Marriage Equality

United States v. Windsor (DOMA)

Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) denies more than a thousand different different federal rights to legally-married same-sex couples. Those benefits range from Social Security death benefits to the right to take family medical leave. DOMA even can separate spouses of different nationalities.

DOMA also has an impact on estate taxes. DOMA prohibited the federal government from recognizing the marriage of Edith Windsor to her lifelong partner, Dr. Thea Spyer. As a result, Ms. Windsor was hit with a huge bill for inheritance taxes. Ms. Windsor sued, arguing that Section 3 of DOMA violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. Now age 83, Ms. Windsor has taken the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in Windsor has the ability to finally recognize that discrimination against LGBT Americans violates the Constitution. Alternatively, the Court could hold that DOMA violates the power of states to define the rights and benefits of their LGBT citizens.

» Go to AFJ Audio Analysis

» Read more about the marriage equality cases

Marriage Equality

Hollingsworth v. Perry (Proposition 8)

After the California Legislature legalized same-sex marriage in that state, voters passed Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to ban such marriages. Proponents of same-sex marriage sued to overturn the ban.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a narrow ruling, deciding that once a fundamental right like the right to marry is granted, “the people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry.” This holding draws directly from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Romer v. Evans, in which the court ruled that laws motivated by animus toward a particular group violate the Constitution.

Opponents of same-sex marriage appealed to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the 9th Circuit “stayed” its ruling. That means the marriages of same sex couples who married before Proposition 8 became law remain legally valid, but no new same-sex marriages can be performed until and unless the Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8.

» Go to AFJ Audio Analysis

» Read more about the marriage equality cases

State of Arizona et. al. v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et. al.:

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) was passed by Congress 20 years ago to provide a standardized, simple way for Americans to register to vote in federal elections. The law provides for a form prospective voters can fill out and mail to state boards of elections. States are required to “accept and use” the form. The law also requires the form be made easily available in many offices, including Departments of Motor Vehicles. That’s how the law became known as the “motor voter” law.

The law also requires prospective voters to attest, under penalty of perjury, that they are United States citizens.

Arizona passed a law, Proposition 200, by referendum adding a requirement that Arizonans provide proof of citizenship.The law specified certain documents, documents that can difficult for poor people, the elderly and new citizens to obtain. Several groups sued, challenging the right of Arizona to impose these new requirements. Lower courts agreed that the law should be struck down.

In Supreme Court oral arguments, the justices’ questioning largely revolved around two issues: the balance of federal and state authority to regulate federal elections, and whether the Arizona law’s requirements directly conflicted with the text of the NVRA.

» Go to AFJ Audio Analysis