Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

Case Nos. 10-2204, 10-2207 and 10-2214

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
DEAN HARA,
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
NANCY GILL, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
KEITH TONEY; ALBERT TONEY, III,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
HILARY RODHAM CLINTON,
in her official capacity as United States Secretary of State,
Defendant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-11156-JLT, 1:09-cv-10309-JLT
(Honorable Joseph L. Tauro)

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE, MASSACHUSETTS FAMILY INSTITUTE,

IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
AND IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL

Stephen C. Whiting
Bar No. 56033
The Whiting Law Firm
75 Pearl Street, Suite 207
Portland, ME 04101
Tel: (207) 780-0681
Fax: (207) 780-0682
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

FRAP RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Amicus curiae, Massachusetts Family Institute, has not issued shares to the

public, and it has no parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate that has issued shares

to the public. As it has no stock, there is no publicly held corporation that owns

10% or more of its stock.

Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE............................................................................ 1 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 1 

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 2 

I.  BAKER V. NELSON HAS PRECEDENTIAL VALUE THAT PREVENTS A LOWER

COURT FROM HOLDING THAT DOMA’S DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
VIOLATES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. ..................................................................... 3 

II.  BAKER V. NELSON MUST BE READ AS AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS,

UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OBSERVED BY THIS COURT IN AUBURN POLICE
UNION V. CARPENTER. ........................................................................................... 6 

III.  BAKER V. NELSON IS NOT LIMITED TO THE IDENTICAL LAW CHALLENGED IN

THAT CASE, RATHER, BAKER CONTROLS ALL FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS
CONCERNING A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE TO
INCLUDE SAME-SEX PARTNERS UNDER EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE
PROCESS. .............................................................................................................. 8 

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 11 

i
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Adams v. Howerton,
673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982) ........................................................................ 8

American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. v. Meyer,

113 F.3d 1245, No. 94-1145, 1997 WL 282874 (10th Cir. May 29,
1997) (unpublished table decision) ................................................................. 6

Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland,

502 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2007) ......................................................................... 7

Auburn Police Union v. Carpenter,

8 F.3d 886 (1st Cir. 1993) ........................................................................... 6, 7

Baker v. Nelson,
409 U.S. 810 (1972) .................................................................................... 1, 2

Baker v. Nelson,
291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971) ............................................. 2

Boggs v. Boggs,
520 U.S. 833 (1997) ........................................................................................ 7

Commc'ns Telesystems Int’l v. California Public Util. Comm'n,

196 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1999) ........................................................................ 6

Eastern Bridge, LLC v. Chao,

320 F.3d 84 (1st Cir. 2003) ........................................................................... 11

Edelman v. Jordan,
415 U.S. 651 (1974) ...................................................................................... 10

Gill v. Office of Personnel Management,

699 F. Supp. 2d 374 (D. Mass. 2010) ........................................................... 10

ii
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

Green v. City of Tucson,

255 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................ 7

Hicks v. Miranda,
422 U.S. 332 (1975) ..................................................................................5, 10

Hopfmann v. Connolly,
471 U.S. 459 (1985) ........................................................................................ 3

Irving v. United States,

162 F.3d 154 (1st Cir. 1998) ......................................................................... 10

Mandel v. Bradley,
432 U.S. 173 (1977) ..............................................................................5, 6, 10

Middlesex County Ethics Commitee v. Garden State Bar Association,

457 U.S. 423 (1982) ........................................................................................ 7

Miller v. California,
413 U.S. 15 (1973) .......................................................................................... 4

Miller v. California,
418 U.S. 915 (1974) ........................................................................................ 4

Neely v. Newton,
149 F.3d 1074 (10th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................... 7

Postscript Enterprises, Inc. v. Peach,

878 F.2d 1114 (8th Cir. 1989) ........................................................................ 6

Soto-Lopez v. New York City Civil Service Commission,

755 F.2d 266 (2d Cir. 1985) ........................................................................... 7

Walker v. Mississippi,
No. 3:04CV140LS, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98320 (S.D. Miss. Apr.
11, 2006) ......................................................................................................... 8

Wilson v. Ake,
354 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (M.D. Fla. 2005) ..................................................... 1, 8

iii
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

Other Sources

28 U.S.C. § 1257 (1982) ....................................................................................... 3, 4

Appellants’ Jurisdictional Statement, Baker v. Nelson,

409 U.S. 810 (1972) (No. 71-1027) ................................................................ 9

Brief for Appellee United States, Smelt v. County of Orange,

447 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2005) (No. 05-56040) ................................................ 3

Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive,

or Other Relief and for Review of Agency Decision, Gill v. Office of
Personnel Management, 699 F. Supp. 2d 374 (2010) (No. 09-10309-
JLT) ............................................................................................................... 10

16B Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal

Practice and Procedure § 4014 (2d ed. 2010) ................................................. 6

iv
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

Massachusetts Family Institute, Inc., a not-for-profit research and education

corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is

dedicated to strengthening the family and upholding traditional moral values in the

public policy and cultural arenas. Founded in 1991, MFI is a strong supporter of

male-female marriages and mother-father-children families. MFI seeks to carry

out its mission by a team of professional staff and volunteers made up of

physicians, lawyers, and university professors. The case at bar is of the utmost

interest to MFI. The family values espoused by MFI directly conflict with the

plaintiffs’ request for same-sex “marriage” to be recognized by the federal

government. MFI is concerned with the untold consequences same-sex

“marriages” will have on American society, moral principles, and the family.

This Brief is filed pursuant to consent of all parties. No party or party’s

counsel authored any part of the brief nor contributed money that was intended to

fund preparing or submitting the brief; and no person—other than the amicus

curiae, its members, or its counsel—contributed money that was intended to fund

preparing or submitting the brief.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

These cases are not the first challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act

(DOMA). Since its enactment, the Department of Justice has successfully

1
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

defended the law, in part due to the binding precedent of Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S.

810 (1972). See, e.g., Wilson v. Ake, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1304-05 (M.D. Fla.

2005). But in these cases, surprisingly, the Department of Justice has not

mentioned Baker v. Nelson. But because Baker is controlling precedent, this Court

must consider it. This brief provides the Court with the missing argument that the

Supreme Court has foreclosed assertions that there is a fundamental right to same-

sex “marriage” in Baker v. Nelson.

ARGUMENT
In Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (“appeal dismissed for want of a

substantial federal question”), the United States Supreme Court considered and

rejected the claims by two Minnesota men that Minnesota’s exclusion of same-sex

couples from marriage violated the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.

Constitution. The Court affirmed the Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling that there

is no fundamental right to same-sex “marriage” under the Ninth Amendment or the

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that excluding same-sex

couples from marriage does not constitute irrational or invidious discrimination

under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Baker v.

Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 311-13, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186-87 (Minn. 1971). Although

the question presented in Baker v. Nelson was in the context of the Minnesota law

2
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

rather than DOMA, the laws are identical in their definition of marriage as the

union of a man and a woman. As a result, Baker’s precedent controls.1

I. BAKER V. NELSON HAS PRECEDENTIAL VALUE THAT PREVENTS A LOWER

COURT FROM HOLDING THAT DOMA’S DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
VIOLATES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

Under current certiorari jurisprudence, it seems strange to say that there is

precedential value in a Supreme Court dismissal of an appeal from a State Supreme

Court, with no opinion from the Court. Indeed, under current rules, review of a

State Supreme Court decision is entirely discretionary under the U.S. Supreme

Court’s certiorari jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). “Cert. denied” now has little,

if any, precedential effect. See Hopfmann v. Connolly, 471 U.S. 459, 460-61

(1985) (unlike dismissal for want of a substantial federal question, denial of

certiorari has no precedential effect). But the Supreme Court jurisdictional rules

were altered in 1988. Until then, 28 U.S.C. § 1257 stated:

Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in

which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme
Court as follows:
...
(2) By appeal, where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of
any state on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution,

1
Prior to this case, the Justice Department agreed. “Because Baker specifically
resolved due process and equal protection challenges to the traditional definition of
marriage . . . Baker remains the governing precedent with respect to marriage.”
Brief for Appellee United States at 16, Smelt v. Cnty. of Orange, 447 F.3d 673 (9th
Cir. 2005) (No. 05-56040).
3
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

treaties or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of its
validity.

28 U.S.C. § 1257 (as amended July 29, 1970, Publ. L. 91-358, 84 Stat. 590)

(emphasis added). Because the Minnesota Supreme Court decided that the

Minnesota statute was valid under the U.S. Constitution, 28 U.S.C § 1257 gave the

plaintiffs an automatic right of appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Governed by the same language in effect at the time of Baker, in Hicks v.

Miranda, 422 U.S. 332 (1975), the Supreme Court described the significance of an

order dismissing an appeal for lack of a substantial federal question. In Hicks, a

movie theater owner filed suit in federal court, seeking an injunction against

enforcement of California’s obscenity statute on the ground that it violated the U.S.

Constitution. On June 4, 1974, a three-judge District Court panel relied on Miller

v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (Miller I) and held that the California obscenity

statute did not meet the Miller standards and was, therefore, unconstitutional.

Hicks, 422 U.S. at 340. But six weeks later, in Miller v. California, 418 U.S. 915

(1974) (Miller II), the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed for want of a substantial

federal question a subsequent appeal from a state court decision upholding the

same California obscenity statute against a federal constitutional challenge. Hicks,

422 U.S. at 340. The three-judge Hicks panel, however, rejected a motion to

reconsider and concluded that it was not bound by the Supreme Court’s dismissal

of Miller II. Hicks, 422 U.S. at 341. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed:
4
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

We agree with appellants that the District Court was in error in

holding that it would disregard the decision in Miller II. That case
was an appeal from a decision by a state court upholding a state
statute against federal constitutional attack. A federal constitutional
issue was properly presented, it was within our appellate jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2), and we had no discretion to refuse
adjudication of the case on its merits as would have been true had the
case been brought here under our certiorari jurisdiction. We are not
obligated to grant the case plenary consideration, and we did not; but
we were required to deal with its merits. We did so by concluding
that the appeal should be dismissed because the constitutional
challenge to the California statute was not a substantial one. The
three-judge court was not free to disregard this pronouncement.

Hicks, 422 U.S. at 343-44 (emphasis added).

The Supreme Court further clarified the extent of precedential impact of a

case in which an appeal was dismissed for want of a substantial federal question in

Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977) (per curiam). In Mandel, the Court

criticized a three-judge panel for assuming that Hicks meant that a summary

affirmance of a district court opinion meant that the Court had adopted the

reasoning (and not just the judgment) of the decision being appealed. It reiterated

its statement in Hicks that “‘[a]scertaining the reach and content of summary

actions may itself present issues of real substance.’” Id. (quoting Hicks, 422 U.S. at

345 n.14). The Court also reaffirmed and clarified the significance of a dismissal

for want of a substantial federal question:

Summary affirmances and dismissals for want of a substantial federal

question without doubt reject the specific challenges presented in the
statement of jurisdiction and do leave undisturbed the judgment
appealed from. They do prevent lower courts from coming to opposite
5
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 12 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided

by those actions.

Mandel, 432 U.S. at 176 (emphasis added). The elimination of the Court’s

appellate jurisdiction in 1988 does not change the applicability of this rule to

current cases. 16B Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure §

4014 (2d ed. 2010) (“Abolition of the appeal jurisdiction does not change this rule.

Lower courts must continue to honor it”).

II. BAKER V. NELSON MUST BE READ AS AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS,

UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OBSERVED BY THIS COURT IN AUBURN POLICE
UNION V. CARPENTER.
A number of courts have cited Hicks, and then mistakenly added, “overruled

on other grounds, Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173 (1977).” 2 See, e.g., Postscript

Enters., Inc. v. Peach, 878 F.2d 1114, 1116 (8th Cir. 1989); Commc'ns Telesystems

Int’l v. California Pub. Util. Comm’n, 196 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 1999);

American Constitutional Law Found., Inc. v. Meyer, 113 F.3d 1245, No. 94-1145,

1997 WL 282874, at *4 (10th Cir. May 29, 1997) (unpublished table decision).

But in Auburn Police Union v. Carpenter, 8 F.3d 886 (1st Cir. 1993), this Court

correctly cites Hicks as holding that “[t]he Supreme Court’s summary disposition

2
It is noteworthy that these cases fail to identify the ruling in Hicks that Mandel
purportedly overruled. In any event, Mandel did not purport to overrule Hicks.
Only Justice Brennan’s concurrence, which no other Justice joined, claimed that
Mandel created a new rule. Id. at 179-80 (Brennan, J., concurring). But the rule
Justice Brennan stated differs from the rule stated in the per curiam opinion.

6
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 13 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

of an appeal to it is an adjudication on the merits that must be followed by lower

courts.” Id. at 894. The Supreme Court agrees that this Court’s interpretation of

Hicks as controlling authority that a dismissal for want of substantial federal

question “constitutes a decision on the merits” is appropriate. Boggs v. Boggs, 520

U.S. 833, 849 (1997) (citing Hicks’ holding on this point); Middlesex Cnty. Ethics

Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 436 (1982) (following abstention

holding in Hicks). Many other courts agree that Hicks stands as controlling

precedent for the interpretation of a dismissal for want of a substantial federal

question. See, e.g., Ass’n of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, 502 F.3d

545, 549 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Hicks as authority that the Supreme Court’s

dismissal of an appeal “for want of a substantial federal question . . . constituted a

decision on the merits”); Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086, 1099 (9th Cir.

2001) (citing abstention holding in Hicks); Neely v. Newton, 149 F.3d 1074, 1078

(10th Cir. 1998) (citing precedential discussion in Hicks); Soto-Lopez v. New York

City Civil Serv. Comm’n, 755 F.2d 266, 272 (2d Cir. 1985) (same).

Thus, according to Hicks, the Court had no discretion to refuse to consider

the merits of the appeal in Baker v. Nelson, and the dismissal of the appeal for

want of a substantial federal question was a definitive decision on the merits of the

precise issues presented on appeal. As a result, other federal courts may not decide

7
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 14 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

that the issue presented to the Court in Baker presents a substantial federal question

that they are entitled to decide differently.

III. BAKER V. NELSON IS NOT LIMITED TO THE IDENTICAL LAW CHALLENGED IN

THAT CASE, RATHER, BAKER CONTROLS ALL FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS
CONCERNING A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE TO
INCLUDE SAME-SEX PARTNERS UNDER EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE
PROCESS.

Baker is not limited to just the Minnesota state law that its plaintiffs

challenged. Courts that have discussed the nature of the dismissal in Baker have

recognized the binding nature of the decision regarding the definition of marriage

in various contexts, including DOMA. See, e.g., Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d

1036, 1039 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1982) (denying marital recognition for purposes of

federal immigration law and noting that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the

Baker appeal “operates as a decision on the merits”) (citation omitted) cert. denied,

458 U.S. 1111 (1982); Walker v. Mississippi, No. 3:04CV140LS, 2006 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 98320, at *4 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 11, 2006) (unpublished) (dismissing

challenge of Mississippi law defining marriage as the union of one man and one

woman because “until the United States Supreme Court makes a different

pronouncement on the issues decided in Baker, other federal courts must reach the

same result on those issues”); Wilson v. Ake, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1305 (M.D.

Fla. 2005) (“Baker v. Nelson is binding precedent upon this Court and Plaintiffs’

case against [DOMA] must be dismissed.”).

8
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 15 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

The Statement of Jurisdiction in the appeal from the Minnesota Supreme

Court’s rejection of the claims of a right to same-sex “marriage” specifically raised

the issues of whether excluding same-sex couples from marriage:

deprives appellants of their liberty to marry and of their property

without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment . . .
[and] violates their rights under the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment . . . [and] deprives appellants of their right to
privacy under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Appellants’ Jurisdictional Statement at 3, Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)

(No. 71-1027) (attached as addendum). The Baker appellants directly raised a

claim of a fundamental right to marry, “fully protected by the due process and

equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 11 (citing Boddie v.

Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold

v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942);

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 535 (1923). The right-to-privacy argument of the

Baker appellants relied on Griswold, Loving, and Boddie, id. at 18-19, and the

Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Baker appeal for want of a substantial federal

question was a rejection of the merits of those claims.

As a result, the Supreme Court has held that there is no federal due

process, equal protection or privacy right to same-sex “marriage” in the Ninth or

9
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 16 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.3 Courts are “not free to

disregard this pronouncement.”4 Hicks, 422 U.S. at 344. Yet the district court did

exactly that when it entertained the Gill plaintiffs’ claims that DOMA violates their

federal due process and equal protection right to same-sex “marriage.” Second

Am. and Supplemental Compl. for Declaratory, Injunctive, or Other Relief and for

Review of Agency Decision at paras. 432, 444, 452, 467, 482, 491, 500, 509, 518,

527, 536, 545, 554, 563, 573, 583, 592, 601, 609, 617, 626, 630, Gill v. Office of

Personnel Management, 699 F. Supp. 2d 374 (2010) (No. 09-10309-JLT) (alleging

violations “of the right of equal protection secured by the Fifth Amendment”).

This is the same issue that Baker v. Nelson addressed, and the district court and this

Court “do not have the authority to refuse to follow a binding precedent from the

Supreme Court of the United States.” Irving v. U.S., 162 F.3d 154, 187 (1st Cir.

1998) (Bownes, J., dissenting). Irrespective of the parties’ silence concerning

3
Baker, of course, does not foreclose challenges to DOMA under other
Constitutional provisions. In particular, Baker does not prevent this Court from
weighing the merits of Massachusetts’ arguments that DOMA violates the Tenth
Amendment and Spending Clause. But as described in the briefs of defendants and
other amici, it is well-established that Congress has the authority to regulate
marriage for federal purposes.
4
Although Baker may not have the same precedential weight before the U.S.
Supreme Court as plenary consideration would have, Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S.
651, 670-71 (1974), the issues “necessarily decided” prevent other federal courts
from reaching opposite conclusions. Mandel, 432 U.S. at 176.

10
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 17 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

Baker, courts cannot disregard Baker’s holding that there is no equal protection or

substantive due process right to same-sex “marriage.”

CONCLUSION
As this Court accurately stated, “invocation of constitutional authority,

without more, cannot breathe life into a theory already pronounced dead by the

Supreme Court in binding precedent.” E. Bridge, LLC v. Chao, 320 F.3d 84, 91

(1st Cir. 2003). The Supreme Court’s binding precedent of Baker v. Nelson

rejected the theory that equal protection and substantive due process require that

people of the same gender can marry. Because that theory has been “pronounced

dead by the Supreme Court” in Baker v. Nelson, this Court must reverse the district

court’s decision.

For the foregoing reasons, and for additional reasons stated in the Appellees’

Brief, the judgment of the district court should be reversed.

Respectfully submitted,
this 27th day of January 2011

s/ Stephen C. Whiting
Stephen C. Whiting
Bar No. 56033
The Whiting Law Firm
75 Pearl Street, Suite 207
Portland, ME 04101
Tel: (207) 780-0681

Counsel of Record for Amicus Curiae

Massachusetts Family Institute

11
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 18 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.

32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 2480 words, excluding the parts of the brief

exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).

This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.

32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this

brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word

in fourteen-point Times New Roman.

s/ Stephen C. Whiting
Stephen C. Whiting
Bar No. 56033
The Whiting Law Firm
75 Pearl Street, Suite 207
Portland, ME 04101
Tel: (207) 780-0681

Counsel of Record for Amicus Curiae

Massachusetts Family Institute

12
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163829 Page: 19 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 27, 2011, I have electronically filed the
foregoing Brief Amicus Curiae of the Massachusetts Family Institute in the
consolidated cases of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and
Human Services and Hara, Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, Nos. 10-
2204, 10-2207 and 10-2214, with the Clerk of the Court for the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system.

I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and
will be served by the appellate CM/ECF system.

s/ Stephen C. Whiting
Stephen C. Whiting
Bar No. 56033
The Whiting Law Firm
75 Pearl Street, Suite 207
Portland, ME 04101
Tel: (207) 780-0681

Counsel of Record for Amicus Curiae

Massachusetts Family Institute

13
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163830 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

Addendum

Appellants’ Jurisdictional Statement, Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)

(No. 71-1027) .................................................................................................. 1
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163830 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

1 Addendum
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163830 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

2 Addendum
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163830 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

3 Addendum
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163830 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

4 Addendum
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163830 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

5 Addendum
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163830 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

6 Addendum
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163830 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

7 Addendum
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163830 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

8 Addendum
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163830 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

9 Addendum
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163830 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

10 Addendum
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163830 Page: 12 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

11 Addendum
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163830 Page: 13 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

12 Addendum
Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116163830 Page: 14 Date Filed: 01/27/2011 Entry ID: 5522091

13 Addendum