US Vs. Windsor: Case Study

Section 1 Essay U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), is a case about a same-sex couple that was married in 2007 in Ontario, Canada because at that time same-sex marriage was not legal in New York. The same-sex couple, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer resided in New York. Two years after the couple was married, Spyer died, and left all of her estate to her wife, Windsor. When Windsor went to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, she was denied because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which excluded same-sex partners in definition of marriage and spouse. Windsor went on with the issue, paid estate taxes over $300,000, but Window was denied the refund. She then challenged DOMA saying Section 3 was unconstitutional. After a few years with the case working its way through the courts, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.
The justices of the Supreme Court who agreed that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional found that it “offended the Constitution because” it did not accept the individual definitions of marriage for each state.
(Sprigg) The court found that it is up to each individual state to make their own policy on same – sex marriage which was not followed during the time of Windsor. In regards to due process and equal protection, the Supreme Court found DOMA violated laws that the federal government placed in order for all people to be treated equally. (Sprigg) The majority stated that the main purpose of DOMA was to make same – sex couples feel at loss, especially when they were in a marriage. The law wanted homosexuals to feel like they lost their respect for their spouse.
(Sprigg) Three justices of the Supreme Court who did not agree that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional wrote separate opinions. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Samuel Alito challenged the ruling by writing that Congress has a right to say who the laws apply to. (Sprigg) Justice Alito wrote because Congress has the right under the Constitution to pass the laws like DOMA, Congress has the authority to decide who those laws apply to. (Sprigg) The justices who were against the Windsor majority and did not vote that Section 3 was unconstitutional also criticized the attack on the motives of the law. Justice Scalia stated that there was not enough evidence to back up the conclusion. He explained, “that to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions” (Sprigg). The dissenters also argued due process and equal protection principles. Scalia argued that same-sex marriage is not “in the Nation’s history and tradition,” which is one important item for it to be protected by the due process principle. (Sprigg) The Court’s ruling in Windsor, involved contemporary American federalism because in the United States federalism is the national government working with the state governments. The rulings of this case relate to federalism because at the time it was up to each individual state if they allowed for same – sex marriage. During this time the United States Supreme Court did not want to get involved with individual states. On June 26, 2015 the United States Supreme Court legalized same – sex marriage throughout the United States in its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015). This means that the United States Supreme Court is working to make all citizens feel like they are being treated equal and have the same rights as others no matter what state they live in. The ruling of Windsor, aligns with Civil Rights, especially the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The ruling states that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional because it did not allow for Windsor to have what should be hers because her deceased spouse left it to her. Section 3 of DOMA said she could not have it because they were a same – sex couple and only opposite – sex couples can follow this rule. At the time of this case the federal law was depriving of her of her civil liberties. The court was not allowing for her to have what her spouse left to her, which was her property. In the ruling of this case the United States Court determined that not allowing her to have her property was a violation of the 14th Amendment, which states “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Because the court made a ruling for her to be given the tax money back it was then following the 14th Amendment and due process of law. The ruling of this case influences the nation’s public attitudes and American values. Their reasoning for not liking or believing in same –sex marriage is because of their religious beliefs. Many people in the United States believe it is against their religion to allow for same – sex marriage. The ruling of Windsor, aligns with the way in which our constitutional system is designed to manage conflict because our constitutional system was designed to make everyone feel like they are being treated fairly. The constitutional system works to make sure everyone is given their rights regardless of their gender, race, age, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. In the court ruling the U.S Supreme Court worked to make sure Windsor was given her rights and treated with equity regardless of her sexual orientation and being married to someone of the same sex as her.

Bibliography
Sprigg, P. (n.d.). Family Research Council. Retrieved July 1, 2015, from http://www.frc.org/understandingwindsor

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR. (n.d.). Retrieved July 1, 2015, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-307