Upon consideration of the pleadings and all other materials filed in this case, and for good cause shown, the court finds that the Debtors satisfy every legal requirement to pursue their joint petition as filed pursuant to § 302(a). For the reasons stated herein and in the Debtors’ Opposition to the Motion and Debtors’ supporting authorities, the Motion to Dismiss Debtors’ chapter 13 case based on § 1307(c) is denied.

Significantly, the opinion was signed by 20 judges of the Central District of California bankruptcy court, something I have never seen before (this was not an en banc appeals court.) It is a political statement as well as a judicial statement.

The California court chose to decide the DOMA issue here. Unlike a previous bankruptcy case I discussed here, the California court did not avoid the constitutional question (whether it should have as an act of constitutional avoidance is another matter.)

In terms of the constitutional reasoning, it is defensible. The court relied heavily on the Department of Justice's policy letter on not defending DOMA in circuits where its constitutional validity has been questioned. The House of Representatives sought the right to intervene but then strangely did not submit a brief to the court.

This question may go up the ladder of appeals, but I doubt it will be as a result of an appeal by the United States Trustee for the judicial district (though the United States Trustee in the Sommers case discussed in my linked post was appealed) , which is under the supervision of the Department of Justice. If the House chooses to attempt to do so, it will face the difficulty of not having presented arguments before the bankruptcy court, though it may, one supposes, adopt the arguments made by the United States Trustee.

This is a significant development.