Windsor v. United States
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79454
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Windsor sues to recover federal estate tax paid on Spyer’s estate and to invalidate DOMA §3 as unconstitutional.
- DOMA defines marriage and spouse for federal purposes as one man and one woman.
- Windsor married Spyer in 2007; Spyer died in 2009; Windsor paid $353,053 tax due to DOMA.
- BLAG moved to intervene to defend DOMA after DOJ refused to defend it.
- Court addresses standing, Baker v. Nelson, rational basis review, and Congress’s justifications, granting summary judgment for Windsor.
- Court ultimately holds §3 unconstitutional as applied to Windsor and awards $353,053 plus interest and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue. | Windsor has injury from tax and redressable injury. | BLAG contends lack of causal link to challenged action. | Windsor has standing. |
| Whether Baker v. Nelson controls the case. | Baker does not control DOMA equal protection analysis. | Baker binding on federal definition issues. | Baker does not compel dismissal; not controlling. |
| What standard governs scrutiny of DOMA §3. | Sexual orientation classifications deserve heightened scrutiny. | Rational basis review suffices for DOMA. | Rational basis review applied; but DOMA fails under that standard. |
| Does DOMA §3 pass rational basis analysis? | No legitimate link between classification and interests. | Congress’s interests (tradition, procreation, fiscal) justify it. | DOMA fails rational basis; not reasonably related to legitimate interests. |
| Constitutional justification and federalism concerns. | Consistent federal benefits and protection of state sovereignty support challenge. | Federal consistency is legitimate. | DOMA intrudes on states’ domestic relations and is unconstitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Luján v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements and injury-in-fact requirement)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (equal protection; rational basis with potential heightened scrutiny)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (link between classification and objective; rational basis with heightened consideration)
- Massachusetts v. HHS, 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (racially broad rational basis discussion; contextual scrutiny patterns)
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (summary dismissal; procedural relevance to DOMA equal protection)
- In re Levenson, 587 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2009) (federalism and domestic relations; pre-DOMA context)