Benefits Law Update
        Practical advice from Verrill attorneys

        The First Circuit’s DOMA Decision: What It Means for Employers

        June 8, 2012

        On May 31, 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, declared Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Section 3 defines marriage for purposes of applying all federal statutes as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” The First Circuit held that this definition of marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause by denying federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married under state law. The Court, however, stayed enforcement of its decision pending appeal.

        As a reminder, DOMA does not formally invalidate same-sex marriages in the states that legally recognize them, but it does have several consequences for same-sex married couples under federal law. For example, same-sex married couples may not file joint federal income tax returns, enjoy the preferential tax treatment afforded employer-sponsored spousal health insurance benefits, or receive health insurance as the spouse of a federal employee. So what does this decision mean to employers and sponsors of employee benefit plans?

        For now, the decision will not have much impact on employee benefit plans because the Court stayed enforcement of its ruling. This means that DOMA is still in effect and will continue to operate as valid law until this case is either upheld or denied review by the U.S. Supreme Court. (Most commentators think, and we agree, that the Supreme Court is likely take up the case.) So at this point, employers and plan sponsors need not make any changes to their employee benefit plans. Employers should monitor developments in the case, however, as a decision upholding the First Circuit ruling (or no decision at all) will likely have significant ramifications for employees and employers alike.

        If DOMA were invalidated, the primary impacts would be centered around benefits conditioned on obtaining a legally recognized marriage. Thus, depending on the terms of the decision, a nullification of DOMA might only affect employers and individuals in the states (including, at present day, Massachusetts and New Hampshire in the First Circuit) that legally recognize same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples residing in states that do not legally recognize same-sex marriage might remain ineligible under federal law for marriage-based benefits.

        In those states that do legally recognize same-sex marriage, the invalidation of DOMA would mean that same-sex couples would qualify as spouses for the purposes of federal tax law, ERISA, and related federal mandates (COBRA, HIPAA, etc.) for group health plans, or for purposes of retirement plan rules protecting federally recognized spouses. Therefore, if the Supreme Court affirms the First Circuit decision and removes DOMA from the books, employers in those states will want to review their employee benefit plans as they relate to spousal benefits.

        Thanks to Colin Hay, a summer Associate at Verrill Dana, for his efforts in producing this post. Colin will enter his third year of law school in the fall and, in the meantime, is enjoying his summer in Portland.

        Benefits Law Update

        Verrill’s Benefits Law Update blog delivers timely insights and practical guidance on the ever-evolving landscape of employee benefits and executive compensation. Our blog provides up-to-date analysis and commentary on a wide range of topics, including timely updates on developments in law affecting employee benefit plans and executive compensation arrangements.

        Subscribe

        Looking for more great content? Subscribe for regular legal updates and information delivered right to your inbox.

        Firm Highlights

        Published Works

        Four Verrill Attorneys Co-Author Massachusetts Trends and Developments Chapter for Chambers and Partners Child Relocation 2026 Guide

        Verrill attorneys Mary H. Schmidt, Rachel A. Deering, Hannah R. Zukoff, and Mariah G. Tappan co-authored the “Trends and Developments” chapter...
        Blog

        A New Protected Class in Maine: Holders of Final Protection Orders

        In the lead-up to Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October, employers may be taking a closer look at how their policies and practices respond to...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        Verrill Secures SJC Victory for Boston Legacy FC in White Stadium Litigation

        Verrill has secured a significant appellate victory for Boston Legacy FC in the litigation challenging the redevelopment of White Stadium in...
        Blog

        Hurry Up and Wait

        This is the third in a series of Verrill blog posts on Maine’s packaging extended producer responsibility (“EPR”) law[1]. In July we reported...
        Media Mentions

        Robert Keach Discusses First Brands Chapter 11 Case in Law360

        Verrill attorney Robert Keach was recently quoted in a Law360 article examining the rejection of First Brands Group's Chapter 11 plan and the...
        Media Mentions

        Cybersecurity and AI Governance: Scott Anderson Featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

        Verrill Managing Partner Scott Anderson was recently featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly discussing how law firms can build attorney buy-in for...
        Blog

        Section 530A Account Update: ERISA Status of Trump Accounts

        The Department of Labor has issued important guidance addressing whether employer programs that permit contributions to Section 530A accounts (and...
        Press Releases

        97 Verrill Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers® 2027, Including Four Named Lawyers of the Year

        AUGUSTA, Maine, BANGOR, Maine, BOSTON, Mass., PORTLAND, Maine, and WESTPORT, Conn., (August 20, 2026) – Verrill is proud to announce that 97...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        SEC’s Proposed “Reg Crypto”: What Founders Need to Know

        Startup founders and emerging-growth companies have a number of options for raising capital under the federal securities laws, including Regulation D...
        Blog

        After 45 Years, the IRS Speaks on DCAP Nondiscrimination Testing – And It’s Good News

        Employers that provide a Dependent Care Assistance Program will be pleased to learn that for the first time in 45 years, the IRS has issued guidance...
        Media Mentions

        U.S. Courts Highlights Annabel Rodriguez’s Journey from Fellow to Mentor

        Verrill attorney Annabel Rodriguez was featured in a recent U.S. Courts article titled “From Fellows to Mentors: Alumni Share Lasting Lessons from...
        Media Mentions

        Robert Keach Discusses Bankruptcy Auction Strategy in Law360

        Verrill attorney Robert Keach spoke with Law360 article examining the complex bankruptcy auction process that resulted in the sale of 23 summer...