7/25/2019 US vs Windsor

1/4

US vs Windsor

FACTS:

Two women then resident in New York were married in a lawful ceremony in Ontario,Canada, in 2007. Edith Windsor and Thea !yer returned to their home in New York City. When!yer died in 200", she left her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sou#ht to claim the estate ta$e$em!tion for sur%i%in# s!ouses. he was &arred from doin# so, howe%er, &y a federal law, the'efense of (arria#e )ct, which e$cludes a same*se$ !artner from the definition of +s!ouse asthat term is used in federal statutes. Windsor !aid the ta$es &ut filed suit to challen#e theconstitutionality of this !ro%ision. The -nited tates 'istrict Court and the Court of )!!eals ruledthat this !ortion of the statute is unconstitutional and ordered the -nited tates to !ay Windsor arefund. This Court #ranted certiorari and now affirms the ud#ment in Windsor/s fa%or.

RULING

n 1"", as some tates were &e#innin# to consider the conce!t of same*se$ marria#e, see,e.#., 3aehr %. 4ewin, 75 and &efore any tate had acted to !ermit it, Con#ress enacted the'efense of (arria#e )ct 6'O(), 110 tat. 251". 'O() contains two o!erati%e sections8 ection2, which has not &een challen#ed here, allows tates to refuse to reco#ni9e same*se$ marria#es!erformed under the laws of other tates. ee 2: -. . C. ;17 and then it later amended its own marria#e laws to!ermit samese$ marria#e. New York, in common with, as of this writin#, 11 other tates and the'istrict of Colum&ia, decided that same*se$ cou!les should ha%e the ri#ht to marry and so li%e

7/25/2019 US vs Windsor

2/4

with !ride in themsel%es and their union and in a status of e?uality with all other married !ersons.)fter a statewide deli&erati%e !rocess that ena&led its citi9ens to discuss and wei#h ar#umentsfor and a#ainst samese$ marria#e, New York acted to enlar#e the definition of marria#e to correctwhat its citi9ens and elected re!resentati%es !ercei%ed to &e an inustice that they had not earlierknown or understood.

The reco#nition of ci%il marria#es is central to state domestic relations law a!!lica&le to itsresidents and citi9ens. ee Williams %. North Carolina,

7/25/2019 US vs Windsor

3/4

Constitution/s =ifth )mendment. 'O()/s o!eration in !ractice confirms this !ur!ose. When NewYork ado!ted a law to !ermit same*se$ marria#e, it sou#ht to eliminate ine?uality> &ut 'O()frustrates that o&ecti%e throu#h a system*wide enactment with no identified connection to any!articular area of federal law. 'O() writes ine?uality into the entire -nited tates Code. The!articular case at hand concerns the estate ta$, &ut 'O() is more than a sim!le determination ofwhat should or should not &e allowed as an estate ta$ refund.

-nder 'O(), same*se$ married cou!les ha%e their li%es &urdened, &y reason of#o%ernment decree, in %isi&le and !u&lic ways. 3y its #reat reach, 'O() touches many as!ectsof married and family life, from the mundane to the !rofound. t !re%ents same*se$ marriedcou!les from o&tainin# #o%ernment healthcare &enefits they would otherwise recei%e. ee D -. .C. ;;:"016D, :"0D. t de!ri%es them of the 3ankru!tcy Code/s s!ecial !rotections for domestic*su!!ort o&li#ations. ee 11 -. . C. ;;101615), D076a616), D2

7/25/2019 US vs Windsor

4/4