Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer first met in New York City in 1963. Having been in a committed long-term relationship they registered as domestic partners in New York in 1993, the year such partnership status became availableIn light of Spyer’s long-term suffering caused by multiple sclerosis and a heart condition, the couple decided to formally wed in Canada in 2007 

Spyer passed away in February 2009, leaving Windsor as her widow and sole executor of the estate.

Their marriage was recognized by New York state law but, upon Spyer’s death, Windsor was denied a spousal deduction for her federal estate taxes under a federal law.  This provision allows such a deduction when property passes from the decedent to the surviving spouse. However, DOMA’s Section 3 states that for the purposes of federal law the words “marriage” and “spouse” refer only to legal unions between one man and one woman. ,

Because of this definition, when Spyer left her estate to 

Windsor, the federal government imposed $363,053 in taxes on Spyer’s estate. Had the government recognized their marriage, the estate would have qualified for the spousal exemption and Windsor would not have had to pay any taxes 

Windsor commenced this suit seeking a full refund of the federal estate tax and a declaration that DOMA’s Section 3 is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The case

Problem:issue is whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the right to equal protection of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law. 

The procedural issue is whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this case in light of the executive branch’s refusal to defend the law in court

 Discussion

The Obama Administration argues Section 3, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause and advocates for heightened scrutiny of laws discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. 

Analysis

According to the United States and Windsor, classifications based on sexual orientation fit all four of the factors the Court has identified to trigger heightened scrutiny 

the United States points out gay and lesbian people have been subject to a history of discrimination, including a history of criminal prosecutions for the private and consensual sexual conduct, and other discrimination in employment, immigration, hate crimes, child custody, police enforcement, and voter referenda. Windsor notes that much of this discrimination has come from the government itself. Second, sexual orientation is not related to the ability of people to perform or contribute to society, so the government cannot legitimately take sexual orientation into account for classification purposes

United States contends that gay and lesbian people are both a minority and politically powerless. While the United States does mention success for same-sex marriage initiatives in three states this past November

 the  United States argues it is more appropriate to look at the longer history of same-sex marriage initiatives where voters have barred same-sex marriage through amendments to state constitutions  Windsor also asserts he political power of gay and lesbian people today is less than that of women when they were granted status as a semi-suspect class