June 26, 2013 | 133 S.Ct. 2675
United States, petitioner
Edith Schlain Windsor, in her capacity as executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, respondent
FACTS:
Edith Schlain Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer were a same sex couple whose marriage in Ontario, Canada, in 2007 is legally recognized by the State of
New York, where the couple reside and where same-sex marriages are allowed.
Spyer died in 2009, leaving her entire estate to Windsor. As a surviving spouse, Windsor was supposed to be exempt from paying federal estate tax. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), however, denied her request for exemption, stating that pursuant to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal statute with a sweeping control over 1,000 federal laws in which marital or spousal status is addressed as a matter of federal law, the term "spouse" only applied to marriages between a man and a woman and not on same-sex couples.* Windsor was later compelled to pay federal estate tax amounting to $363,053.
Thereafter Windsor filed for a motion for summary judgment on June 24, 2011, before the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that a rational basis review of Section 3 of DOMA indeed violated Windsor's rights under the equal protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment,** and was therefore unconstitutional. The District Court also instructed the IRS to issue her a full federal estate tax refund. The US Justice Department filed for an appeal before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
After hearing the arguments from both sides, the Court affirmed the District Court's original ruling, stating that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional and violated Windsor's equal protection guarantees under the Fifth Amendment.
Prior to the ruling of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, both Windsor and the Justice Department filed for separate petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment for same sex couples.
HELD:
Yes, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. It is essentially a deprivation of an important part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as alike (man-woman, same-sex marriages), the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect.
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. As such, the Court affirmed the initial rulings of both the District Court and Second Circuit Court of Appeal declaring Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional and entitling Windsor full federal estate tax refund.
The Court also ruled that the responsibility of defining what marriage is and regulating domestic relations fall within the purview of individual States and not the Federal Government. Since New York recognizes same sex marriages, then no federal statute, such as DOMA, can impose a disadvantage, a separate status, or a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages already made lawful by the State.
The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
___
* Section 3 of DOMA provides as follows: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
** The Fifth Amendment sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy.