Civil and Human Rights

United States v. Windsor

At issue in United States v. Windsor was the constitutionality of Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which defined marriage for purposes of federal law solely as between a man and a woman and thus excluded legally married same-sex couples from more than a thousand federal legal protections, rights and benefits provided to married, opposite-sex couples.

Case Summary

On February 1, 2013, Constitutional Accountability Center and the Cato Institute jointly filed an amici curiae brief in support of the Respondent in Windsor, arguing that DOMA’s Section 3 violated the basic constitutional requirement of equality under the law, denying to legally married same-sex couples the full range of federal rights and benefits that exist to help support committed, loving couples form enduring, life-long bonds. CAC and Cato’s brief demonstrated that laws that discriminate and treat any group of persons as inferior are “by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” Our brief also directly addressed flaws in the defense of Section 3 offered by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (“BLAG”); the purported governmental interests BLAG suggested, such as appeals to “tradition,” failed under any standard of review, even rational basis scrutiny.

On June 26, 2013, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court, as we had urged, held that Section 3 of DOMA violated the basic constitutional requirement of equality under the law, and that the federal government cannot discriminate against married same-sex couples for the purpose of determining federal benefits. In the majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court criticized DOMA’s vast system of marriage discrimination as an assault on the Constitution’s universal guarantee of equality, explaining that DOMA’s “principal purpose” was to “impose inequality,” and that it demeaned the couple “whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify.” Although Windsor did not decide whether states may forbid same-sex marriage, the sweeping ruling is an important victory that establishes a strong constitutional foundation for marriage equality.

Read CAC’s reaction to the landmark decision in Windsor here, here, here and here.

Case Timeline

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Health and Hospital v. Talevski

In Health and Hospital v. Talevski, the Supreme Court is considering whether Spending Clause statutes can give rise to private rights enforceable under Section 1983.
Civil and Human Rights
September 22, 2022

BLOG: Reflections on my Kendall Fellowship: I Couldn’t Have Asked for More

[caption id="attachment_15907" align="alignleft" width="261"] Charlotte Schwartz: Douglas T. Kendall Fellow 2021-22[/caption] I feel incredibly lucky...
By: Charlotte Schwartz
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis

In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court is considering whether a state public accommodation law, which requires business to offer the same services to same-sex couples that it offers to different-sex couples, violates the...
Civil and Human Rights
August 7, 2022

In Harvard admissions case, will justices cherry-pick their history?

Washington Post
If you thought the Supreme Court term that just concluded was a disaster, brace yourself...
Civil and Human Rights
August 1, 2022

Originalism Watch: Fauxriginalist Opponents of Affirmative Action Bring Their Case to SCOTUS

Today, Constitutional Accountability Center filed a brief in support of the University of North Carolina...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina

In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court is considering whether it is permissible for public and private institutions of higher education...