Abstract

On 26 June 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered judgment in two cases involving same-sex marriage. United States v Windsor, 570 US __, 2013 WL 3196928, No 12-307, invalidated a provision of a federal law, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman for all purposes in federal law. Hollingsworth v Perry, 570 US __ , 2013 WL 3196927, No 12-144, held that the official sponsors of a California state constitutional amendment [Proposition 8 (Prop 8)], which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman for purposes of state law, lacked standing to seek judicial review of a federal district court judgment that ruled Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Both cases were decided on 5-4 votes. The Windsor case was filed by Edith Windsor, who had entered into a samesex marriage in Canada that was deemed valid in New York, where she and her partner lived. New York is one of 12 American states which, at the time of the Windsor ruling, had legalized same-sex marriage. Her same-sex spouse died in 2009 leaving Ms Windsor her entire estate. Ms Windsor’s claim for a federal estate tax exemption as the surviving ‘spouse’ was denied under Section 3 of DOMA, adopted by Congress in 1996. Ms Windsor paid the federal estate tax allegedly owing ($363,053) but filed a claim for a refund, which also was denied by the Internal Revenue Service. Ms Windsor then sued in federal court. While her suit was pending, President Obama and his Attorney General took the unusual step of announcing that the administration would no longer defend DOMA. The House of Representatives thereupon voted to allow some of their members, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), to intervene

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.