s e t o t h e Commonw ea l t h Court wouldc o n t r a d i c t t h e sound p r i n c i p l e s of u d i c i a l economy. The Department seekst o d e l a y a r u l i n g on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of h i s law and d e s i r e s t h i s Court t op u t a s i d e t h i s i m p o r t a n t i s s u e f o r a n o t h e r day. Su ch a d e l a y , however, s

i n a p p r o p r i a t e g i v e n t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s c a s e p r e s e n t s a v i t a l q u e s t i o nconcerning t h e fundamental r i g h t t o marry. The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n t o b ea d d r e s s e d i s p u r e l y a q u e s t i o n of law, making t h i s C o u r t ' s review b o t h d enovo and p l e n a r y . Crozer Chester M e d . C t r . v . Depil of Labor &

9


15/22

Bureau of Workers Comp., Health C a re e r v s . Review D i v . , 610 P a . 459, 22A.3d 189, 194 (2011). T h e r e f o r e , i t i s t h i s Court t h a t s h o u l d c o n s i d e r t h e

m e r i t s of Hanes' c o n s t i t u t i o n a l defense and r u l e on t h e h i s t o r i c q u e s t i o n oft h e v a l i d i t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a ' s DOMA under t h e United S t a t e s andPennsylvania C o n s t i t u t i o n s .

C . T h e De p a r t ment Underscores T h e Patent U n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t yOf ennsylvania's DOMA y a i l i n g To r t i c u l a t e How tAdvances Any Legitimate State I n t e r e s tNowhere i n i t s b r i e f does t h e Department argue t h a t t h e

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a ' s DOMA hould be u p h e l d . Although i tacknowledges Hanes' a r g u r n e n t t h a t P e n n s y l v a n i a ' s DOMA i su n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , t h e Department has not p r e s e n t e d argument i n o p p o s i t i o nt o Hanes' p o s i t i o n . The Department's f a i l u r e t o c o n t e s t t h i s i s s u e w a si n t e n t i o n a l . The Department p r e f e r s t h a t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e be d e c i d e don a n o t h e r day, Department's B r i e f a t 1 6 .

I g n o r i n g t h e f a c t t h a t Hanes began i s s u i n g m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e s t o same-s e x c o u p l e s because Windsor's r a t i o n a l e had r e n d e r e d P e n n s y l v a n i a ' sDOMA f f e c t i v e l y u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , t h e D e p a r t r n e n t contends t h a t t h i sa c t i o n i n m a n d a m u s i s not about whether same-sex couples have t h ec o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o be m a r r i e d i n t h e Commonwealth. i d . (emphasis i no r i g i n a l ) . Because of Mathues, supra and i t s progeny, however, h i s a c t i o n


16/22

i n m an d am us r n o s t c e r t a i n l y i s about whether same-sex couples have t h ec o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o be m a r r i e d i n t h e Commonweal t h. Hanes has argued

i n d e f e n s e of t h i s m an d am us a c t i o n t h a t P e n n s y l v a n i a ' s DOMA i su n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l under every l e v e l of c r u t i n y from t h e r a t i o n a l b a s i s t e s tt h a t a l l laws must s a t i s f y , t o t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l of s c r u t i n y a p p l i e d t olaws which d i s c r i m i n a t e on t h e b a s i s of e n d e r , t o t h e s t r i c t s c r u t i n y a n a l y s i sa p p l i e d t o laws r e s t r i c t i n g fundamental r i g h t s . Faced w i t h t h e s e compellingarguments, t h e Department has chosen t o r e r n a i n s i l e n t , and i t s s i l e n c espeaks volumes. The Department a p p a r e n t l y i s u n a b l e t o a r t i c u l a t e even ar a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r denying same-sex couples t h e r i g h t t o marry. I t i s n o ta l o n e i n i t s i n a b i l i t y t o d o s o . See Kitchen v . Herbert, F. Supp.2d2013 WL 697874, *18 ( D . Utah Dec. 20, 2013) t h e S t a t e of Utah has n o tdemonstrated a r a t i o n a l , m u c h l e s s a compelling, r e a s o n w h y t h e P l a i n t i f f ss h o u l d be d e n i e d t h e i r r i g h t t o m a r r y ) .By f a i l i n g t o respond t o Hanes c o n s t i t u t i o n a l arguments, t h e

Department has n o t p r o v i d e d t h i s Court w i t h a b a s i s t o f i n d P e n n s y l v a n i a ' sDOMA o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n e f f e c t conceding t h e law's u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y .The Department does invoke t h e n o t i o n t h a t a l l s t a t u t e s a r e presumed t o bec o n s t i t u t i o n a l . Department's B r i e f a t 20. A presumption, however, s t h eb e g i n n i n g , n o t t h e end, of a c o u r t ' s a n a l y s i s . Here, t h e presumption i s

1 1


17/22

r e b u t t e d by t h e i n e v i t a b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s of Windsor and t h e q u i c k l y c r e s t i n gw a v e of post-Windsor d e c i s i o n s i n v a l i d a t i n g s t a t e law b a r r i e r s t o same-sex

m a r r i a g e from New e r s e y t o Ohio t o Okl a h oma t o New Mexico t o Utah.The D e p a r t r n e n t e s s e n t i a l l y has f o r f e i t e d i t s o p p o r t u n i t y t o a r g u e t h e

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a ' s DOMA n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . The r u l et h a t p o i n t s n o t argued w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d i s more t h a n j u s t a p r u d e n t i a lr u l e of convenience; i t s observance, a t l e a s t i n t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y of c a s e s ,d i s t i n g u i s h e s our a d v e r s a r y system from t h e i n q u i s i t o r i a l one. UnitedS t a t e s v . Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 246 (1992) ( S c a l i a J . c o n c u r r i n g ) . 'Accordingly, each advocate b e a r s t h e burden of p r o p e r l y and s u f f i c i e n t l yp r e s e n t i n g a p p e l l a t e c o n t e n t i o n s t o t h e a p p e a l s c o u r t . New e r s e y v . TL.O.,468 U.S. 1214 1984).

The Pennsylvania Rules of A p p e l l a t e Procedure p r o v i d e t h a t a p a r t ymust ma ke an argument i n i t s a p p e l l a t e b ri e f f o r each q u e s t i o n b e f o r e t h eC o u r t . Pa. R.A.P. 2 1 1 9 ( a ) . When a p a r t y f a i l s t o develop an argument w i t hr e s p e c t t o an i s s u e on a p p e a l and f a i l s t o c i t e any l e g a l a u t h o r i t y , t h e i s s u e i s

waived. See Rox Coa l Co. v . Workers Compensation Appeal Boa r d( S n i z a s k i ) , 570 Pa. 60, 807 A.2d 906 (2002) (wherein t h e Pennsylvania

5 The Supreme C o u r t ' s Burke d e c i s i o n has been m o d i f i e d on o t h e r groundst h a t a r e n o t r e l e v a n t h e r e by t h e Small Business P r o t e c t i o n Act of 1996, a ss t a t e d i n Eschelman v . Agere S y s t e m s , I n c . , 554 F.3d 426, 441 (3d C i r .2 0 0 9 ) .

12


18/22

Supreme Court h e l d t h a t Employer had waived i t s r i g h t t o argue Claimantwas n o t e n t i t l e d t o a r e i n s t a t e m e n t by s t i p u l a t i n g t o p r o c e e d by c l a i m

p e t i t i o n w h en Employer h a d n o t argued t h i s i s s u e i n i t s b r i e f ) . See a l s oC om. v . S p o n l a n e l l i , 791 A.2d 1254, 1259 n . 1 1 (Pa. Cmw lt h. 2002) merei s s u e s p o t t i n g w i t h o u t a n a l y s i s or l e g a l c i t a t i o n t o support a s s e r t i o np r e c l u d e s a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w ) . The Pennsylvania S u p e r i o r Court w e l l -e x p l a i n e d t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s r u l e w h en i t s t a t e d t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i sn e i t h e r o b l i g e d , nor even p a r t i c u l a r l y equipped, o develop an arg ument o r ap a r t y . To o so p l a c e s t h e Court i n c o n f l i c t i n g r o l e s of advocate and n e u t r a la r b i t e r . Com . . 1 3 . D . G . , 959 A.2d 362, 371-72 Pa. Super. 2008) en b a n e ) .This Court would be a c t i n g w e l l w i t h i n t h e c o n f i n e s of t s d i s c r e t i o n were i tt o conclude t h a t t h e Department has waived any c o n t e s t t o a f i n d i n g t h a tP e n n s y l v a n i a ' s DOMA s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .

The Department p r e s e n t s no l e g a l a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t of anyargument t h a t P e n n s y l v a n i a ' s DOMA o n t i n u e s t o be c o n s t i t u t i on a l i n l i g h tof Windsor. The Department even f a i l s t o a r t i c u l a t e h o w P e n n s y l v a n i a ' s

d e n i a l of m a r r i a g e r i g h t s t o same-sex couples i s r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h eadvancement of any l e g i t i m a t e governmental i n t e r e s t . Whether t h e Courtviews t h e Department's f a i l u r e t h r o u g h t h e l e n s of waiver o r a s t h e t e l l - t a l e

13


19/22


20/22

Dated: January 31, 2014

G e r a l d Lawrence A t t y . I d . 69079)P e t e r D . t . P h i l l i p ( A t t y . I d . 70027)Lowey Dannenberg Co h en& art, P.C.Four Tower Bridge200 B a r r Harbor D r i v e , S u i t e 400W. onshohocken,PA 19428-2977(610) 41-2760Michael P. Clarke A t t y . I d . 63378)Rudolf Clarke& i r k , LLCEight Nesharniny I n t e r p l e xTrevose,PA 19053(215) 33-1890A t t o r n e y s f o r A p p e l l a n t ,D . Bruce Hanes

1 5


21/22

WORDCOUNT

hereby c e r t i f y , p u r s u a n t t o Pa. R.A.P. 2135 d), h a t t h e Reply B r i e f

f o r t h e A p p e l l a n t conforms w i t h t h e 7,000 wor d l i m i t of Pa. R.A.P.2135 a) 3 ) because t h e wor d p r o c e s s i n g system used t o p r e p a r e t h e b r i e fi n d i c a t e s a w or d count of ,846 words.

t JP h i l i p W e w c o m e r , s q u i r eA t t o m e y R e g i s t r a t i o n No. 6 0 0 5 5M o n tg o m e r y County S o l i c i t o r s O f f i c eOn e M o n tg o m e r y P l a z a , S u i t e 8 0 0P.O. Box 3 1 1Norristown,PA 19404-0311 6 1 0 ) 78-30 3 3Counsel f o r Appellant


22/22

PROOFOFSERVICE

I hereby c e r t i f y t h a t am on t h i s d a y s e r v i n g two c o p i e s of t h eA p p e l l a n t s Reply B r i e f upon t h e p e r s o n s i n d i c a t e d below i n t h e manneri n d i c a t e d below, which s e r v i c e s a t i s f i e s t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of Pa. R.A.P. 121:S e r v i c e by U.S. Mail a d d r e s s e d a s f o l l o w s :A l i s o n T a y l o r , E s q u i r eA u d r e y Fe inman Miner, s q u i r eDEPARTMENTOFHEALTH8 2 5 H e a l t h elfare B u i l d i n g6 2 5 F o r s t e r S t r e e tH a r r i s b u r g , PA 1 7 1 0 8 7 1 7 ) 83- 2 500Counsel or A p p e l l e eJames D. c h u l t z , E s q u i r eGregory E. Dunlap. E s q u i r eOFFICE OFGENERALCOUNSEL3 3 3 Market S t r e e t , 1 7 F l o o rH a r r i s b u r g , PA 17101 7 1 7 ) 83-6563Counsel or A p p e l l e e

Dated: J a n u a r y 3 1 , 2 0 1 4

Robert C. He i m , s q u i r eAlexander R. B i l u s , E s q u i r eWilliam T. M c En r o e , s q u i r eJoanna L. Barry, E s q u i r eDECHERTLLPC i r a Center2 9 2 9 A rc h S t r e e tP h i l a d e l p h i a , PA 19104-2808Counsel or Amicus CuriaeDavid S. C o h e n , s q u i r e3 3 2 0 Market S t r e e tP h i l a d e l p h i a ,PA 1 9 1 0 4Counsel or Amicus CuriaeMr . James S c h n e l l e r4 3 0 E. L a n c a s t e r Av e. E 2 5S a i n t Davids,PA 1 9 8 0 7Amicus Curiae P r o S e

P h i l i p W e w c o m e r , s q u i r eA t t o r n e y R e g i s t r a t i o n No . 6 0 0 5 5Montgomery Co un ty S o l i c i t o r s O f f i c eOne Montgomery P l a z a , S u i t e 8 0 0P.O. Box 311Norristown,PA 19404-0311 6 1 0 ) 78-30 3 3Counsel f o r Appellant

77MAP2013 Hanes Reply

Documents

Transcript of 77MAP2013 Hanes Reply