The Supreme Court Decision US v. Windsor - DOMA Case - Decided June 26, 2013

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR

---

Newdow , U. Roper , U. In this case the United States retains a stake sufficient to support Article III jurisdiction on appeal and in proceedings before this Court. The judgment in question orders the United States to pay Windsor the refund she seeks. That the Executive may welcome this order to pay the refund if it is accompanied by the constitutional ruling it wants does not eliminate the injury to the national Treasury if payment is made, or to the taxpayer if it is not.

United States v. Windsor

This Court confronted a comparable case in INS v. INS , F. This conclusion was not dictum. The holdings of cases are instructive, and the words of Chadha make clear its holding that the refusal of the Executive to provide the relief sought suffices to preserve a justiciable dispute as required by Article III.

Greene , U. In an appropriate case, appeal may be permitted. TVA , U. Wellman , U. There are, of course, reasons to hear a case and issue a ruling even when one party is reluctant to prevail in its position. One consideration is the extent to which adversarial presentation of the issues is assured by the participation of amici curiae prepared to defend with vigor the constitutionality of the legislative act.

With respect to this prudential aspect of standing as well, the Chadha Court encountered a similar situation. III, concerns about sanctioning the adjudication of [this case] in the absence of any participant supporting the validity of [the statute]. The Court of Appeals properly dispelled any such concerns by inviting and accepting briefs from both Houses of Congress. Chadha was not an anomaly in this respect. The Court adopts the practice of entertaining arguments made by an amicus when the Solicitor General confesses error with respect to a judgment below, even if the confession is in effect an admission that an Act of Congress is unconstitutional.

United States , U. Were this Courtto hold that prudential rules require it to dismiss the case, and, in consequence, that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to dismiss it as well, extensive litigation would ensue. For instance, the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, addressing the validity of DOMA in a case involving regulations of the Department of Health and Human Services, likely would be vacated with instructions to dismiss, its ruling and guidance also then erased. Rights and privileges of hundreds of thousands of persons would be adversely affected, pending a case in which all prudential concerns about justiciability are absent.

That numerical prediction may not be certain, but it is certain that the cost in judicial resources and expense of litigation for all persons adversely affected would be immense. Clinton , U. Madison , 1 Cranch , Yet the difficulty the Executive faces should be acknowledged. When the Executive makes a principled determination that a statute is unconstitutional, it faces a difficult choice. Still, there is no suggestion here that it is appropriate for the Executive as a matter of course to challenge statutes in the judicial forum rather than making the case to Congress for their amendment or repeal.

The integrity of the political process would be at risk if difficult consti-tutional issues were simply referred to the Court as a routine exercise. But this case is not routine. And the capable defense of the law by BLAG ensures that these prudential issues do not cloud the merits question, which is one of immediate importance to the Federal Government and to hundreds of thousands of persons. When at first Windsor and Spyer longed to marry, neither New York nor any other State granted them that right.

After waiting some years, in they traveled to Ontario to be married there. It seems fair to conclude that, until recent years, many citizens had not even considered the possibility that two persons of the same sex might aspire to occupy the same status and dignity as that of a man and woman in lawful marriage. For marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization.

That belief, for many who long have held it, became even more urgent, more cherished when challenged. For others, however, came the beginnings of a new perspective, a new insight. Accordingly some States concluded that same-sex marriage ought to be given recognition and validity in the law for those same-sex couples who wish to define themselves by their commitment to each other. The limitation of lawful marriageto heterosexual couples, which for centuries had been deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to beseen in New York and certain other States as an unjust exclusion.

Slowly at first and then in rapid course, the laws ofNew York came to acknowledge the urgency of this issue for same-sex couples who wanted to affirm their commitment to one another before their children, their family, their friends, and their community. And so New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage.

New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry and so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons. After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage to correct what its citizens and elected representatives perceived to be an injustice that they had not earlier known or understood.

See Marriage Equality Act, N. Laws codified at N. Against this background of lawful same-sex marriagein some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution. By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States. Yet it is further established that Congress, in enacting discrete statutes, can make determinations that bear on marital rights and privileges.

Just this Term the Court upheld the authority of the Congress to pre-empt state laws, allowing a former spouse to retain life insurance proceeds under a federal program that gave her priority, because of formal beneficiary designation rules, over the wife by a second marriage who survived the husband.

Maretta , U. Ridgway , U. Wissner , U. This is one example of the general principle that when the Federal Government acts in the exercise of its own proper authority, it has a wide choice of the mechanisms and means to adopt. Maryland , 4 Wheat. Congress has the power both to ensure efficiency in the administration of its programs and to choose what larger goals and policies to pursue.

Other precedents involving congressional statutes which affect marriages and family status further illustrate this point. Though these discrete examples establish the constitutionality of limited federal laws that regulate the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy, DOMA has a far greater reach; for it enacts a directive applicable to over 1, federal statutes and the whole realm of federal regulations.

And its operation is directed to a class of persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect. Department of Public Health , Mass. Brien , N. In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and au-thority over marriage as a matter of history and tradi-tion. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see , e.

The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. North Carolina , U. Haddock , U. Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations. In De Sylva v. Ballentine , U. In order to respect this principle, the federal courts, as a general rule, do not adjudicate issues of marital status even when there might otherwise be a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Richards , U. Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. But these rules are in every event consistent within each State. Against this background DOMA rejects the long-established precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each State, though they may vary, subject to constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next.

Despite these considerations, it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community. DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tra-dition of reliance on state law to define marriage.

Evans , U. Coleman , U. The Federal Government uses this state-defined class for the opposite purpose—to impose restrictions and dis-abilities. That result requires this Court now to address whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment.

What the State of New York treats as alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect. These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our fed-eral system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitu-tion intended.

The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other. Texas , U. By its recognition of the validity of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions and then by authorizing same-sex unions and same-sex marriages, New York sought to give further protection and dignity to that bond.

Keep Exploring Britannica

For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. Sharpe , U. Depart-ment of Agriculture v.

Supra, at 19 quoting Romer , supra , at This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.

Were there any doubt of this far-reaching purpose, the title of the Act confirms it: The Defense of Marriage. The arguments put forward by BLAG are just as candid about the congressional purpose to influence or interfere with state sovereign choices about who may be married. As the title and dynamics of the bill indicate, its purpose is to discourage enactment of state same-sex marriage laws and to restrict the freedom and choice of couples married under those laws if they are enacted.

When New York adopted a law to permit same-sex marriage, it sought to eliminate inequality; but DOMA frustrates that objective through a system-wide enactment with no identified connection to any particular area of fed-eral law. The particular case at hand concerns the estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determi-nation of what should or should not be allowed as an estate tax refund. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency.

Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federallaw, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect.

By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriagesare unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence , U. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.

Search form

The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways.

By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. It prevents same-sex married couplesfrom obtaining government healthcare benefits they would otherwise receive. It forces them to follow a complicated procedure to file their state and federal taxes jointly. Technical Bulletin TB—55, Vt. DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

DOMA divests married same-sex couples of the duties and responsibilities that are an essential part of married life and that they in most cases would be honored to accept were DOMA not in force. Same-sex married couples are exempt from this requirement. The same is true with respect to federal ethics rules. A similar statute prohibits Senators, Senate employees, and their spouses from accepting high-value gifts from certain sources, see 2 U. The power the Constitution grants it also restrains.

And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requiresthe Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

See Bolling , U. While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does,the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved. The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State.

DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.

By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed. Chief Justice Roberts , dissenting.

I agree with Justice Scalia that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of the courts below. Post , at 19—20 dissenting opinion. The majority sees a more sinister motive, pointing out that the Federal Government has generally though not uniformly deferred to state definitions of marriage in the past.

Nor do the snip-pets of legislative history and the banal title of the Actto which the majority points suffice to make such a showing. The majority goes out of its way to make this explicit in the penultimate sentence of its opinion. In my view, though, the disclaimer is a logical and necessary consequence of the argumentthe majority has chosen to adopt.

Ante , at 17, I think the majority goes off course, as I have said, but it is undeniable that its judgment is based on federalism. See ante, at For example, the majority focuses on the legislative history and title of this particular Act, ante , at 21; those statute-specific considerations will, of course, be irrelevant in future cases about different statutes. We may in the future have to resolve challenges to state marriage definitions affecting same-sex couples. That issue, however, is not before us in this case, and we hold today that we lack jurisdiction to consider it in the particular context of Hollingsworth v.

Perry , ante, p. This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted leg-islation. The Court is eager— hungry —to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case.

They agree that the court below got it right; and they agreed in the court below that the court below that one got it right as well. What, then, are we doing here? But wait, the reader wonders—Windsor won below, and so cured her injury, and the President was glad to see it. This image of the Court would have been unrecognizable to those who wrote and ratified our national charter. And the same was true in the Court of Appeals: Neither party sought to undo the judgment for Windsor, and so that court should have dismissed the appeal just as we should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Scalia argued that the judgement effectively characterized opponents of same-sex marriage as "enemies of the human race": It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis , enemies of the human race. He argued that the Court's ruling would affect state bans on same-sex marriage as well:. As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe. By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.

Scalia concluded by saying that the Supreme Court "has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. The opinions of Roberts and Scalia offered different interpretations of the majority ruling.

Navigation menu

Roberts said the majority opinion was based on federalism, finding DOMA unconstitutional because the federal government was interfering with state control of marriage. President Obama hailed the ruling as a "victory for American democracy". On the question of how the ruling would affect bans on same-sex marriage in those states that prohibit it, Obama said: Laurence Tribe , a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School , described Scalia's response and dissent as "intemperate", "extraordinary", and "at the very least, an exercise in jurisprudential cynicism.

Neil Siegel, a professor of constitutional law at Duke Law School , wrote that Justice Roberts' view that the majority relied on federalism was a fallacy in that the majority did not place any weight on the federalism argument, but rather used "federalism as a waystation" to put off making a decision on the constitutionality of state laws concerning same-sex marriage.

A day after the decision in Windsor , the federal judge hearing McLaughlin v. Panetta asked the parties to explain by July 18 why the logic that found DOMA's section 3 unconstitutional did not apply equally to federal regulations that control eligibility for veterans' spousal benefits, which define "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex. In the wake of the U. Supreme Court ruling the Obama Administration and several federal executive departments and agencies such as the Office of Personnel Management [83] began to extend federal rights, privileges and benefits to married same-sex couples by changing regulations in order to conform with the Supreme Court decision in Windsor:.

As a result of the Windsor decision, married same-sex couples—regardless of domicile—have tax benefits which include the previously unavailable ability to file joint tax returns with the IRS , military benefits, federal employment benefits for employees of the U. S Government and immigration benefits.

In February , the Justice Department expanded recognition of same-sex marriages in federal legal matters, including bankruptcies, prison visits, survivor benefits and the legal right to refuse to testify to incriminate a spouse. The VA and SSA can provide only limited benefits to married same-sex couples living in states where same-sex marriage isn't legal, with Congress required to amend federal law to rectify that inequity.

According to one reporter's assessment in August , despite the foregoing efforts the U. Instead "they are creating a patchwork of regulations affecting gay and lesbian couples — and may be raising questions about discrimination and fairness in the way that federal benefits are distributed.

The new rule is effective March 27, The ruling in Windsor led to a series of state and federal lawsuits being filed against same-sex marriage bans and affected other discrimination rulings. A year after the Windsor ruling was announced, there was at least one state or federal lawsuit against every state same-sex marriage ban. New Jersey Supreme Court previously ruled in Lewis v. Harris that the denial of marriage benefits violate same-sex couples equal protection under the New Jersey state constitution.

But following Windsor a New Jersey state judge ruled that the extension of federal benefits to married same-sex couples made New Jersey's civil unions to be lacking the equal protection. In several other cases, the ambiguity in the majority decision in Windsor has produced varying interpretations in later legal decisions that address state regulation of marriage and the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. Courts have disputed whether Windsor relied upon federalism or equal protection and what standard of review the Supreme Court applied.

Others have used it to dismiss the precedential importance of Baker v. Within 2 years of the Windsor decision 28 district courts and 4 appeals court ruled state level same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional, while only 2 district courts and one appeals court ruled they did not. In December , a U. District Court judge ruling in Kitchen v.

Herbert found Baker no longer controlled his decision, because the rule is that "doctrinal developments" can obviate the importance of a dismissal like Baker and given the issues before the court Windsor was "highly relevant and is therefore a significant doctrinal development".

It also read Windsor as an equal protection case, writing: District Court Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen ruling in Bostic v. Rainey on February 13, , noted that Windsor discussed the deference due state laws defining marriage only to assert that "due process and equal protection guarantees must trump objections to federal intervention". She cited Justice Scalia's prediction that the reasoning of the majority in Windsor with respect to federal law motivated by a "bare In De Leon v. Perry , Orlando Garcia on February 26, , framed the lawsuit in terms of Windsor: Some courts have agreed with Scalia that the Windsor decision lacked clarity and proceeded to interpret it with little reference to federalism, just as Scalia had predicted.

District Judge Terence C. Kern described the decision as the culmination of a process: District Judge Jone E. Jones ruled on May 20, , that Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional, he read Windsor as an equal protection decision. He cited Justice Scalia's critique of the lack of clarity in the Windsor decision, writing: Windsor found DOMA unconstitutional because 'no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure. District Judge Martin Feldman , upholding Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriage on September 3, , reviewed the arguments before him and wrote: But Windsor does little more than give both sides in this case something to hope for.

Windsor , in the context of the issues presented to this Court, is unclear contrary to the conclusions in many recent federal court decisions. It is by its own terms, limited. Its "opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages. Hence this Court's unease that Windsor merely offer bits and pieces of hope to both sides. He quoted Chief Justice Roberts' dissent as a reason not to read Windsor as a guide for deciding the constitutionality of restrictions on same-sex marriage: He criticized several recent federal court decisions for failing to specify the appropriate standard of review they used to evaluate the constitutionality of bans on same-sex marriage.

Instead he cited Windsor for its "powerful reminder" that "'The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State's broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations'". Abbott considered what standard of review to apply when determining whether sexual orientation can be used in selecting the members of a jury. It ruled unanimously on January 21, , based on its reading of Windsor , that distinctions based on sexual orientation are subject to the "heightened scrutiny" standard of review and that "equal protection prohibits peremptory strikes based on sexual orientation".

Windsor review is not rational basis review. In its words and its deed, Windsor established a level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation that is unquestionably higher than rational basis review. In other words, Windsor requires that heightened scrutiny be applied to equal protection claims involving sexual orientation.

The Ninth Circuit court also observed that the majority in Windsor shifted the burden from the same-sex couple to the government when it wrote that the government has to " justify disparate treatment of the group. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. United States Supreme Court case. Three petitions for certiorari were filed docket numbers 12—13 , 12—15 , and 12—97 ; all were dismissed the day after the Windsor decision was announced filed, with Justice Kagan recusing. The Supreme Court declined the petitions the day after Windsor was announced, with Justice Kagan recusing in Golinski.

Windsor , Docket No. Supreme Court, December 28, Retrieved June 29, The New York Times. Retrieved June 27, United States , F.

Retrieved June 26, Retrieved January 1, A long time coming for Edie Windsor". Supreme Court To Hear Case". Retrieved July 30, Gay Benefits 'Bigger Than Marriage ' ". Retrieved December 31, It was not until the spring of that they got together. Windsor suggested they date for a year and consider engagement for another year if that went well.

Retrieved July 16, Retrieved July 20, Retrieved February 27, Retrieved December 13, Jewish Telegraphic Agency via The Forward. United States , Complaint ; retrieved March 1, Archived from the original on October 19, Retrieved July 18, United States Department of Justice. Archived from the original on March 9, Retrieved February 23, Archived from the original on February 27, Archived from the original on April 25, Retrieved April 19, Archived from the original PDF on October 3, Retrieved August 3, Archived from the original on August 6, Retrieved July 26, Retrieved August 2, Retrieved December 10, Archived from the original on June 7, Retrieved June 6, Retrieved June 8, Archived from the original on June 21, Retrieved June 19, Prop 8 Trial Tracker.

Archived from the original on August 21, Supreme Court of the United States , final court of appeal and final expositor of the Constitution of the United States. Within the framework of litigation, the Supreme Court marks the boundaries of authority between state and nation, state and state, and government and citizen. Defense of Marriage Act DOMA , law in force from to that specifically denied to same-sex couples all benefits and recognition given to opposite-sex couples.

Those benefits included more than 1, federal protections and privileges, such as the legal recognition of relationships, access…. Marriage , a legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring if any. The universality of marriage within different societies and cultures….

Same-sex marriage , the practice of marriage between two men or between two women. Although same-sex marriage has been regulated through law, religion, and custom in most countries of the world, the legal and social responses have ranged from celebration on the one hand to criminalization on the other.

More About United States v. Help us improve this article! Contact our editors with your feedback.

• Money Town
• Nouvelles réflexions (French Edition)
• European Instructional Lectures: Volume 13, 2013, 14th EFORT Congress, Istanbul, Turkey
• Brummi im Kindergarten, Band 4 (German Edition)
• Drugs, War and The CIA
• To Be Men (Ultra Gay XXX)