U.S. Department of Justice

Office of the Solicitor General

Washington, D.C. 20530

December 13, 2012

Honorable William K. Suter

Clerk

Supreme Court of the United States

Washington, D.C. 20543

Re: United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307

Dear Mr. Suter:

On December 7, 2012, the Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in the above-captioned case. The purpose of this letter is to propose a joint briefing schedule covering both the jurisdictional and merits issues on which the Court granted certiorari. I am authorized to represent that counsel for the parties and the Court-appointed amicus (as to the jurisdictional issues) agree to the proposed schedule set further below and join in this request.

The case, as granted by the Court, involves three questions:

First, the Court granted review of the question presented by the petition: whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State.

Second, the Court directed the parties and Court-appointed amicus to brief the following question: whether the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case.

Third, the Court directed the parties and Court-appointed amicus to brief the following question: whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (BLAG) has Article III standing in this case.

The parties and Court-appointed amicus have agreed to the following briefing schedule, which puts briefing of the merits question and additional jurisdictional questions on separate tracks. This schedule is designed to ensure full presentation to the Court of all the issues and to ensure that the parties and amicus have a fair opportunity to respond to each others’ briefs.

Under the proposed schedule on the merits question, as set forth below, the parties would be realigned to permit BLAG to file an opening brief; the United States and Windsor would then file their briefs after 31 days and 36 days, respectively; and BLAG would file a reply brief at least 7 days before the date of oral argument, per Rule 25.3 of the Rules of this Court:

Merits question

Brief for BLAG:	January 22, 2012

Brief for United States:	February 22, 2012

Brief for Windsor:	February 26, 2012

Reply brief for BLAG:	March 19 or 20, 2012 (by 2 pm)

Under the proposed schedule on the jurisdictional questions posed by the Court, as set forth below, the Court-appointed amicus would file an opening brief; the parties would then file their briefs 29 days later; and the Court-appointed amicus and parties would file reply briefs at least 7 days before the date of oral argument (with the parties’ reply briefs limited to addressing each others’ arguments), per Rule 25.3:

Jurisdictional questions

Brief for Court-appointed amicus:	January 22, 2012

Brief for United States/BLAG/Windsor:	February 20, 2012

Reply briefs for all:	March 19 or 20, 2012 (by 2 pm)

The parties and Court-appointed amicus respectfully request that the normal word limits under the Court’s rules presumptively apply to each set of briefs.

Finally, to avoid confusion, we suggest that the Court order that all amici and parties identify on the cover of each brief they file which issue is addressed in that particular brief. That specification would be in addition to the requirement in Rule 29(c) of the Rules of this Court that an amicus state on the cover of its brief which party it supports and whether it urges affirmance or reversal. We also suggest that all amicus briefs in support of the United States/Windsor on the merits be due 7 days after the filing of the United States merits briefs (i.e., March 1, 2012).

Sincerely,

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.

Solicitor General

cc:	See Attached Service List