In July 2013, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane drew national media attention when she announced that she would not defend Pennsylvania’s version of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a lawsuit filed against the state challenging the act’s constitutionality. Kane explained that she could not ethically defend the law when she herself believes it to be wholly unconstitutional. In support of her decision, Kane cited the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, noting that it was her duty under the act to authorize the Office of General Counsel to defend the state in litigation in which she deems such a decision to be in the best interest of the state. Kane also referenced her ethical obligations under the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct.
Kane’s refusal to defend the law as it currently stands in Pennsylvania sparked controversy, with critics viewing her decision as an inappropriate interjection of her personal beliefs on gay marriage. On the other hand, Kane’s supporters, of which there are many, point out that she made no secret of her stance on the issue during her campaign, and was eventually elected with the support of more than 3.1 million Pennsylvanians. Regardless of her motives, significant legal and ethical considerations regarding Kane’s decision still remain.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
