On November 3, 2011, 133 House Democrats filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in "Gill" and "Massachusetts", asserting their belief that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional. Included among the members of Congress signing the brief were 14 members who had voted for the bill in 1996. Seventy major employers also filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs. A three-judge panel heard arguments in the case on April 4, 2012, during which the DOJ for the first time took the position that it could not defend Section 3 of DOMA under any level of scrutiny. On May 31, 2012, the panel unanimously affirmed Tauro's ruling, finding Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional. On June 29, BLAG filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The DOJ did so on July 3, while asking the Supreme Court to review "Golinski" as well. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a response to both petitions adding the Spending Clause and Tenth Amendment issues as questions presented. The Supreme Court denied these petitions on June 27, 2013, following its decision in "Windsor".