## Facts

- Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a same-sex couple, married in Canada in 2007; New York recognized their marriage.
- Spyer died in 2009 and left her estate to Windsor.
- Windsor sought the federal estate tax marital deduction, but §3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) barred federal recognition of their marriage.
- Windsor paid $363,053 in federal estate tax and sued for a refund, alleging §3 violated the Fifth Amendment.
- The Department of Justice agreed §3 was unconstitutional and declined to defend it; the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the U.S. House of Representatives intervened to defend the statute.
- The district court and Second Circuit ruled §3 unconstitutional; the Supreme Court granted certiorari and ordered briefing on Article III jurisdiction and BLAG’s role.

## Issues

1. Whether Article III jurisdiction existed where the Executive agreed §3 was unconstitutional but continued to withhold the tax refund, and whether BLAG’s participation supplied sufficient adverseness.
2. Whether DOMA §3’s federal definition of “marriage” and “spouse” as limited to opposite-sex couples violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection component as applied through the Due Process Clause by denying federal recognition and benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married under state law.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the Second Circuit in a 5–4 decision (Kennedy, J.).
- The Court held it had Article III jurisdiction because the United States retained a concrete financial stake: it continued to withhold the refund and would suffer a monetary loss if Windsor prevailed.
- The Court found sufficient adverseness for adjudication in light of the government’s refusal to pay absent a judgment and BLAG’s active defense of §3.
- On the merits, the Court held DOMA §3 unconstitutional as a deprivation of liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment.
- The judgment required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages that are valid under state law for federal purposes, including the estate tax marital deduction.

## Legal Principles

- Article III jurisdiction may exist even when the United States agrees with the plaintiff on constitutionality, if the government maintains a concrete stake by withholding relief and facing a direct financial consequence from an adverse judgment.
- The Fifth Amendment constrains the federal government from denying equal liberty through laws whose purpose and effect are to impose disadvantage and stigma on a class of persons.
- Federal departure from customary reliance on state determinations of marital status, when used to single out and disadvantage state-sanctioned marriages, supports a finding that the law violates due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government.
- A “bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group” cannot justify disparate treatment under the Constitution.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated DOMA §3, holding that the federal government may not refuse to recognize lawful same-sex marriages for federal benefits and obligations because doing so violates the Fifth Amendment’s protection of equal liberty.


United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013)