Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 53 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ____________________________________ ) SHANNON L. MCLAUGHLIN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-11905 ) Judge Richard G. Stearns LEON PANETTA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) JOINT RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 Pursuant to this Courts Order of September 12, 2013 requiring the parties to collaborate on a draft declaratory judgment [#52], the parties respectfully submit the attached Proposed Judgment (Exhibit A). Dated: September 30, 2013 Respectfully Submitted, Counsel for Defendants
STUART F. DELERY Assistant Attorney General CARMEN M. ORTIZ United States Attorney ARTHUR R. GOLDBERG Assistant Branch Director /s/ Jean Lin JEAN LIN Senior Trial Counsel U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202) 514-3716 Fax: (202) 616-8470 email: jean.lin@usdoj.gov

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 53 Filed 09/30/13 Page 2 of 3

Counsel for Plaintiffs IAN MCCLATCHEY IMcClatchey@Chadbourne.com CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112
JOHN M. GOODMAN, Esq. JGoodman@SLDN.org DAVID MCKEAN DMcKean@SLDN.org SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK Post Office Box 65301 Washington, DC 20035

/s/ Christopher D. Man ABBE DAVID LOWELL ADLowell@Chadbourne.com CHRISTOPHER D. MAN CMan@Chadbourne.com CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 53 Filed 09/30/13 Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on September 30, 2013, I filed the foregoing Joint Response to the Courts Order of September 12, 2013 using the CM/ECF system, that a copy will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF), and that the attorneys for all parties in this case as listed below are registered CM/ECF participants: Ian McClatchey, Esq. IMcClatchey@Chadbourne.com CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 Abbe David Lowell, Esq. ADLowell@Chadbourne.com Christopher D. Man CMan@Chadbourne.com CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036
John M. Goodman, Esq. JGoodman@SLDN.org David McKean DMcKean@SLDN.org SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK Post Office Box 65301 Washington, DC 20035

/s/ Jean Lin JEAN LIN

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 53-1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 5

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 53-1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 2 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ____________________________________ ) SHANNON L. MCLAUGHLIN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-11905-RGS ) CHUCK HAGEL, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT Plaintiffs, veterans and members of the U.S. armed forces and their same-sex spouses, filed this action on October 27, 2011, challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. 7, and the provisions defining the terms spouse and surviving spouse in Titles 10, 32, and 38 of the United States Code, which govern military and veterans benefits. Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on November 21, 2011 [#14], and this Court subsequently stayed this action on June 6, 2012. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2693 (2013), that Section 3 of DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles and is therefore unconstitutional. In light of Windsor, the Department of Defense (DoD) represented that it will now construe the term spouse in Titles 10 and 32 to include same-sex spouses. The President also has directed that the Executive Branch cease enforcement of Sections 101(3) and 101(31) of Title 38 to the extent they limit veterans benefits to oppositesex couples, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is working to implement this directive. Having considered these developments and the record,

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 53-1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 3 of 5

It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the rights of the Plaintiffs are declared as follows: (1) The definitions of the term spouse in Section 101(f)(5) of Title 10 of the U.S.

Code and Section 101(18) of Title 32 of the U.S. Code are unconstitutional under the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to Plaintiffs by the Department of Defense in the administration of military benefits governed by Titles 10 and 32, to the extent those definitions are construed to limit the provision of military benefits to married opposite-sex couples and precluded Plaintiffs from registering the spouse plaintiffs in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS). (2) Plaintiffs Shannon McLaughlin and Casey McLaughlin are entitled to apply for

benefits under Title 10 and Title 32, for which they previously were precluded from applying because of their inability to register Casey McLaughlin in DEERS as a spouse, effective as of October 19, 2011, the date on which they attempted the DEERS registration. They are entitled to have that application evaluated without regard to being a couple of the same gender. (3) Plaintiffs Victoria Hudson and Monika Poxon are entitled to apply for benefits

under Title 10 and Title 32, for which they previously were precluded from applying because of their inability to register Monika Poxon in DEERS as a spouse, effective as of October 14, 2011, the date on which they attempted the DEERS registration. They are entitled to have that application evaluated without regard to being a couple of the same gender. (4) Plaintiffs Stewart Bornhoft and Stephen McNabb are entitled to apply for benefits

under Title 10 and Title 32, for which they previously were precluded from applying because of their inability to register Stephen McNabb in DEERS as a spouse, effective as of October 11,

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 53-1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 4 of 5

2011, the date on which they attempted the DEERS registration. They are entitled to have that application evaluated without regard to being a couple of the same gender. (5) Plaintiffs Gary Ross and Dan Swezy are entitled to apply for benefits under Title

10 and Title 32, for which they previously were precluded from applying because of their inability to register Dan Swezy in DEERS as a spouse, effective as of October 14, 2011, the date on which they attempted the DEERS registration. They are entitled to have that application evaluated without regard to being a couple of the same gender. (6) Plaintiffs Steven Hill and Joshua Snyder are entitled to apply for benefits under

Title 10 and Title 32, for which they previously were precluded from applying because of their inability to register Joshua Snyder in DEERS as a spouse, effective as of September 26, 2011, the date on which they attempted the DEERS registration. They are entitled to have that application evaluated without regard to being a couple of the same gender. (7) Plaintiffs Daniel Henderson and Jerret Henderson are entitled to apply for benefits

under Title 10 and Title 32, for which they previously were precluded from applying because of their inability to register Joshua Snyder in DEERS as a spouse, effective as of September 21, 2011, the date on which they attempted the DEERS registration. They are entitled to have that application evaluated without regard to being a couple of the same gender. (8) Plaintiff Karen Morgan is entitled to apply for benefits under Title 10 and Title

32, for which Charlie Morgan and Karen Morgan previously were precluded from applying because of their inability to register Karen Morgan in DEERS as a spouse, effective as of October 25, 2011, the date on which they attempted the DEERS registration. Karen Morgan is entitled to have that application evaluated without regard to being a couple of the same gender.

Case 1:11-cv-11905-RGS Document 53-1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 5 of 5

(9)

Plaintiffs Joan Darrah and Jacqueline Kennedy are entitled to apply for benefits

under Title 10 and Title 32, for which they previously were precluded from applying because of their inability to register Jacqueline Kennedy in DEERS as a spouse, effective as of October 24, 2011, the date on which they attempted the DEERS registration. They are entitled to have that application evaluated without regard to being a couple of the same gender. (10) The definitions of the terms spouse and surviving spouse in Sections 101(3)

and (31) of Title 38 of the U.S. Code are unconstitutional under the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to Plaintiffs by the Department of Veterans Affairs in the administration of veterans benefits governed by Title 38 to the extent those definitions are construed to limit the provision of veterans benefits to married oppositesex couples.

Dated: __________________________

_____________________________ Judge Richard G. Stearns