Federal recognition of same-sex marriage
United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer
In brief
The Court struck down DOMA’s federal marriage definition and agreed with the appeals court, leaving Windsor’s refund ruling in place.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-4 · June 26, 2013 · Opinion by Justice Kennedy
- What it’s about
- Edith Windsor challenged the federal government’s refusal to recognize her New York marriage to Thea Spyer for tax purposes.
- Who it affects
- The federal government could no longer use DOMA’s definition to deny federal recognition to same-sex couples whose marriages their states recognized.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled it could hear the case, struck down DOMA’s federal marriage rule under the Fifth Amendment, agreed with the appeals court, and left the House group’s legal right to sue unresolved.
DOMA set a federal definition of marriage that differed from New York’s recognition of Windsor and Spyer’s marriage.
Question presented
1. Does the executive branch's agreement with the lower court that the act is unconstitutional deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to decide the case? 2. Does the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives have standing in the case? 3. Does the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines the term "marriage" under federal law as a "legal union between one man and one woman" deprive same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law?
What the Court decided
Holding
1. This Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. This case clearly presented a concrete disagreement between opposing parties that was suitable for judicial resolution in the District Court, but the Executive’s decision not to defend §3’s constitutionali - ty in court while continuing to deny refunds and assess deficiencies introduces a complication. Given the Government’s concession, amicus contends, once the District Court ordered the refund, the case should have ended and the appeal been dismissed. 2. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. 699 F. 3d 169, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The Court's reasoning
The Court said a real dispute remained because the executive branch continued to deny refunds and assess tax bills even though it would not defend DOMA’s constitutionality. It also said DOMA deprived people of equal liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment.
The vote
From the opinions
“I agree with JUSTICE SCALIA that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of the courts below.”
What's next
The appeals court’s ruling remains in force, including the order granting Windsor a tax refund. Federal agencies must follow the decision and stop applying DOMA’s federal marriage definition to marriages legally recognized by states.
Each side's argument
- Edith Windsor
- She argued that denying her a refund because DOMA refused to recognize her state-law marriage violated her Fifth Amendment rights.
- The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House
- It argued that the case should have ended after the United States agreed DOMA was unconstitutional and the district court ordered a refund.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Windsor
Opinion added: Windsor
More questions
- Did the Court decide whether the House group had its own legal right to take part?
- No. The Court said it could hear the case because the United States continued to deny refunds, and left the House group’s separate legal right unresolved.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.