Windsor v. United States
| Decision Date | 18 October 2012 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 12-2335-cv(L),12-2435(Con) |
| Parties | EDITH SCHLAIN WINDSOR, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTO OF THE ESTATE OF THEA CLARA SPYER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant, and BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge, STRAUB and DRONEY,
Circuit Judges.
Intervenor Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granting summary judgment in favor ofthe surviving spouse of a same-sex couple who was denied the benefit of the spousal deduction under federal tax law. The United States, the defendant, is a nominal appellant. For the following reasons, we conclude that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional.
United States Department of
New York Civil Liberties Union
Foundation, New York, NY, on the
brief), for Appellee.
Vincent P. McCarthy, Litchfield,
CT, for amicus curiae American
College of Pediatricians in
support of Intervenor-Defendant-
AZ, for amicus curiae Frederick
Douglas Foundation in support of
Virginia Beach, VA (Erik
Zimmerman, Jay Alan Sekulow and
Stuart J. Roth, American Center
for Law & Justice, Virginia
Beach, VA and Washington, DC, on
the brief), for amici curiae
Former Attorneys General Edwin
Meese III and John Ashcroft in
support of Intervenor-Defendant-
Indianapolis, IN (Thomas M.
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South
Dakota and Virginia in supportof Intervenor-Defendant-
Washington, DC (William C.
Duncan, Marriage Law Foundation,
Lehi, UT, on the brief), for
amicus curiae National
Organization for Marriage in
support of Intervenor-Defendant-
Appellant.
Steven W. Fitschen, The National
Legal Foundation, Virginia
Beach, VA, for amicus curiae
Concerned Women for America in
support of Intervenor-Defendant-
for amici curiae the American
Psychological Association, the
American Academy of Pediatrics,
the American Psychiatric
Association, the American
Psychoanalytic Association, the
National Association of Social
Workers and its New York City
and State Chapters, and the New
York State Psychological
Association in support of
for amici curiae Bar
Associations and Public Interest
and Legal Service Organizations
in Support of Plaintiff-
Appellee.
Matthew F. Damm, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, New York, NY (Dawn
Sestito, Demitri D. Portnoi, and
Amy R. Lucas, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, Los Angeles, CA and New
York, NY, on the brief), for
amici curiae Family Law
Professors in Support of
for amici curiae the City of New
York, the Council of the City of
New York, Michael R. Bloomberg,
in His Official Capacity as
Mayor of the City of New York,
and Christine C. Quinn, in Her
Official Capacity as Speaker of
the Council of the City of New
York in Support of Plaintiff-
Rosen & Katz, New York, NY
(Jonathan M. Moses, Kevin S.
Schwartz, Luke M. Appling, on
the brief), for amicus curiae
the Partnership for New York
City in Support of Plaintiff-
Appellee.
Suzanne B. Goldberg, Columbia
Law School, New York, NY, for
amicus curiae Columbia Law
School Sexuality & Gender Law
Clinic in Support of Plaintiff-
Appellee.
Catherine R. Connors, Pierce
Atwood LLP, Portland, ME, for
amici curiae Historians in
Support of Plaintiff-Appellee.
Miriam R. Nemetz, Mayer Brown
LLP, Washington, DC (Kathleen
Connery Dawe and Michael B.
Kimberly, Mayer Brown LLP,
Washington, DC, and Heather C.
and Jerrold Nadler, Ranking
Members, Washington, DC), for
amici curiae Members of the U.S.
House of Representatives, in
Support of Plaintiff-Appellee.
Washington, DC, and Alice
O'Brien, National Education
Association, Washington, DC, on
the brief), for amici curiae
American Federation of Labor and
Congress of Industrial
Organizations, Change to Win,
and National Education
Association in support of
Bisexual and Transgender Elders
(SAGE), National Senior Citizens
Law Center and American Society
on Aging in support of
Rachel M. Kleinman, Ria A.
Inc., New York, NY, and
Washington, DC), for amicus
curiae NAACP Legal Defense &
Education Fund, Inc., in support
of Plaintiff-Appellee.
Harvey J. Wolkoff, Ropes & Gray
LLP, New York, NY (Stuart W.
Yothers and Samuel P. Bickett,
Ropes & Gray LLP, New York, NY
and Steven M. Freeman and Seth
M. Marnin, Anti-Defamation
League, New York, NY, on the
brief), for amici curiae Anti-
Defamation League, Central
Bend the Arc: A Jewish
Partnership for Justice,
Hadassah: the Women's Zionist
Japanese Citizens League, the
Justice and Witness Ministries:
United Church of Christ,
National Counsel of Jewish
Women, People for the American
Way Foundation, Union for Reform
Conservative Judaism, and Women
of Reform Judaism in support of
Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, New York, NY (H.
Rodgin Cohen, Mitchell S. Eitel,
William H. Wagener, Heather H.
Volik, Diana G. Iskelov,
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New
York, NY and Laura W. Brill and
Meaghan Field, Kendall Brill &
Klieger LLP, Los Angeles, CA, on
the brief), for amici curiae
Professors of Family and Child
Welfare Law in support of
Vermont, and Connecticut in
support of neither party.
for amicus curiae Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington in support of neither
party.
Plaintiff Edith Windsor sued as surviving spouse of a same-sex couple that was married in Canada in 2007 and was resident in New York at the time of her spouse's death in 2009. Windsor was denied the benefit of the spousal deduction for federal estate taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 2056(A) solely because Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), 1 U.S.C. § 7, defines the words "marriage" and "spouse" in federal law in a way that bars the Internal Revenue Service from recognizing Windsor as a spouse or the couple as married. The text of § 3 is as follows:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
1 U.S.C. § 7. At issue is Windsor's claim for a refund in the amount of $363,053, which turns on the constitutionality of that section of federal law.
For the reasons that follow we hold that:
I. Windsor has standing in this action because we predict that...
To continue reading
Request your trial