How do GLAD’s case and the Attorney General’s case differ?
In a separate but related case, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services, the Massachusetts Attorney General, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, challenges the reach of the power of the federal government when it intrudes on matters of traditional state sovereignty such as the creation of marital statuses. These questions invoke the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects states’ rights, and the limits of Congressional power under the Spending Clause. In addition, the Attorney General’s case emphasizes how DOMA Section 3 forces Massachusetts to violate the equal protection rights of its own citizens. The arguments and court decision in GLAD’s Gill case were focused on the equal protection principles that constrain the federal government and that are found in the Due Process guarantees in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. In addition, the GLAD case emphasized how DOMA Section 3 was an intrusion by the federal governmen
Related Questions
- Can attorney’s fees increase on my Missouri traffic ticket case after I hire a traffic lawyer at Traffic Law Stop for my st louis or missouri traffic ticket?
- How does a CASA volunteer differ from a Division of Family & Children case manager?
- Does an injury case require an attorney who "specializes" in personal injury law?
