The Case Of Edith Windsor And Thea Spyer

(Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, married in Ontario, Canada in 2007, where same-sex marriages were at the time legal. When Spyer’s died, the state of New York still recognized the couple’s marriage. However, when Windsor used her use of a spousal estate tax exception, the IRS denied her claim. They did this because, under the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages for the receiving of federal benefits. Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer first met in New York in 1963. Since they were in a long-term relationship, they registered as domestic partners in New York in 1993, when this partnership status became available. Because of Spyer’s suffering caused by multiple sclerosis and a heart condition,
the couple formally wed in Canada in 2007.
Spyer passed away in February 2009, which left Windsor as her widow and as the sole owner of the estate. Their marriage was recognized by New York state law but, upon Spyer’s death, Windsor was denied a spousal deduction (This gave a deduction for property passes from the decedent to the surviving spouse) for her federal estate taxes under federal law. Under DOMA’s Section 3 states that for the purposes of federal law the words “marriage” and “spouse” refer only to legal unions between one man and one woman. Because of this definition, when Spyer left her estate to Windsor, the federal government imposed $363,053 in taxes on Spyer’s estate. If the U.S government recognized their marriage, the estate would have qualified for the spousal exemption and Windsor would not have had to pay any taxes. Windsor started this lawsuit seeking a full refund of the federal estate tax. Also, Windsor proclaimed that DOMA’s Section 3 is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment. The issue here is whether the Defense of Marriage Act violates the right to equal protection of same-sex couples who are legally married under
state law.
Now, the Supreme Court is being asked to decide DOMA’s Constitutionality. The Obama Administration is not defending DOMA, so a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (“BLAG”) from the House of Representatives is defending DOMA instead, arguing that DOMA is related and necessary for the government’s obligation of providing a universal definition of marriage for federal benefits purposes. The Obama administration is arguing that the use of sexual orientation, to decide who gets legal benefits, is not a proper classification and deserves higher scrutiny. Under that level of higher scrutiny, the Obama administration argues that DOMA isn’t applicable. This case, possibly, can affect what role the federal government can and will play in defining marriages. Also, it will decided who in the federal government can defend the government’s laws. Not only could this case provide large tax savings to Ms. Windsor herself, but it can also make federal benefits available to other same-sex couples who are legally married under the laws of their state.

For the Arguments: The Obama Administration argues Section 3 of the DOMA act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause, and they argue for stricter interpretations of laws discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
The United States points out gay and lesbian people have been subject to a history of discrimination, including a history of criminal prosecutions for the private and consensual sexual conduct, and other discrimination in employment, immigration, hate crimes, etc. Windsor says that much of this discrimination came from the government itself. Sexual orientation is not related to people being able to perform or contribute to society, so the government cannot take sexual orientation into account for classification purposes. BLAG argues that the Court should apply the lowest level of scrutiny, rational basis review, because the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community is not a protected class. Sexual orientation is a characteristic that distinguishes gay and lesbian people as a small minority group. The United States contends the distinguishing characteristic need not be immutable or obvious if the characteristic is a distinguishing characteristic. The United States and Windsor point to scientific consensus that sexual orientation is not a voluntary choice for the vast majority of
people.