Note on this Series: This is the first part in a four-part series analyzing the Supreme Court of the United States‘ (“the Court”) decisions released on the week of June 24, 2013, affecting minority rights – the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, of Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”), of California Proposition 8, and of affirmative action programs in public institutions of higher learning.
Note on Citations: Throughout the post, I will cite to pages of the Court’s slip opinion, which you can find below. Because the decision has yet to be codified in the United States Reports, the slip opinion is the only official version of the opinion available.
Note on the Text: The text of the the Court’s decision on DOMA can be found in PDF format here. The controlling majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. There are a number of dissenting opinions written or joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.
The landmark decision released June 26 in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. __ (2013) is one of the defining civil rights opinions of our generation. The Court ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. ยง 7 (2006), a 1996 law defining marriage as between one man and one woman for the purpose of over 1,000 Federal benefits, is unconstitutional. Already in the past hours and days many have written about the merits, and how Justice Anthony Kennedy‘s strong defense of equality has irked many conservatives, including perennially mean spirited Justice Antonin “Nino” Scalia (I should note that I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Scalia despite his fastidiousness in some topics, like this one; he is principled for the most part, and is right on some topics, such as the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution–but that’s for another day). I will give a short recap of my view of the decision as well. But I will also take a quick look at an issue that many in the legal community thought would doom Windsor–standing. In order to get to even be able to consider the merits of the case–that is, whether DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution–both the person bringing the law suit and the person defending it have to have standing.
Edith Windsor, the plaintiff in the seminal Supreme Court decision bearing her name
Before addressing the legal rulings and implications of the case, the underlying factual background is necessary. Edith Windsor, who brought the lawsuit, was in a long term, committed homosexual relationship from 1963 until 2009, when her partner, Thea Spyer passed away. See Windsor at 2. Worried about Ms. Spyer’s health, the couple had gone to Ontario, Canada, to marry in 2007, a marriage which is recognized under New York law. See id. at 1. Upon Ms. Spyer’s death, she left her estate to Ms. Windsor, who applied for spousal benefits in estate taxes, which was denied by the IRS because Ms. Winsdor’s marriage was not recognized by the Federal government due to DOMA. See id. at 2-3. Ms. Windsor then tried to get the money—over USD $363,000—back as a tax refund, and was also denied. See id. at 3 She then sued the United States in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) in an attempt to get her refund, arguing that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See id. at 1.
A View 