United States v. Windsor
570 U. S. ____ (2013) (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal statute that defines marriage for all federal purposes as solely a union between one man and one woman is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The law is unconstitutional because its principal purpose and practical effect is to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and a stigma upon a class of persons whom a state has sought to protect through the recognition of lawful marriage.
Facts:
- Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, two women residing in New York, began a long-term relationship in 1963.
- In 2007, they were legally married in Ontario, Canada.
- The State of New York, where they resided, recognized their Canadian marriage as valid.
- Spyer died in 2009, leaving her entire estate to her spouse, Windsor.
- Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption available to surviving spouses.
- The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) denied the exemption based on Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined 'spouse' for all federal purposes as a person of the opposite sex.
- As a result of the denial, Windsor was compelled to pay $363,053 in federal estate taxes.
Procedural Posture:
- After the IRS denied her claim for a spousal estate tax refund, Edith Windsor sued the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The Department of Justice, representing the United States, declined to defend the constitutionality of DOMA's Section 3 but continued to enforce the law.
- The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the U.S. House of Representatives intervened in the lawsuit to defend the statute.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to Windsor, finding Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional and ordering the government to issue a refund.
- The United States (as appellee seeking affirmance) and BLAG (as appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines 'marriage' for all federal purposes as only a legal union between one man and one woman, violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection for same-sex couples legally married under the laws of their state?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes. Section 3 of DOMA is an unconstitutional deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment. While the regulation of marriage is historically a state domain, DOMA intrudes upon this by creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same state—married for state purposes but unmarried for federal purposes. The Court found that DOMA's stated purpose and practical effect were to impose a disadvantage and stigma upon same-sex couples, thereby demeaning them and humiliating their children. By identifying a class of persons legally married under state law and making them unequal for federal purposes, the law's essence was to express moral disapproval and interfere with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages. This purpose to disparage and injure a class of persons the state sought to protect is not a legitimate governmental interest and violates the Fifth Amendment's due process and equal protection principles.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Roberts
No. Congress acted constitutionally in passing DOMA. The dissent first argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. On the merits, it contends that Congress had legitimate interests in uniformity and stability in retaining the traditional definition of marriage that was, at the time of enactment, universal among the states. The majority's conclusion that the law's 'principal purpose' was a bare desire to harm is unsupported, and it unfairly tars the political branches with 'the brush of bigotry.' The dissent also emphasizes the narrowness of the majority's federalism-based reasoning, stating the opinion does not decide the question of whether states may continue to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. The Court has no power to decide this case, and even if it did, DOMA is constitutional. The primary argument is jurisdictional: since the Executive Branch agrees with Windsor that the law is unconstitutional, there is no 'case or controversy' for the Court to resolve under Article III. On the merits, the dissent criticizes the majority's reasoning as 'rootless and shifting,' lacking a clear basis in either equal protection or substantive due process. It argues there are valid, rational justifications for DOMA, such as avoiding complex choice-of-law issues and preserving the original scope of federal statutes. The Constitution does not prohibit the government from enforcing traditional moral norms, and the majority's accusation that DOMA's supporters acted with malice and a 'desire to harm' demeans the institution of the Court.
Dissenting - Justice Alito
No. DOMA does not violate the Fifth Amendment because the Constitution does not settle the debate between competing views of marriage. The right to same-sex marriage is not 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,' so it is not a fundamental right protected by substantive due process. The question of marriage's definition—whether it is a 'conjugal' institution tied to procreation or a 'consent-based' institution based on commitment—should be left to the people through their elected representatives, not decided by unelected judges. Congress was entitled to enact laws based on the traditional understanding of marriage, and DOMA simply defined the class of persons to whom federal benefits and burdens apply, without preventing states from recognizing same-sex marriage under their own laws.
Analysis:
This landmark decision invalidated the federal definition of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, requiring the U.S. government to recognize state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. While the holding was formally limited to federal law, its powerful language condemning discrimination based on 'animus' provided a strong constitutional foundation for future challenges to state marriage laws. The case directly led to same-sex married couples gaining access to over 1,000 federal rights and benefits, and it set the stage for the Court's 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which established a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.
