Sites.la.utexas.edu
US v. WindsorA. FactsWindsor and Spyer registered as domestic partners in New York, legally wed in Canada in 2007. When Spyer died, she left entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, but was barred from doing so under Section 3 of federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) “for purposes of federal law, “marriage” and “spouse” refer to legal union between 1 man and 1 woman. Windsor paid $363,053 in taxes and sought refund, denied by IRS. Filed suit that DOMA violated EP incorporated in 5th. While suit pending, Attorney General stated that DOJ no longer defending DOMA’s constitutionality. Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) intervened to defend DOMA. Executive still to enforce Section 3 due to an interest in providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in litigation.B. Procedural HistoryWindsor forced to pay estate taxes, sought refund, denied by IRS, filed suit against DOMA’s constitutionality. US District Court ruled in favor of Windsor, BLAG interfered (DOJ declined to defend statute) and tried to throw out case, denied motion. Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed District Court’s Opinion, BLAG and DOJ appealed to Supreme Court, granted writ of certiorariWINDSORUS1. DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional1. Substantial adversarial argument for Section 3’s constitutionality2. Violation of 5th Amendment EPC and DP2. Lowest level scrutiny, LGBT Class not protected3. Classifications on sexual orientation fit all 4 factors to trigger heightened scrutiny3. Court didn’t have jurisdiction, 4 factors not adequate in case, called for rational basis C. ArgumentsD. IssuesDoes the Executive branch’s agreement with the lower court deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction? Does BLAG have standing in this case?Does DOMA deprive same-sex couples of their 5th Amendment rights to EP?E. HoldingYes, Supreme Court held that US Government, despite executive branch, retains a significant enough state in the issue to support Supreme Court’s jurisdiction Unanswered, Court need not decide whether BLAG had standing Yes, Purpose and effect of DOMA is to impose a “disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” on same-sex couples, violating 5th’s guarantee of EPF. Judgment: Affirmed G. Legal ReasoningMajority: Kennedy Were Government or BLAG entitled to appeal/seek certiorari?US retains stake sufficient to support Article III jurisdiction on appeal and in proceedings before Court; order directing Treasury to pay is “real and immediate economic injury”—maintains standing in caseCourt need not decide whether BLAG would have standing to challenge District Court’s ruling--prudential and Article III requirements met Capable defense by BLAG ensures that prudential issues don’t cloud the merits questionSame-Sex MarriageDefinition of marriage is within State’s authority at time of adoption of Constitution, delegated no authority to Government on subject of marriage DOMA rejects legislative and historical precedent by undermining State’s authority—Necessary for Congress to do what it can to defend traditional heterosexual marriage 5th Amendment Issue (deprivation of liberty protected by DPC)DOMA seeks to injure class (LGBT) that NY tried to protectViolates basic DP and EPC, deprives same-sex couples rights that come with federal recognition of marriage Purpose and effect to impose disadvantage, separate status, and stigma upon same-sex marriages—moral disapproval, conviction that hetero is better, to be treated as second-class marriages under federal law, denied many federal benefitsCongress has great authority to design laws, but can’t deny liberty protected by DPC of 5th DOMA unconstitutional—violated DPC, prohibition against denying any person EP: Singles out a class of persons, imposes a disability by refusing to acknowledge their status, their marriage less worthyNo legitimate purpose overcomes purpose and effect to injure same-sex couples, seeking to displace protection and treatment as less respected—statute in violation of 5th DissentsRoberts:Court lacked jurisdictionInterests in uniformity and stability justified Congress to enact DOMAState definition of marriage affects same-sex couples Scalia, with Thomas and Roberts: Court lacked jurisdiction to review the caseLacked power to invalidate democratically enacted legislation; “Assertion of judicial supremacy”Didn’t address issue of whether or not EPC required laws restricting marriage to be reviewed under rational basis or strict scrutiny Misconstrued DOMA’s purpose—shouldn’t rule on presumptionAlito, Thomas partially joined: US no standing because didn’t defend statute, BLAG standing because defended undefended statuteConstitution doesn’t guarantee right of same-sex marriage—not “deeply rooted” in history/traditions; Instead the definition of marriage left to people, DOMA didn’t interfereH. Precedent: Strike Down of federal policy—DOMAMeyer v. Nebraska—upheld liberty protected by DPC I. Source of Law: 5th Amendment—DP & EPC J. Interpretive Style: Non-Originalist Hannah Gill—Row 5, Seat 8Word Count: 796 ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.