Supreme Court Declares the Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

Supreme Court Declares the Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed in 1996 by former president Bill Clinton. It stipulated that marriage as a federally recognized entity, and its legal benefits, should only exist between a man and a woman. Legal ramifications included insurance, social security, immigration, bankruptcy, taxes, and survivors' benefits. Also, same-sex marriages granted in one state did not have to be legally recognized by other states. Years of legal battles followed, with many individual states recognizing same-sex marriage, while the federal government continued to resist the recognition of such unions. Many people were against same-sex marriage because of their religious or personal beliefs, whereas others saw the fight for same-sex marriage as a battle for civil rights and legal equality.

Section 3 of DOMA was struck down by a landmark Supreme Court on June 26, 2013, United States v. Windsor, as unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court claimed that “DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government. Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways.” The federal government now recognizes same-sex marriages and confers on them the same federal benefits as traditional marriages, making the federal benefits received by same-sex couples bound by marriage equal in all states. The ruling was a major win for same-sex marriage proponents.

On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts was the first US state to legalize same-sex marriage. California and Connecticut followed in 2008, and Iowa and Vermont legalized same-sex marriage in 2009. In 2014, same-sex couples were able to legally marry in nineteen states, including Washington, Vermont, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New York, New Mexico, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Iowa, Illinois, Hawaii, Delaware, Connecticut, and California. Some states currently recognize same-sex marriages conducted out of state but do not allow same-sex marriage in state, such as Colorado, Missouri, Ohio, and Alaska. A portion of the syllabus of the United States v. Windsor Supreme Court decision follows:

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SPYER, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 12–307. Argued March 27, 2013—Decided June 26, 2013

The State of New York recognizes the marriage of New York residents Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who wed in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviv­ing spouses but was barred from doing so by §3 of the federal De­fense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which amended the Dictionary Act—a law providing rules of construction for over one thousand federal laws and the whole realm of federal regulations—to define marriage and spouse as excluding same-sex partners. Windsor paid $363,053 in estate taxes and sought a refund, which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) denied. Windsor brought this refund suit, contending that DOMA vi­olates the principles of equal protection incorporated in the Fifth Amendment. While the suit was pending, the attorney general noti­fied the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the Depart­ment of Justice would no longer defend §3's constitutionality. In re­sponse, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives voted to intervene in the litigation to defend §3'sconstitutionality. The District Court permitted the intervention. On the merits, the court ruled against the United States, finding §3 un­constitutional and ordering the Treasury to refund Windsor's tax with interest. The Second Circuit affirmed. The United States has not complied with the judgment.

Held:

• This Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. This case clearly presented a concrete disagreement between oppos­ing parties that was suitable for judicial resolution in the District Court, but the executive's decision not to defend §3's constitutionali­ty in court while continuing to deny refunds and assess deficiencies introduces a complication. Given the government's concession, ami­cus contends, once the District Court ordered the refund, the case should have ended and the appeal been dismissed. But this argu­ment elides the distinction between Article III's jurisdictional re­quirements and the prudential limits on its exercise, which are “es­sentially matters of judicial self-governance.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 US 490, 500. Here, the United States retains a stake sufficient to support Article III jurisdiction on appeal and in this Court. The re­fund it was ordered to pay Windsor is “a real and immediate econom­ic injury,” Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 US 587, 599, even if the executive disagrees with §3 of DOMA. Wind­sor's ongoing claim for funds that the United States refuses to pay thus establishes a controversy sufficient for Article III jurisdiction. Cf. INS v. Chadha, 462 US 919. Prudential considerations, however, demand that there be “con­crete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult consti­tutional questions.” Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186, 204. Unlike Article III requirements—which must be satisfied by the parties before judi­cial consideration is appropriate—prudential factors that counsel against hearing this case are subject to “countervailing considera­tions [that] may outweigh the concerns underlying the usual reluc­tance to exert judicial power.” Warth, supra, at 500–501. One such consideration is the extent to which adversarial presentation of the issues is ensured by the participation of amici curiae prepared to de­fend with vigor the legislative act's constitutionality. BLAG's substantial adversarial argument for §3's constitutionality satisfies prudential concerns that otherwise might counsel against hearing an appeal from a decision with which the principal parties agree. This conclusion does not mean that it is appropriate for the executive as a routine exercise to challenge stat­utes in court instead of making the case to Congress for amendment or repeal. But this case is not routine, and BLAG's capable defense ensures that the prudential issues do not cloud the merits question, which is of immediate importance to the federal government and to hundreds of thousands of persons. Pp. 5–13.
• DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 13–26.
  • By history and tradition, the definition and regulation of mar­riage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate states. Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulate the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy, but DOMA, with a directive applicable to over one thousand federal statutes and 3 Cite as: 570 US ‗‗‗‗ (2013), the whole realm of federal regulations, has a far greater reach. Its operation is also directed to a class of persons that the laws of New York, and of eleven other states, have sought to protect. Assessing the validity of that intervention requires discussing the historical and traditional extent of state power and authority over marriage. Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v.Virginia, 388 US 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 US 393, 404. The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the nation's beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted, the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 US 379, 383–384. Marriage laws may vary from state to state, but they are consistent within each State. DOMA rejects this long-established precept. The state's decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. But the federal government uses the state-defined class for the opposite purpose—to impose re­strictions and disabilities. The question is whether the resulting in­jury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the state seeks to protect. New York's actions were a proper exercise of its sovereign authority. They reflect both the community's considered perspective on the historical roots of the in­stitution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality. Pp. 13–20.
  • By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect, DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles ap­plicable to the federal government. The Constitution's guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional de­sire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 US 528, 534–535. DOMA cannot survive under these principles. Its unusual deviation from the tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and protected by state law. DOMA's avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority, DOMA's history of enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, conferred by the states in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence. BLAG's arguments are just as candid about the congressional purpose. DOMA's operation in practice confirms this purpose. It frustrates New York's objective of eliminating inequality by writing inequality into the entire US code. DOMA's principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their state, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same state. It also forces same-sex couples to live as mar­ried for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the state has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. Pp. 20–26. 699 F. 3d 169, affirmed.