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

        Media Mentions

        Steven Davis Featured in the Environmental Business Journal

        Steven Davis, President of Verrill Strategic Consulting, was recently interviewed and featured in the Environmental Business Journal, Volume 39...
        Blog

        What is a Bonus for Purposes of ERISA?

        An ongoing dispute about a Department of Labor advisory opinion published last September raises a basic but unanswered question under the ERISA: What...
        Media Mentions

        Verrill Recognized by WMTW for Partnership Supporting Hunger Relief in Maine

        Verrill was recently featured in coverage by WMTW News 8 for its role in a collaborative effort to combat food insecurity across southern...
        Press Releases

        33 Verrill Attorneys, Across Four Offices, Recognized in the 2026 Chambers USA Guide

        BOSTON, Massachusetts, PORTLAND, Maine, WESTPORT, Connecticut, and WASHINGTON, D.C. – Verrill has been recognized as a Leading Firm in 14...
        Blog

        Will the Knicks Beat the Spurs? (Are Prediction Market Event Contracts Gambling?)

        For those of you who like to keep score, currently 18 states are engaged in litigation over prediction markets, such as Kalshi and Polymarket,...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        DOJ Announces Faster Review and Enhanced Enforcement for Benefits-Fraud FCA Matters

        On May 27, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Division issued a new memorandum, “Accelerating Review and Enhancing Enforcement in...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        DOJ Announces Minnesota Health Care Fraud Takedown; Signals Intensified Medicaid Enforcement Nationwide

        On May 21, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a first-of-its kind Minnesota Health Care Fraud Takedown charging 15 defendants, including...
        Media Mentions

        Lauren Galvin Quoted in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly on Arbitration and Anti-SLAPP Protections

        Verrill Partner Lauren Galvin was recently featured in a Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly article highlighting a notable Superior Court decision...
        Blog

        Section 530A Accounts: What Employers Should Consider Before Offering Contributions to “Trump” Accounts

        Section 530A accounts, commonly referred to as Trump accounts, have attracted attention since the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in...
        Blog

        Navigating PBM Reform: Regulatory Changes, Market Shifts, and Practical Guidance for ERISA Fiduciaries

        Pharmacy Benefit Manager (“PBM”) arrangements have long relied on rebates with limited transparency into true drug costs. Recent regulatory and...
        Blog

        DOL’s Proposed Regulation on Selecting Alternative Investments: Broad Implications for 401(k) and 403(b) Plan Fiduciaries

        On March 30, 2026, the Department of Labor issued a proposed regulation purporting to implement an executive order to expand access to “alternative...
        Press Releases

        Verrill Welcomes Private Clients & Fiduciary Services Attorney Gracie Castle

        BOSTON, Massachusetts – Verrill is pleased to welcome Gracie Castle to the firm’s Private Clients & Fiduciary Services Group as an Associate,...