United States v. Windsor

***United States v. Windsor*** was a court case heard by the United States Supreme Court. The court's decision was historically important for marriage law in the U.S. It was also important for LGBT rights.

The court decided that defining "marriage" as a union between one man and one woman (as husband and wife) was unconstitutional (against the Constitution). This specifically related to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law passed in 1996. This defined "marriage" for federal (national) law in the United States. It defined it as being between one man and one woman. In _United States v. Windsor_, the court decided that this definition was against the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the U.S., the Constitution protects the rights of citizens, and no individual law can take those rights away.

The basis for the case was the right to benefits for same-sex married couples; the same right held by heterosexual married couples. Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a same-sex couple living in New York, were married in Canada in 2007. Spyer died in 2009, leaving everything she owned to Windsor. Under the law, widows do not have to pay tax on anything they inherited from their dead spouse. Windsor tried to claim this exemption. She was barred from doing so by Section 3 of DOMA, which said that the word "spouse" only applies to a marriage between a man and woman. The Internal Revenue Service denied Windsor's claim, and demanded that she pay $363,053 in inheritance taxes.

After Windsor won the case, _Time_ magazine named her the third most influential person of the year in 2013.

## Related pages

- Same-sex marriage in the United States

## Infobox (scotus case)

- **litigants**: United States v. Windsor
- **arguedate**: March 27
- **argueyear**: 2013
- **decidedate**: June 26
- **decideyear**: 2013
- **fullname**: United States, Petitioner v. Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.
- **docket**: 12-307
- **usvol**: 570
- **uspage**: ___
- **opinionannouncement**: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf
- **parallelcitations**: 133 S.Ct. 2675; 186 L.Ed.2d 808
- **oralargument**: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_12_307/argument
- **prior**: DOMA declared unconstitutional sub. nom. _Windsor v. United States_, 833 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Affirmed, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012)
- **related**: * _Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Gill v. OPM_, _Obergefell v. Hodges_ and _Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Mass. v. U.S. Dept. of H.H.S_
* _Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, Golinski v. OPM_
* _Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, Pedersen v. OPM_
* _Cardona v. Shinseki_ (Vet. App.)
- **holding**: Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which federally defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause's guarantee of equal protection. The Federal government of the United States, federal government must recognize same-sex marriages that have been approved by the states. The judgment of the Second Circuit is affirmed.
- **scotus**: 2010–2016
- **majority**: Kennedy
- **joinmajority**: Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
- **dissent**: Roberts
- **dissent2**: Scalia
- **joindissent2**: Thomas; Roberts (part I)
- **dissent3**: Alito
- **joindissent3**: Thomas (parts II, III)
- **lawsapplied**: Article Three of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. Art. III, Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. V; Defense of Marriage Act Defense of Marriage Act#Text, § 3