By Taylor Beshel US vs Windsor Argued March 27 2013 Decided June 26 2013 The Back Story Edith Windsor was married to Thea Clara Spyer in Toronto Canada in 2007 Marriage was recognized by New York state law ID: 813446
Download The PPT/PDF document "United States vs. Windsor" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
United States vs. Windsor
By: Taylor Beshel
Slide2U.S. vs. Windsor
Argued: March 27, 2013
Decided: June 26, 2013
Slide3The Back Story
Edith Windsor was married to
Thea
Clara
Spyer
in Toronto, Canada, in 2007
Marriage was recognized by New York state law
Spyer
died in 2009, left her estate to her spouse
Marriage was not recognized by federal law
Government forced Windsor $363,053 in taxes
Had the marriage been recognized no taxes would have been forced upon Windsor
On 11/9/10 Windsor filed suit in district court seeking declaration that the DOMA was unconstitutional
Slide4Public Policy
Marriage Equality Act: New York State
1. A marriage is otherwise valid shall be valid regardless of whether the parties to the marriage are of the same or different sex
Federal Law:
“As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision on the US vs. Windsor case, for federal tax purposes IRS will recognize a marriage between a same-sex couple that is a legal marriage under the laws of the jurisdiction (domestic or foreign) where the marriage was performed” :(New York State: Department of taxation and finance)
Slide5IRS denied Windsor
IRS denied Windsor the use of spousal estate tax exemption on the circumstances that under DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), the federal government did not recognize same sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits
Slide6Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) from House of Representatives is defending DOMA
Arguing: DOMA is corresponding to the lawful government intention of providing a stable definition of marriage for federal benefit purposes
Slide7Section 3 DOMA
Section 3 DOMA defines the term “marriage” for all purposes under federal law, including the action for federal benefits as “only a legal union between one man and one women as husband and wife.” 1 U.S.C. 7
Slide8Plaintiff Arguments
Windsor argues that DOMA is unconstitutional as it overlooks on her right to equal protection under the 5
th
amendment
Edith is seeking a refund of the estate tax she was unfairly forced to pay
Slide9Defendant Arguments
BLAG argues that DOMA is constitutional
The law should undergo minimal scrutiny observation under rational bias test because sexual orientation is not a historically protected class
Slide10What’s the Big Q
uestion?
Question being presented:
Whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the fifth amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their state?
Slide11Amicus Curiae
Court appointed an amicus curiae against the court’s jurisdiction of Windsor's case
Because of procedural posture, the amicus curiae argues that BLAG lacks standing because there is no injury to congress if DOMA is overturned
BLAG would be performing an executive act that violates separation of powers principles
Slide12The Decision
5-4 decision- Supreme Court found section 3 DOMA to be unconstitutional
“As a deprivation of the liberty of the person being protected by the fifth amendment” said by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored majority
opninion
Key Aspects of Decision Making
Justice Kennedy says “DOMA’s mission is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal”
DOMA undetermines both public and private importance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages
It tells couples that their otherwise valid marriage are unworthy of federal recognition
Slide14Dissents
Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Justice
Clearence
Thomas authored dissenting opinion
Chief Justice Roberts says “This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.”
Slide15Long Term Effects
This case effected what role the federal government can play in defining marriage and who in the federal government can defend the government’s laws
Same-sex couples will be given equal protection by federal government concerning federal benefits
Slide16Bibliography
http://
www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_12_307
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/windsor-v-united-states-2
/
http://
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-307
https://
www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/windsor-v-united-states-thea-edie-doma