DOMA easily passes muster under rational basis review, as DOMA is supported by numerous rational bases. Congress saw that expanding federal marital benefits to same-sex couples, who at the time of DOMA's passage were not recognized as married in any states, would raise significant problems of disuniformity and unfairness in the distribution of such benefits. Moreover, any extension of federal marital benefits likely would increase demands on federal resources, create unpredictable changes in the budgets of countless federal programs, and upset the calibration of the countless prior statutes dealing with marriages, all of which were structured on the understanding that the institution included only opposite-sex couples.

The Obama administration petitioned [JURIST report] the Ninth Circuit appeals court in March for an expedited en banc review of this case. In its request for review, the Obama administration raised the question of "whether classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to rational basis review or instead demand heightened scrutiny under well-established equal protection principles." The request for expedited review came after the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional, after Karen Golinski filed suit [JURIST reports] against the US Office of Personnel Management for refusing extend health insurance benefits to her same-sex spouse. House Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) DOMA defense group [JURIST report] took over the defense.of DOMA in court after the DOJ announced in February that it would no longer defend the legislation.