Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

United States v. Windsor

Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawPropertyEqual ProtectionDue ProcessFederalismMarriageEstate TaxDOMA

Facts

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, New York residents, married in Ontario in 2007, and New York recognized that marriage as valid. When Spyer died in 2009 and left her estate to Windsor, Windsor sought the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, but §3 of DOMA barred federal recognition of her marriage and the IRS denied her refund claim. Windsor paid $363,053 in estate taxes and sued, alleging §3 violated equal protection as applied through the Fifth Amendment. Although the Executive concluded §3 was unconstitutional, it continued to enforce the statute and refused to pay the refund.

Issue

First, whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the case when the United States agreed with Windsor that §3 of DOMA was unconstitutional but continued to enforce it. Second, whether §3 of DOMA, which defines marriage and spouse for all federal law to exclude same-sex couples lawfully married under state law, violates the Fifth Amendment.

Rule

A justiciable controversy exists under Article III when the Government continues to enforce a statute and refuses relief, even if it agrees with the plaintiff's constitutional position, so long as the plaintiff's concrete injury remains unredressed. On the merits, the Fifth Amendment forbids the Federal Government from using a law whose principal purpose and necessary effect are to impose a disadvantage, separate status, and stigma on persons in lawful same-sex marriages recognized by a State, where no legitimate purpose overcomes that purpose and effect to disparage and injure.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Alvarez and Cara Bell were lawfully married in Seattle, and Washington recognizes their marriage. After Cara died, Nina applied in federal court in Oregon for a refund of a federal survivor-related tax she paid because a federal statute defines "spouse" to exclude same-sex spouses; the Department of Justice tells the court the statute is unconstitutional but the Treasury continues to deny Nina's refund unless ordered to pay.

Is there an Article III case or controversy?

Explanation. Article III is satisfied when the plaintiff has a concrete, redressable injury and the Government continues to enforce the challenged law or withhold relief, even if it agrees with the plaintiff's constitutional argument. The majority emphasized that refusal to pay money allegedly owed preserves a justiciable controversy. Independent standing by a legislative body was not necessary to that conclusion. (Derived from United States v. Windsor (2013).)