United States v. Windsor
Citation and Court
570 U.S. 744 (2013) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Canada. After Spyer died, Windsor inherited her estate but was required to pay $363,000 in federal estate taxes because the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), § 3, defined “marriage” for federal purposes as exclusively a union of a man and woman, preventing federal recognition of Windsor’s same-sex marriage. Windsor sued for a refund.
Issue
Whether § 3 of DOMA, which defines “marriage” for federal law purposes as the union of a man and woman and thus refuses to recognize same-sex marriages valid under state law, violates the Fifth Amendment.
Holding
Yes. DOMA § 3 is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which incorporates an equal protection guarantee. The federal government may not refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that states have lawfully authorized.
Rule / Doctrine
DOMA § 3 violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by singling out a class of persons — those in lawful same-sex marriages — and denying them federal benefits available to all other married couples. The Court applied a form of heightened scrutiny (or rational basis with bite), finding that DOMA’s purpose was to impose a “disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” upon same-sex couples, which cannot be a legitimate governmental purpose.
Significance
Windsor is the first Supreme Court decision striking down a federal law that discriminated against same-sex couples and set the stage for Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage nationwide. It is notable for its discussion of federalism — the traditional state prerogative to define marriage — alongside the equal protection analysis.