! !
!
!
!
!
!!! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
1!
(Slip!Opinion)! OCTOBER! TERM,! 2012!
Syllabus!
NOTE:! W here!i t! is! feasible,! a! syllabus! (headnote)! will! be! released,! a s! is
being!done! in! connection! with! this! case,! at! the!time! the! opinion! is! issued.
The!syllabus! constitutes! no! part! of! the! opinion!of! the! Court! but! has! been
prepared! by! the! Reporter! of! Decisions! for! the! convenience! of! the! reade r.!
See!United States!v.!Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,!200!U.!S.!321,!337.!
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus!
UNITED!STATES!v.!WINDSOR,!EXECUTOR!OF!THE!
ESTATE!OF!SPYER,!ET!AL.!
CERTIORARI!TO!THE!UNITED!STATES!COURT!OF!APPEALS!FOR!
THE!SECOND!CIRCUIT!
No.!12–307.! Argued!March!27,!2013—Decided!June!26,!2013!
The!State! of!New! York!recognizes! the!marriage! of!New! York!residents
Edith! Windsor! and! Thea! Spyer,! who! wed! in! Ontario,! Canada,! in
2007.!!When!Spyer!died!in!2009,!she!left!her! entire!estate!to!Windsor.
Windsor!sought! to!claim! the!federal! estate!tax! exemption!for! surviv-
ing! spouses,! but! was! barred! from! doing! so! by! §3! of! the! federal! De-
fense!of!Marriage!Act!(DOMA),!which!amended!the!Dictionary!Act—a!
law! providing! rules! of! construction! for! over! 1,000! federal! laws! and!
the! whole! realm! of! federal! regulations—to! define! “marriage”! and
“spouse”!as! excluding! same-sex! partners.!! Windsor! paid! $363,053!in
estate!taxes!and!sought!a!refund,!which!the!Internal!Revenue!Service
denied.! Windsor!brought!this!refund!suit,!contending! that!DOMA!vi-
olates! the! principles! of! equal! protection! incorporated! in! the! Fifth!
Amendment.! While!the!suit!was!pending,! the!Attorney!General!noti-
fied! the! Speaker! of! the! House! of! Representatives! that! the! Depart-
ment!of! Justice!would! no!longer! defend!§3’s! constitutionality.!! In!re-
sponse,!the!Bipartisan! Legal!Advisory!Group! (BLAG)!of!the! House!of!
Representatives! voted! to! intervene! in! the! litigation! to! defend! §3’s
constitutionality.!!The!District!Court!permitted! the!intervention.!! On!
the!merits,! the!court! ruled!against! the! United!States,! finding!§3! un-
constitutional! and! ordering! the! Treasury! to! refund! Windsor’s! tax!
with!interest.! ! The!Second! Circuit! affirmed.!! The! United! States!has!
not!complied!with!the!judgment.!
Held:!
1.!This! Court! has! jurisdiction! to! consider! the! merits! of! the! case.!
This!case! clearly! presented!a! concrete! disagreement! between! oppos-
ing! parties! that! was! suitable! for! judicial! resolution! in! the! District
Court,!but!the! Executive’s!decision! not!to! defend!§3’s! constitutionali-
!!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
2! UNITED!STATES!v.!WINDSOR!
Syllabus!
ty!in! court! while! continuing!to! deny! refunds! and!assess! deficiencies!
introduces!a! complication.!! Given!the! Government’s!concession,! ami-
cus contends,!once! the! District! Court! ordered! the! refund,! the! case!
should! have! ended! and! the! appeal! been! dismissed.! But! this! argu-
ment! elides! the! distinction! between!Article!III’s!jurisdictional!re-
quirements!and! the! pr udential! limits!on! its! exercise,! which! are! “es-
sentially! matters! of! judicial! self-governance.”! ! Warth!v.!Seldin,!42 2!
U.!S.!490,! 500.!! Here,! the!United! States! retains!a! stake! sufficient!to!
support!Article! III!jurisdicti on!on! appeal!and! in! this!Court.! ! The!re-
fund!it!was!ordered!to! pay!Windsor!is!“a!real! and!immediate!econom-
ic!injury,”!Hein!v.!Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.,!551!U.! S.!
587,!599,! ev en! if! the! Executive! disagrees! with! §3! of! DOMA.! ! Wind-
sor’s! ongoing! claim! for! funds! that! the! United! States! refuses! to! pay
thus! establishes! a! controversy! sufficient!for! Article! III! jurisdiction.!
Cf.!INS!v.!Chadha,!462!U.!S.!919.!
Prudential! considerations,! however,! demand! that! there! be! “con-
crete! adverseness! which! sharpens! the! presentation! of! issues! upon
which!the!court!so!largely! depends!for!illumination!of! difficult!consti-
tutional!questions.”! Baker!v.!Carr,!369!U.!S.!186,!204.!!Unlike!Article!
III!requirements—which!must! be!satisfied!by! the!parties!before! judi-
cial! consideration! is! appropriate—prudential! factors! that! counsel!
against! hearing! this! case! are! subject! to! “countervailing! considera-
tions! [that]! may! outweigh! the! concerns! underlying!the! usual! reluc-
tance!to! exert!judicial! power.”! !Warth,! supra,!at!500–501.!!One!such!
consideration! is! the! extent! to! which! adversarial! presentation! of! the!
issues!is!ensured! by!the! participation!of!amici curiae!prepared!to!de-
fend! with! vigor! the! legislative! act’s! constitutionality.! See!Chadha,
supra,!at!940.! Here,!BLAG’s!substantial!adversarial!argument!for!
§3’s! constitutionality! satisfies! prudential! concerns! that! otherwise!
might!counsel! against!hearing! an! appeal!from! a!decision! with!which
the!principal! parties!agree.! !This!conclusion! does!not! mean!that! it!is!
appropriate!for! the!Executive!as! a!routine! exercise!to! challenge!stat-
utes!in! court!instead! of!making! the!case! to!Congress! for!amendment!
or!repeal.! !But! this! case!is! not!routine,! and! BLAG’s!capable! defense!
ensures!that! the! prudential!issues! do! not!cloud! the! merits! question,
which!is!of! immediate!importance! to!the! Federal!Government!and! to
hundreds!of!thousands!of!persons.!!Pp.!5–13.
2.!DOMA!is!unconstitutional!as!a!deprivation!of!the!equal!liberty!of!
persons!that!is!protected!by!the!Fifth!Amendment.!!Pp.!13–26.!
(a)!By!history!and!tradition! the!definition!and! regulation!of!mar-
riage!has!been!treated!as!being! within!the!authority!and!realm!of! the!
separate!States. !! Congress! has! enacted! discrete!statutes! to! regulate!
the! meaning! of! marriage! in! order! to! further! federal! policy,! but!
DOMA,!with! a!directiv e!applicable! to! over!1,000! federal!s tatues!and!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
3!Cite!as:! 570!U.!S.!____!(2013)!
Syllabus!
the!whole! realm! of! federal! regulations,! has! a! far! greater! reach.! ! Its!
operation!is! also! directed!to! a! class!of! persons! that! the!laws! of! New
York,!and! of! 11!other! States,!have! sought! to! protect.!! Assessing! the!
validity! of! that! intervention! requires! discussing! the! historical! and
traditional!extent!of!state!power!and!authority!over!marriage.!
Subject! to! certain! constitutional! guarantees,! see, e.g., Loving!v.!
Virginia,! 388! U.!S.! 1,! “regulation! of! domestic! relations”! is! “an! area
that!has! long! been ! regarded! as! a! virtually! exclusive! province! of! the!
States,”!Sosna!v.!Iowa,!419!U.!S.! 393,!404.! ! The!significance! of!state
responsibilities!for!the!definition!and! regulation!of! marriage!dates! to
the!Nation’s! beginning ;! for! “when!the! Constitut ion! was! adopted! the
common! understanding!was! that! the! domestic! relations! of! husband!
and!wife! and! parent!and! child! were!matter s!reserved! to! the!States,”!
Ohio ex rel. Popovici!v.!Agler,!280!U.!S.!379,!383–384.! !Marriage!laws
may! vary! from! State! to! State,! but! they! are! consistent! within! each
State.!
DOMA! rejects!this! long-established! precept.! ! The! State’s! decision!
to!give!this!class!of!persons! the!right!to!marry!conferred!upon! them!a
dignity!and!st atus!of!immense! import.!! But!the! Federal!Government!
uses!the! state-defined! class! for! the! opposite! purpose—to! impose! re-
strictions!and! disabilities.!! The!question! is! whether!the! resulting!in-
jury!and! indignity!is! a!deprivation! of!an! essential! part!of! the!liberty
protected! by! the! Fifth! Amendment,! since! what! New! York! treats! as!
alike! the! federal! law! deems! unlike! by!a!law!designed!to!injure!the
same! class! the! State! seeks! to! protect.! ! New! York’s! actions! were! a!
proper! exercise! of! its! sovereign! authority. ! They! reflect! both! the
community’s!considered! perspective! on!the!historical!roots!of!the!in-
stitution!of! marriage!and! its! evolving!understanding! of!the! meaning
of!equality.!!Pp.!13–20.!
(b)!By!seeking!to!injure!the!very!class! New!York!seeks!to!protect,
DOMA!violates!basic! due!process! and!equal! protection!principles! ap-
plicable!to!the! Federal!Government.!! The!Constitution’s!guarantee! of!
equality!“must! at! th e! very! least! mean! that! a! bare! congressional! de-
sire!to! harm! a! politically! unpopular! group! cannot”! justify! disparate!
treatment!of! that! group.! Department of Agriculture!v.!Moreno,!413!
U.!S.! 528,! 534–535.! ! DOMA! cannot! survive! under! these! principles.!
Its!unusual!deviation!from! the!tradition!of! recognizing!and!accepting
state!definitions! of!marriage! operates!to!deprive!same-sex!couples!of
the!benefits!and!responsibilities!tha t!come!with!federal!recognition!of!
their!marriages.! This!is! strong!evidence!of! a!law!having! the!purpose!
and!effect! of!disapproval! of!a! class!recognized! and!protected! by!state
law.! DOMA’s!avowed! purpose! and! pract ical! effect! are! to! impose! a!
disadvantage,!a! separate!status, !and! so!a! stigma!upon! all!who! enter
into!same-sex! marriages!made! lawful!by! the!unquestioned! authority!
