United States vs. Windsor
By: Taylor Beshel
U.S. vs. Windsor
• Argued: March 27, 2013
• Decided: June 26, 2013
The Back Story
• Edith Windsor was married to Thea Clara Spyer in Toronto,
Canada, in 2007
• Marriage was recognized by New York state law
• Spyer died in 2009, left her estate to her spouse
• Marriage was not recognized by federal law
• Government forced Windsor $363,053 in taxes
• Had the marriage been recognized no taxes would have been
forced upon Windsor
• On 11/9/10 Windsor filed suit in district court seeking
declaration that the DOMA was unconstitutional
Public Policy
• Marriage Equality Act: New York State
• 1. A marriage is otherwise valid shall be valid regardless of
whether the parties to the marriage are of the same or
different sex
• Federal Law:
• “As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision on the US vs.
Windsor case, for federal tax purposes IRS will recognize a
marriage between a same-sex couple that is a legal marriage
under the laws of the jurisdiction (domestic or foreign) where
the marriage was performed” :(New York State: Department
of taxation and finance)
IRS denied Windsor
• IRS denied Windsor the use of spousal estate tax
exemption on the circumstances that under DOMA
(Defense of Marriage Act), the federal government
did not recognize same sex marriages for the
purpose of federal benefits
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
• Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) from
House of Representatives is defending DOMA
• Arguing: DOMA is corresponding to the lawful
government intention of providing a stable
definition of marriage for federal benefit
purposes
Section 3 DOMA
• Section 3 DOMA defines the term “marriage”
for all purposes under federal law, including
the action for federal benefits as “only a legal
union between one man and one women as
husband and wife.” 1 U.S.C. 7
Plaintiff Arguments
• Windsor argues that DOMA is unconstitutional
as it overlooks on her right to equal protection
under the 5th amendment
• Edith is seeking a refund of the estate tax she
was unfairly forced to pay
Defendant Arguments
• BLAG argues that DOMA is constitutional
• The law should undergo minimal scrutiny
observation under rational bias test because
sexual orientation is not a historically
protected class
What’s the Big Question?
• Question being presented:
• 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?
Amicus Curiae
• Court appointed an amicus curiae against the
court’s jurisdiction of Windsor's case
• Because of procedural posture, the amicus
curiae argues that BLAG lacks standing
because there is no injury to congress if
DOMA is overturned
• BLAG would be performing an executive act
that violates separation of powers principles
The Decision
• 5-4 decision- Supreme Court found section 3
DOMA to be unconstitutional
• “As a deprivation of the liberty of the person
being protected by the fifth amendment” said
by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored
majority opninion
Key Aspects of Decision Making
• Justice Kennedy says “DOMA’s mission is to identify a
subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them
unequal”
• DOMA undetermines both public and private
importance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages
• It tells couples that their otherwise valid marriage
are unworthy of federal recognition
Dissents
• Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito,
and Justice Clearence Thomas authored dissenting opinion
• Chief Justice Roberts says “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. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the
predictable consequence of diminishing the former. 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 legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring
forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of
the role of this institution in America.”
Long Term Effects
• This case effected what role the federal
government can play in defining marriage and
who in the federal government can defend the
government’s laws
• Same-sex couples will be given equal
protection by federal government concerning
federal benefits
Bibliography
• http://www.oyez.org/cases/20102019/2012/2012_12_307
• http://www.scotusblog.com/casefiles/cases/windsor-v-united-states-2/
• http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12307
• https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/windsor-vunited-states-thea-edie-doma