U.S. at 28, 93 S.Ct. 1278; City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 445, 105 S.Ct. 3249. 8 . During oral argument, counsel for BLAG argued that another possible justification for DOMA, somewhat related to protection of the public fisc, is "to rationally maintain bargains that were decided upon by previous Congresses.... There were bargains made, and there were calculus [sic] made in terms of ... what benefits are we going to give, what burdens are we going to put on people.” (Transcript at 59.) The decision of where and how to protect the government fisc and to protect the bargains struck by previous Congresses does not independently constitute a rational basis upon which to differentiate among classes of citizens. See Diaz, 656 F.3d at 1014; see also Plyler, 457 U.S. at 227, 229, 102 S.Ct. 2382 (<HOLDING>). There must be some rational basis upon which
holding that government material witnesses do not constitute a particular social group holding that government informants are not members of a particular social group holding that preservation of government resources cannot as a matter of law justify barring some arbitrarily chosen group from a government program holding that government entities are subject to suit under section 1983 when the alleged unconstitutional conduct results from an official government policy or from practices of government officials that are so wellsettled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law holding that the use of any government resources   whether salaries employees paper or buildings  to accomplish a final listing of a species as endangered would entail government expenditure and thereby run afoul of statutory moratorium on spending for such purpose the government cannot make expenditures and therefore cannot act other than by appropriation