United States v. Windsor
133 S. Ct. 2675
| SCOTUS | 2013Background
- Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, legally married in Ontario in 2007, lived in New York; Spyer died in 2009 and left her estate to Windsor.
- Windsor paid $363,053 in federal estate tax because DOMA §3 defined "spouse" for federal purposes as opposite‑sex only, and she sued for a refund claiming a Fifth Amendment equal‑protection violation.
- The Department of Justice declined to defend §3, concluding classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny; the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House intervened to defend the statute.
- The District Court and Second Circuit held §3 unconstitutional and ordered refund; the Government and BLAG appealed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Court considered jurisdictional challenges (whether Government/BLAG could appeal when the Executive agreed with Windsor) and addressed the constitutional merits of §3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Windsor) | Defendant's Argument (United States / BLAG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III jurisdiction/standing to appeal when Executive concedes unconstitutionality | Windsor: governmental refusal to pay refund leaves concrete injury; appeal proper | Government: effectively conceded; prudential dismissal urged by amicus; BLAG: has interest to defend statute | Court: Article III jurisdiction satisfied; prudential concerns outweighed by need for resolution, so case heard |
| BLAG standing to defend on appeal | Windsor: BLAG lacks independent Article III standing | BLAG: intervenor interest and adversarial presentation justify participation | Court: did not decide whether BLAG independently has standing but allowed its participation; merits reached |
| Whether DOMA §3 violates Fifth Amendment equal protection/due process by withholding federal recognition of state‑law same‑sex marriages | Windsor: §3 demeans same‑sex couples, imposes stigma and unequal federal treatment; triggers heightened scrutiny; invalid | BLAG/Roberts/Alito dissents: Congress reasonably sought uniform federal definition, legitimate interests (federalism, administrative uniformity); rational basis sufficient | Court: §3 violates Fifth Amendment—it singles out state‑sanctioned same‑sex marriages for disfavored treatment and is motivated by disrespect and stigma; statute unconstitutional |
| Scope of holding: whether this decision addresses state bans on same‑sex marriage | Windsor: challenge limited to federal nonrecognition of lawful state marriages | Dissent: majority’s reasoning threatens to reach state marriage definitions | Court: expressly confines holding to federal recognition of lawful same‑sex marriages; does not decide state‑law marriage bans |
Key Cases Cited
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (state laws defining marriage must respect constitutional rights)
- Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) (Fifth Amendment includes equal protection component applicable to federal government)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (laws born of animus toward a politically unpopular group violate equal protection)
- Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973) (a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group invalidates legislation)
- INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Congressional intervention can preserve adverseness; executive agreement with position does not necessarily deprive courts of jurisdiction)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements: injury‑in‑fact, causation, redressability)
- De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570 (1956) (federal recognition of familial statuses often references state law)
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) (Congress has broad authority to choose means to effectuate federal objectives)