Impact of Court's Gay Marriage Decision Far Reaching

The impact of the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on the constitutionalty of the federal Defense of Marriage Act will extend far beyond the equal protection aspects of the law and how this constitutional guarantee is applied to all members of American society. The Court’s ruling will dramatically affect the bank accounts of LGBT couples in every state where the right to marry has been extended to every American — not just those who are heterosexual.

Section 3 of DOMA, at issue in Wednesday morning's case, says "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" for purposes of "any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States."

Plaintiff Edie Windsor, 83, brought suit against the federal government after the Internal Revenue Service cited DOMA in denying her a refund for the $363,000 in federal estate taxes she paid following the 2009 death of Thea Spyer, her partner for over 40 years. Windsor and Spyer had married in Canada in 2007, but resided in New York. Because Windsor would have been eligible for an estate tax exemption had Spyer been a man, she argues that DOMA's Section 3 violates her equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Federal estate taxes are just the beginning. In fact, there are some 1,100 federal laws that work to one’s advantage if they are deemed legally married, including the opportunity of a surviving spouse to receive social security benefits upon the death of his or her spouse, health care benefits for the spouse of a federal employee, Veterans Administration benefits for the surviving spouse of LGBT members of the armed forces, and the opportunity to file joint tax returns.

Several U.S. Supreme Court  justices on Wednesday indicated interest in striking down a law.  “The question is whether the federal government…has the authority to regulate marriage,” Justice Kennedy said. “That authority undermines the states’ role in the federal system.”  Kennedy's past opinions often have shown considerable concern about federal encroachment on state powers. His comments suggested two possible routes that the justices could use to strike down the law -- either that it violates the rights of same-sex couples by treating them differently than opposite-sex couples or that it violated the rights of states to decide for themselves how marriage should be defined.

Marriage affects "every aspect of life," said Justice Ginsburg. For the federal government to say that some legally married couples deserve benefits and others don't "diminishes what the state says is marriage." 

In the lower courts, the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit both declared DOMA unconstitutional. The Obama administration agrees with them, saying in February 2011 that they would cease defending the law because they believed it to be invalid under the U.S. Constitution.  What this means is that if a procedural issue prevents the court from deciding the case on the merits, Windsor would win her refund. Yet DOMA would remain on the books in parts of the country where courts have not ruled on it. Further litigation would likely ensue.

Rulings in this case and the companion Prop 8 case on California gay marriage, are expected by the end of June.

The materials on this website are for general information purposes only, and do not constitute legal advice.  Viewing the materials contained on this site, or on any linked site, does not create an attorney-client relationship.  Sayer Regan & Thayer, LLP assumes no responsibility for materials posted on any linked site.  If you chose to contact us, or to inquire concerning legal services or legal advice, please be advised that such inquiry does not create an attorney-client relationship.  An attorney-client relationship may only be established by separate agreement.  You should not send any confidential or time-sensitive information to us unless authorized by one of our attorneys.  Information sent before an attorney-client relationship is established may be determined not to be confidential