Windsor v. United States
797 F. Supp. 2d 320 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), a legislative body has a right to intervene as a full party to defend the constitutionality of a statute when the Executive Branch declines to do so, and such an intervenor does not need independent Article III standing if a live case or controversy already exists.
Facts:
- Edith Schlain Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer, a same-sex couple, were legally married in 2007, and their marriage was recognized by New York State.
- Spyer passed away in 2009, leaving her entire estate to her spouse, Windsor.
- Due to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal government did not recognize their marriage for tax purposes.
- As a result, Spyer's estate was required to pay $363,053 in federal estate taxes.
- Had their marriage been federally recognized, Windsor would have qualified for an unlimited spousal deduction and paid no estate tax.
- Windsor filed a claim for a refund with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
- The IRS denied Windsor's refund claim, citing DOMA's definition of "spouse" as a person of the opposite sex.
Procedural Posture:
- Edith Schlain Windsor filed a lawsuit against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA.
- The Department of Justice (DOJ), representing the United States, initially appeared to defend the statute.
- Subsequently, the DOJ notified the court that the President and Attorney General had concluded Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional and that the DOJ would cease defending it.
- The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (BLAG) then filed a motion to intervene as a party defendant in order to defend the statute's constitutionality.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), may a legislative body intervene as a matter of right to defend the constitutionality of a federal statute when the Executive Branch has declined to do so?
Opinions:
Majority - James C. Francis IV, United States Magistrate Judge
Yes. A legislative body may intervene as a matter of right to defend the constitutionality of a federal statute when the Executive Branch declines to do so. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) fulfilled all four requirements for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2): 1) the motion was timely; 2) BLAG has a cognizable interest in defending the enforceability of statutes passed by the House; 3) this interest would be impaired if it could not intervene, as it would have no other forum to defend the statute; and 4) its interest is not adequately represented, because the Department of Justice (DOJ) explicitly stated it would no longer defend the statute's constitutionality. Furthermore, an intervenor does not need to establish independent Article III standing in the Second Circuit as long as a case or controversy already exists between the original parties. The court rejected the DOJ's request to limit BLAG's role, granting it full status as a party defendant.
Analysis:
This decision is procedurally significant because it affirms the authority of a house of Congress to defend the constitutionality of a statute in court when the Executive Branch abdicates that role. It solidifies the principle that Congress's institutional interest in the validity of its own legislation is a sufficient interest to justify intervention as of right. This provides a crucial mechanism for ensuring an adversarial process in cases where the executive and legislative branches disagree on a law's constitutionality, thereby preserving the judiciary's ability to hear arguments from both sides before ruling on a significant constitutional question.
Unlock the full brief for Windsor v. United States