WASHINGTON — A law firm that is part of the challenge against California’s Proposition 8 this week filed a “friend of the court” brief on behalf of a coalition of national veterans’ service organizations asking the court to strike down laws discriminating against gay and lesbian veterans.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals on Wednesday for Veterans Claims arguing that laws denying gay and lesbian veterans the spousal benefits they have earned, and which Congress has determined are necessary to support their families, “serve[] only to discriminate against gay and lesbian veterans” and “must be struck down as unconstitutional.”
The brief was filed on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, the Service Women’s Action Network, the Connecticut Veterans Legal Center, Vets4Vets, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
The case, Cardona v. Shinseki, Vet. App. No. 11-3803, was initiated by a lesbian veteran, Carmen J. Cardona, who was denied a spousal increase in her veterans’ disability benefits after she legally married her wife under the laws of the State of Connecticut.
Never Miss a Beat
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights.
The brief traces the legislative history of the statutes animating the Department of Veterans Affairs denial of spousal benefits to gay and lesbian veterans, focusing on 38 U.S.C. § 101(31), which defines a “spouse” for veterans’ benefits purposes as “a person of the opposite sex who is a wife or husband.”
Notwithstanding this language, amici argue that the statute’s legislative history “reflects a broad commitment to equality and the provision of benefits to improve the lives of all veterans” and therefore should not “be given the perverse effect of advancing inequality by excluding veterans and their spouses from benefits based solely on their sexual orientation.”
“It is shameful that our nation denies its gay and lesbian veterans the benefits they have sacrificed to attain and are rightly entitled to,” Gibson Dunn partner Joel M. Cohen said.
Urging that the statutes are subject to heightened scrutiny, amici argue that the statutes would fail even under rational basis review. It concludes that “because the ban on spousal benefits is inconsistent with the statutory purpose of veterans’ benefits laws, and serves only to discriminate against gay and lesbian veterans, the Spouse Definition must be struck down as unconstitutional.”
“Service women were disproportionately impacted under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and it is disheartening to see women still experiencing systematic discrimination even after repeal,” said Anu Bhagwati, executive director of Service Women’s Action Network and former Marine Corps captain.
“The Cardona case illustrates that there is still tremendous work to be done to end discrimination against LGBT service members and veterans,” Bhagwati added.
