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
- 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.
- 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.