United States v. Windsor

Background

Two women who lived in New York, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, were married in Canada in 2007. When Spyer died in 2009 she left her estate to Windsor. Windsor tried to claim the federal estate-tax exemption for surviving spouses but was barred by §3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which told federal law not to recognize same-sex spouses. Windsor paid $363,053 in estate taxes, sought a refund, and sued after the IRS denied her claim. The Justice Department later declined to defend §3, while continuing to enforce it, and the House’s legal office (BLAG) intervened to defend the law. A federal district court and the Second Circuit found §3 unconstitutional and ordered a refund.

Reasoning

The Court first explained it could hear the case because the dispute over the unpaid refund created a real economic injury and because BLAG provided a vigorous opposite view. On the merits the Court held that §3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s protection of equal liberty. The opinion emphasized that states traditionally define marriage, and that the federal statute’s broad refusal to recognize state-law marriages singled out and disadvantaged a class the States sought to protect. The Court found DOMA’s purpose and effect demeaned married same-sex couples and did not justify denying federal recognition.

Real world impact

The ruling means married same-sex couples whom a State lawfully recognizes are entitled to federal benefits and tax treatment tied to spousal status, and Windsor’s tax refund claim was validated. The opinion says it is confined to those lawful state marriages and does not itself resolve every question about state marriage laws.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices dissented. Chief Justice Roberts and others argued the Court lacked proper jurisdiction or that Congress acted within its authority; Justice Scalia warned against judicial overreach; Justice Alito argued the change should come from voters and lawmakers.