Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR

Docket No.: 12-307
Certiorari Granted: Dec 7 2012
Argued: March 27, 2013
Decided: June 26, 2013

Topics:

Article I, Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy Code, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Due Process, Equal Protection Clause, Federalism, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Social Security Act, Tenth Amendment, Unions, copyright, disparate treatment, immigration, judicial review, public action, qualified immunity, separation of powers, suspect class

PartyNames: United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.
Petitioner: United States
Respondent: Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Citation: 833 F.Supp. 2d 394
Supreme Court Docket

United States
v.
Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.
Question Presented:

Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines the term "marriage" for all purposes under federal law, including the provision of federal benefits, as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." 1 U.S.C. 7. It similarly defines the term "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Ibid. The question presented is: Whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State.

Note:

IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: WHETHER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH'S AGREEMENT WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT DOMA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVES THIS COURT OF JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THIS CASE; AND WHETHER THE BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS ARTICLE III STANDING IN THIS CASE. CERT. GRANTED 12/7/201212-307 UNITED STATES V. WINDSOR

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR
ORAL ARGUMENT

March 27, 2013

Listen to Oral Argument in UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR
Holding: AFFIRMED
Vote: 9-0
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)