Key Takeaways
- United States v. Windsor (2013) struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), requiring the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in states that allow them.
- The Supreme Court held that DOMA’s exclusion of same-sex couples from federal recognition violated the equal protection principles of the Fifth Amendment.
- Windsor paved the way for nationwide marriage equality and was a critical precedent for Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which guaranteed same-sex marriage rights across the United States.
Introduction
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), stands as a watershed moment in the history of civil rights and LGBT equality in the United States. The Supreme Court’s decision addressed the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law that defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman. By striking down this key provision, the Court mandated federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in states where such unions were legal. This guide provides a comprehensive analysis of the Windsor decision, its background, legal reasoning, and enduring impact on American law and society.
For official details, see the Oyez summary and the Supreme Court opinion.
Background of United States v. Windsor
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
Enacted in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was a federal law with two primary sections. Section 2 allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Section 3, the focus of Windsor, defined marriage for all federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman. This definition excluded same-sex married couples from more than a thousand federal benefits, rights, and responsibilities associated with marriage, including tax, estate, and Social Security benefits.
DOMA was enacted amid a national debate over the recognition of same-sex marriages, particularly after Hawaii’s courts suggested the possibility of legalizing such unions. The law’s supporters argued that it preserved traditional marriage, while opponents decried it as institutionalized discrimination against LGBT individuals.
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer
Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer were a same-sex couple who married in Canada in 2007. Their marriage was recognized by the state of New York, where they resided. When Spyer passed away in 2009, Windsor inherited her estate. However, because DOMA prevented the federal government from recognizing their marriage, Windsor was denied the spousal exemption from federal estate taxes and was required to pay $363,053 in taxes.
Believing this to be unconstitutional, Windsor sought a refund and filed suit in federal district court, arguing that DOMA’s Section 3 violated her rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Procedural History
Windsor’s case was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Notably, the Department of Justice (DOJ), under President Obama, declined to defend Section 3 of DOMA, acknowledging its constitutional concerns. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the U.S. House of Representatives intervened to defend the law. After both the district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Windsor’s favor, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue.
For more on the case’s journey, see the SCOTUSblog case file.
Legal Arguments and Issues
Windsor’s Arguments
Windsor’s legal team asserted that Section 3 of DOMA violated the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. They argued that by denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages, DOMA created a “second class” of citizens, depriving legally married same-sex couples of the dignity, status, and benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples. This, they claimed, was a form of unconstitutional discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The Government’s Position
The DOJ agreed with Windsor that Section 3 was unconstitutional, but continued to enforce the law until the courts resolved its validity. The BLAG, representing the House of Representatives, argued that DOMA was a permissible exercise of congressional authority to define terms for federal law and that it did not violate constitutional guarantees.
Key Legal Questions
The Supreme Court was tasked with addressing two primary questions:
- Does Section 3 of DOMA violate the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection as applied to the federal government?
- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to decide the case, given the DOJ’s refusal to defend the law and the presence of BLAG as an intervenor?
The Supreme Court’s Decision
Majority Opinion
Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the 5-4 majority opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The Court first addressed the issue of jurisdiction, concluding that there was a legitimate controversy because the federal government continued to enforce DOMA and refused Windsor’s tax refund, and because BLAG’s intervention provided adversarial presentation.
On the merits, the Court held that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional. The majority reasoned that the law’s principal effect was to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages, thus denying same-sex couples the benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of marriage. The Court found that DOMA’s purpose was to “disparage and to injure” those whom states sought to protect in the exercise of their sovereign power.
Justice Kennedy wrote:
“DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities.”
The Court concluded that DOMA violated the equal liberty of persons protected by the Fifth Amendment. For the full opinion, see Justia’s official Supreme Court opinion.
Dissenting Opinions
Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia (joined by Justice Thomas and in part by Chief Justice Roberts), and Justice Alito each filed dissenting opinions. The dissents argued primarily that the issue should have been left to the democratic process, that the Constitution does not address the definition of marriage, and that the majority’s reasoning overstepped judicial boundaries.
Justice Scalia, in particular, warned that the majority’s reasoning would inevitably lead to the invalidation of state bans on same-sex marriage—a prediction that was realized two years later in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Legal and Practical Impact
Immediate Effects on Federal Law
The Windsor decision had an immediate and sweeping effect: the federal government was required to recognize same-sex marriages that were valid under state law. This meant that same-sex couples in states where their marriages were legal could access more than 1,100 federal benefits and responsibilities, including:
- Joint filing of federal income taxes
- Social Security survivor benefits
- Immigration sponsorship for spouses
- Federal employee spousal benefits
- Military spouse benefits
This recognition was transformative for same-sex couples, who had previously been denied critical legal and financial protections.
Influence on State Laws
While Windsor did not require states to recognize or perform same-sex marriages, it undermined the rationale for state-level bans. Many lower courts cited Windsor when striking down state prohibitions on same-sex marriage in the years following the decision. The case thus served as a critical stepping stone toward broader marriage equality.
Precedent for Obergefell v. Hodges
Perhaps the most significant legacy of Windsor is its role as a direct precursor to Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). In Obergefell, the Supreme Court held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, extending marriage equality nationwide. The reasoning in Windsor—particularly its emphasis on dignity, equal protection, and the harm caused by exclusion—was central to the Obergefell decision.
For more on Obergefell and its relationship to Windsor, see the Cornell Legal Information Institute summary.
Related Cases and Legal Challenges
Other DOMA Challenges
Windsor was not the only legal challenge to DOMA. Several other cases contributed to the legal landscape:
- Gill v. Office of Personnel Management: Challenged DOMA’s denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples.
- Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Involved the state’s standing to challenge DOMA’s interference with state marriage laws.
- Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management: Addressed federal employee benefits for same-sex spouses.
- Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management and Cardona v. Shinseki: Challenged DOMA’s impact on veterans’ benefits and other federal programs.
These cases, collectively, built momentum for the Supreme Court to address the constitutionality of DOMA.
State-Level Litigation
Following Windsor, numerous federal and state courts cited the decision to strike down state bans on same-sex marriage. The legal reasoning in Windsor, particularly its focus on equal protection and the dignity of same-sex couples, was persuasive in these subsequent cases.
For a comprehensive overview of related litigation, see the American Civil Liberties Union’s Windsor case page.
Constitutional Principles at Stake
Equal Protection and Due Process
At the heart of Windsor was the question of equal protection under the law. While the Fifth Amendment does not contain an explicit equal protection clause (unlike the Fourteenth Amendment), the Supreme Court has interpreted its Due Process Clause as embodying equal protection principles applicable to the federal government.
The Court found that DOMA’s Section 3 violated these principles by denying a class of lawfully married couples the benefits and responsibilities accorded to others. The majority opinion emphasized that laws which single out a group for disfavored treatment must be justified by more than mere moral disapproval or tradition.
Federalism and States’ Rights
Windsor also addressed the balance of power between federal and state governments. Traditionally, states have had the primary authority to define and regulate marriage. By imposing a federal definition that excluded certain marriages recognized by states, DOMA represented an unusual federal intrusion into an area of traditional state concern.
The Court’s opinion underscored the importance of respecting state sovereignty in matters of domestic relations, while also ensuring that federal law does not undermine the dignity and equality of individuals protected by state law.
Judicial Review and Separation of Powers
The Windsor case also raised questions about the role of the judiciary in reviewing acts of Congress, especially when the executive branch declines to defend a law. The Supreme Court’s decision affirmed its authority to resolve such disputes, provided there remains a live controversy and adversarial presentation of the issues.
Societal and Civil Rights Implications
Advancing LGBT Rights
Windsor was a landmark victory for the LGBT community and a major step forward in the struggle for equal rights. By requiring federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the decision conferred tangible benefits and symbolic affirmation to same-sex couples nationwide. It also signaled a shift in societal attitudes toward greater acceptance and inclusion.
For further reading, see the New York Civil Liberties Union’s summary.
Public and Political Response
The Windsor decision was met with celebration by civil rights organizations and supporters of marriage equality. At the same time, it generated opposition from some religious and conservative groups, who argued that the definition of marriage should be determined by states or by popular vote.
In the years since, public opinion has continued to shift in favor of same-sex marriage, with a majority of Americans now supporting marriage equality.
Ongoing Legal Questions
While Windsor resolved the issue of federal recognition, questions remained about the rights of same-sex couples in states that did not recognize their marriages. These questions were ultimately addressed in Obergefell, which extended the right to marry to all same-sex couples nationwide.
However, legal disputes continue to arise regarding the scope of religious exemptions, the rights of private businesses, and the application of anti-discrimination laws. Windsor remains a foundational precedent for courts grappling with these complex issues.
Conclusion
United States v. Windsor was a transformative Supreme Court decision that struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, requiring the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where such unions are legal. The ruling was grounded in principles of equal protection, dignity, and respect for state authority over marriage. Windsor’s legacy endures in its profound impact on federal law, its role in advancing LGBT rights, and its influence on subsequent landmark decisions such as Obergefell v. Hodges.
For attorneys and legal professionals seeking deeper insights and up-to-date research on Windsor and related cases, visit Counsel Stack.
Disclaimer: This guide provides an overview of United States v. Windsor and its legal implications. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice. The case and its impact involve complex legal and factual issues that may vary based on jurisdiction and specific circumstances. For detailed legal research or advice, consult a qualified attorney or visit official sources.
