Windsor v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21785
2d Cir.2012Background
- Windsor, surviving spouse of a same-sex couple married in Canada in 2007, resided in New York; Spyer died in 2009; Windsor denied federal estate tax spousal deduction due to DOMA §3 defining marriage and spouse; Windsor sues for refund of $363,053; district court granted summary judgment for Windsor finding §3 unconstitutional; BLAG and DOJ defended DOMA; court predicts New York would have recognized Windsor and Spyer as married at Spyer’s death; Baker v. Nelson discussed as controlling but not binding in this context; opinion proceeds to heightened scrutiny analysis and ultimately rules DOMA §3 unconstitutional under equal protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of DOMA §3 under EP. | Windsor argues §3 denies federal recognition of valid marriages, discriminating based on sexual orientation. | BLAG/DOJ contend §3 rationally related to legitimate federal interests and preserves the status quo. | §3 violates equal protection; unconstitutional. |
| Standing and NY recognition at Spyer's death. | Windsor would have been recognized as a surviving spouse under NY law in 2009. | State law recognition is not controlling for federal estate tax status. | Windsor has standing; NY recognition would have applied. |
| Effect of Baker v. Nelson on Windsor’s claim. | Baker does not foreclose, given modern equal protection jurisprudence. | Baker forecloses equal protection challenge to denying same-sex marriage rights. | Baker controls; Windsor cannot prevail under its framework. |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny for sexual orientation classifications. | Discrimination against sexual orientation should trigger heightened scrutiny. | Rational basis review suffices; classifications based on sexual orientation need not be heightened. | Heightened scrutiny applies; DOMA §3 fails under that standard. |
| Relation of DOMA §3 to governmental interests under heightened scrutiny. | Uniform federal definition and preservation of the status quo are insufficient to justify §3. | §3 furthers legitimate interests in uniformity, procreation, and childrearing; justified. | DomA §3 not substantially related to an important government interest; unconstitutional under heightened scrutiny. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972 (Supreme Court)) (summary dismissal forecloses claim on federal question; controlling precedent for DOMA context)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996 (U.S.)) (rational basis review with heightened consideration for discrimination against a protected group in some contexts)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003 (U.S.)) (sex-based classifications and intimate association context; relevance to sexual orientation considerations)
- Cleburne Living Ctr. v. Cleburne, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985 (U.S.)) (establishes framework for heightened scrutiny factors and distinguishing characteristics)
- Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973 (U.S.)) (recognizes sex as a basis for heightened scrutiny in certain classifications)
- Massachusetts v. Health & Human Services (Mass. v. HHS), 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (rational basis with scrutiny adjustments; confirms DOMA rationale analysis in circuit court)