Please brief United States v. Windsor United States v. Edith S. Windsor 570 U.S.
ID: 430566 • Letter: P
Question
Please brief United States v. Windsor
United States v. Edith S. Windsor
570 U.S. _____
Supreme Court of the United States
June 26, 2013
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. of Marriage Act (DOMA).... DOMA contains two Two women then resident in New York were married in a lawful ceremony in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer returned to their home in New York City. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from doing so, however, by a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which excludes a same-sex partner from the definition of “spouse” as that term is used in federal statutes. Windsor paid the taxes but filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of this pro- vision. The United States District Court and the Court of Appeals ruled that this portion of the statute is unconstitutional and ordered the United States to pay Windsor a refund. This Court granted certiorari and now affirms the judgment in Windsor’s favor. I. In 1996, as some States were beginning to consider the concept of same-sex marriage . . . and before any State had acted to permit it, Congress enacted the Defense operative sections: Section 2, which has not been challenged here, allows States to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other States.... Section 3 is at issue here. It amends the Dictionary Act in Title 1, §7, of the United States Code to provide a fed eral definition of “marriage” and “spouse.” Section 3 of DOMA provides as follows: In determining the meaning of any Act of Con- gress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpreta- tion of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “mar- riage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.... ... The enactment’s comprehensive definition of marriage for purposes of all federal statutes and other regulations or directives covered by its terms, however, does control over 1,000 federal laws in which marital or spousal status is addressed as a matter of federal law.... Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer met in New York City in 1963 and began a long-term relationship. Windsor and Spyer registered as domestic partners when New York City gave that right to same-sex cou- ples in 1993. Concerned about Spyer’s health, the cou- ple made the 2007 trip to Canada for their marriage, but they continued to reside in New York City. The State of New York deems their Ontario marriage to be a valid one.... Spyer died in February 2009, and left her entire estate to Windsor. Because DOMA denies federal rec- ognition to same-sex spouses, Windsor did not qualify for the marital exemption from the federal estate tax, which excludes from taxation “any interest in property which passes or has passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse.”. . . Windsor paid $363,053 in estate taxes and sought a refund. The Internal Revenue Ser- vice denied the refund, concluding that, under DOMA, Windsor was not a “surviving spouse.” Windsor com- menced this refund suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. She con- tended that DOMA violates the guarantee of equal protection, as applied to the Federal Government through the Fifth Amendment. While the tax refund suit was pending, the Attorney General of the United States notified the Speaker of the House of Representatives, ... that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA’s §3.... Although “the President ... instructed the Department [of Justice] not to defend the statute in Windsor,” he also decided “that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch” and that the United States had an “interest in providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation of those cases.”. . . The stated rationale for this dual- track procedure (determination of unconstitutionality coupled with ongoing enforcement) was to “recogniz[e] the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.”. . . In response ... the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives voted to intervene in the litigation to defend the constitution- ality of §3 of DOMA. The Department of Justice did not oppose limited intervention by BLAG.... The District Court ... grant[ed] intervention by BLAG as an interested party.... On the merits of the tax refund suit, the District Court ruled against the United States. It held that §3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and ordered the Treasury to refund the tax with interest.... [T]he Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment.... The United States has not complied with the judgment. Windsor has not received her refund, and the Ex ecutive Branch continues to enforce §3 of DOMA.... II [The Court’s determination that BLAG had standing to maintain it’s appeals has been omitted because of space limitations.] III When at first Windsor and Spyer longed to marry, neither New York nor any other State granted them that right. After waiting some years, in 2007 they traveled to Ontario to be married there. It seems fair to conclude that, until recent years, many citizens had not even considered the possibility that two persons of the same sex might aspire to occupy the same status and dignity as that of a man and woman in lawful marriage. For marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civiliza- tion. That belief, for many who long have held it, became even more urgent, more cherished when chal- lenged. For others, however, came the beginnings of a new perspective, a new insight. Accordingly some States concluded that same-sex marriage ought to be given recognition and validity in the law for those same-sex couples who wish to define themselves by their commitment to each other.... Slowly at first and then in rapid course, the laws of New York came to acknowledge the urgency of this issue for same-sex couples who wanted to affirm their commitment to one another before their children, their family, their friends, and their community. And so New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage. New York, in com- mon with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry.... After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same- sex mar- riage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage to correct what its citizens and elected re- presentatives perceived to be an injustice that they had not earlier known or understood.... Against this background of lawful same-sex mar- riage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution. By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage ... has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States. Yet it is further established that Congress, in enacting discrete statutes, can make determinations that bear on marital rights and privileges.... ... [P]recedents involving congressional statutes which affect marriages and family status ... illustrate this point. In addressing the interaction of state domestic relations and federal immigration law Con- gress determined that marriages “entered into for the purpose of procuring an alien’s admission [to the United States] as an immigrant” will not qualify the noncitizen for that status, even if the noncitizen’s marriage is valid and proper for state-law purposes.... And in establishing income-based criteria for Social Security benefits, Congress decided that although state law would determine in general who qualifies as an applicant’s spouse, common-law marriages also should be recognized, regardless of any particular State’s view on these relationships.... Though these discrete examples establish the constitutionality of limited federal laws that regulate the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy, DOMA has a far greater reach; for it enacts a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statutes and the whole realm of federal regulations. And its opera- tion is directed to a class of persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect.... In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”... The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”... Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire.... Likewise the permissi- ble degree of consanguinity can vary (most States per- mit first cousins to marry, but a handful—such as Iowa and Washington ... prohibit the practice).... Against this background DOMA rejects the long- established precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each State, though they may vary, sub- ject to constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next. Despite these considerations, it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance. The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism. Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community. DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reli- ance on state law to define marriage.... The Federal Government uses this state-defined class for the opposite purpose—to impose restrictions and disabilities. That result requires this Court now to address whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment. What the State of New York treats as alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect. In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.”.... These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynam- ics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other. ... Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex may not be pun- ished by the State, and it can form “but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.”... By its rec- ognition of the validity of same-sex marriages per- formed in other jurisdictions and then by authorizing same-sex unions and same-sex marriages, New York sought to give further protection and dignity to that bond. For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledg- ment of the intimate relationship between two peo- ple, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality. IV DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.... The Constitution’s guarantee of equal- ity “must at the very least mean that a bare congres- sional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.... DOMA cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the substantial societal impact the State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs of its people. DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of mar- riage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvan- tage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States. The history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence. The House Report announced its con- clusion that “it is both appropriate and necessary for Congress to do what it can to defend the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage.... The House con- cluded that DOMA expresses “both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that hetero- sexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality.”. . . The stated purpose of the law was to promote an “interest in protecting the traditional moral teachings reflected in heterosexual- only marriage laws.”. . . Were there any doubt of this far-reaching purpose, the title of the Act confirms it: The Defense of Marriage. ... The Act’s demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex mar- riages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law. This raises a most serious question under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. DOMA’s operation in practice confirms this pur- pose. When New York adopted a law to permit same- sex marriage, it sought to eliminate inequality; but DOMA frustrates that objective through a system-wide enactment with no identified connection to any par- ticular area of federal law. DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code. The particular case at hand concerns the estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determination of what should or should not be allowed as an estate tax refund. Among the over 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits. ... By creating two contradictory marriage re- gimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA un- dermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects ... and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more diffi- cult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. It prevents same-sex married couples from obtaining government health- care benefits they would otherwise receive.... It de- prives them of the Bankruptcy Code’s special protections for domestic-support obligations.... It forces them to follow a complicated procedure to file their state and federal taxes jointly.... It prohibits them from being buried together in veterans’ cemeteries. National Cemetery Administration Directive.... For certain married couples, DOMA’s unequal ef- fects are even more serious.... DOMA ... brings finan- cial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health bene- fits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses.... And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security . . . (benefits available to a surviving spouse caring for the couple’s child).... DOMA divests married same-sex couples of the duties and responsibilities that are an essential part of married life and that they in most cases would be honored to accept were DOMA not in force. For instance, because it is expected that spouses will support each other as they pursue educational opportunities, federal law takes into consideration a spouse’s income in calculating a student’s fed- eral financial aid eligibil- ity.... Same-sex married couples are exempt from this requirement. The same is true with respect to federal ethics rules. Federal executive and agency officials are prohibited from “participat[ing] personally and sub- stantially” in matters as to which they or their spouses have a financial interest.... A similar statute prohibits Senators, Senate employees, and their spouses from accepting high-value gifts from certain sources ... and another mandates detailed financial disclosures by numerous high-ranking officials and their spouses.... Under DOMA, however, these Government-integrity rules do not apply to same-sex spouses.... The power the Constitution grants it also re- strains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal pur- pose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.... While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved. The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State enti- tled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal offi- cials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex cou- ples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seek- ing to displace this protection and treating those per- sons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amend- ment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed. It is so ordered.
Explanation / Answer
The case primarily revolves around how a federal law is in conflict with the state law and how the former jeopardizes the rights and liberties of a particular segment of the society.
The basic premise revolves around a case which questions the validity of same sex marriage in US, in particular reference to New York State. The federal law in question here is DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which only identifies marriage between people of opposite gender whereas the state law does not make that distinction.
Two women, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer had met in New York City in 1963 and after a long-term relationship, registered themselves as domestic partners when New York City gave that right to same-sex couples in 1993. In 2007, they moved to Ontario, Canada for their marriage and came back to NY. In 2009, when Spyer died, she left her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, however due to the provisions under DOMA, she was barred from doing so. DOMA excludes a same-sex partner from the definition of “spouse” as that term is used in federal statutes. Windsor had paid her tax liabilities, however she filed a suit to challenge the constitutional validity of this clause.
When New York State, egged on by its civil society moved to acknowledge the validity of a same sex marriage, DOMA acted in direct conflict. This act is so draconian that it creates problems for such couples, not only in the context of estate laws but other domains as well. DOMA controls laws pertaining to social security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits. DOMA brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.