Civil and Human Rights

Defense Of Marriage Act Takes A Beating At Supreme Court

By Sahil Kapur

 

A majority of the Supreme Court justices delivered a beating to the Defense of Marriage Act during oral arguments Wednesday, signaling a positive outcome for marriage equality.

 

The four liberal-leaning justices and Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared deeply skeptical that the federal government has legal justification for treating gay and straight couples unequally. They seemed inclined to overturn Section 3 of the 1996 law, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage and thereby denies benefits to gay and lesbian couples even if they are legally wed in their states.

 

In his line of questioning, Kennedy, who has a track record in favor of gay rights, repeatedly contended that the federal government had exceeded its constitutional authority.

 

“You are at real risk of going in conflict … with federal police powers,” he told Paul Clement, the lawyer arguing in favor of upholding DOMA. When Clement tried to argue that it was a valid exercise of federal power and does not infringe on states’ rights, Kennedy responded, “I see illogic in your argument.” He wondered why Congress could deny marriage benefits in states “where the voters have decided” that same sex marriage ought to be legal.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito appeared favorable to DOMA. They were preoccupied with the question of whether axing the law down could create a legal basis for the federal government to supersede state definitions of marriage.

 

The four Democratic-appointed justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — doubted DOMA’s validity under the equal protection clause.

 

“You’re treating married couples differently,” said Sotomayor.

 

Kagan suggested that “Congress’ judgment” when passing the law in 1996 “was infected with animus, with fear, with dislike.”

 

Breyer said he “can’t imagine” what the rational basis would be for denying benefits to married gay couples under federal law.

 

Ginsburg said recognition of marriage “affects every area of life,” mentioning hospital visits to sick partners and Social Security retirement benefits as examples. “It’s pervasive.”

 

Justice Clarence Thomas did not speak during the arguments, as is customary for him.

 

Before spending one hour hearing the merits of the case, the justices devoted 50 minutes to questions about whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the issue. It’s an unusual case because the Obama administration declined to defend DOMA, a federal law, leaving the House Republican majority to step in and hire Clement, a former Bush White House Solicitor General, to argue for the law.

 

Most of the justices appeared to agree that the DOMA case had standing.

 

The lawyers pushing to overturn DOMA were U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli and Roberta A. Kaplan, who represents plaintiff Edith Windsor (pictured above), a lesbian widow.

 

If DOMA is overturned, married gay couples would be treated the same as married straight couples under federal law, but states would remain free to outlaw gay marriage.

 

“A majority of justices today appeared to regard DOMA for what it is: a pervasive program of discrimination that changes 1100 laws and touches every aspect of life,” said Judith E. Schaeffer, the vice president of the liberal-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court decision keeps the door open to accountability for police officers who make false charges

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiaverini v. City...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 11, 2024

The People Who Dismantled Affirmative Action Have a New Strategy to Crush Racial Justice

Slate
Last summer, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority struck...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
April 12, 2024

TV (Gray TV): CAC’s Frazelle Joins Gray TV to Discuss Fourth Amendment Case at Supreme Court

Gray TV Washington News Bureau
Civil and Human Rights
April 22, 2024

RELEASE: Justices grapple with line-drawing but resist overturning important precedent in Eighth Amendment homelessness case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in City of...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
April 19, 2024

Will the Supreme Court Uphold the 14th Amendment and Block an Oregon Law Criminalizing Homelessness?

Nearly 38 million Americans live in poverty. In some areas and among some populations, entrenched economic...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
April 18, 2024

DEI critics were hoping that the Supreme Court’s Muldrow decision would undermine corporate diversity programs. It does no such thing

Fortune
The Supreme Court just delivered a big win for workers and workplace equality–but conservatives are...