United States v. Windsor
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Toronto in 2007 where same-sex marriages were legal. At the time of Spyer’s death, the state of New York recognized the couple’s marriage. However, the IRS denied Windsor use of a spousal estate tax exception on the ground that, under the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits. The Supreme Court is now being asked to decide DOMA’s Constitutionality. The Obama Administration is not defending DOMA, so a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (“BLAG”) from the House of Representatives is doing so, arguing that DOMA is rationally related to the legitimate government objective of providing a uniform definition of marriage for federal benefits purposes. The Obama administration counters that the use of sexual orientation to decide who gets benefits is a suspect classification that deserves higher scrutiny. Under that level of higher scrutiny, the Obama administration argues that DOMA is impermissible. This case can affect what role the federal government can play in defining marriage and who in the federal government can defend the government’s laws. Not only could this case provide large tax savings to Ms. Windsor herself, but it can also make federal benefits available to other same-sex couples who are legally married under the laws of their state.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Section 3 of DOMA defines the term “marriage” for all purposes under federal law, including the provision of federal benefits, as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” 1 U.S.C. 7. It similarly defines the term “spouse” as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” Ibid. The question presented is:
Whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their state.
In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following questions: whether the executive branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and whether the BLAG has Article III standing in this case.
- [Question(s) presented]
- [Issue(s)]
- [Facts]
- [Discussion]
- [Analysis]
Issue
The substantive issue is whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the right to equal protection of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law.
Edited by
The authors would like to thank Professor Michael C. Dorf for his insights into this case and former Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions Frank Wagner for his assistance in editing this preview.
- The Defense of Marriage Act (September 21, 1996) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ199/pdf/PLAW-104publ199.pdf
- Michael C. Dorf, Congressional Republicans Offer Three Bad Arguments for Upholding the Defense of Marriage Act, Verdict (February 4, 2013), http://verdict.justia.com/2013/02/04/congressional-republicans-offer-three-bad-arguments-for-upholding-the-defense-of-marriage-act