Search results
Jun 26, 2013 · United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) Windsor and Spyer, two women, married in Canada in 2007. Their home state, New York, recognized the marriage. Spyer died in 2009 and left her estate to Windsor, who sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
Jun 26, 2013 · The Supreme Court held that the United States Government, despite the executive branch's agreement regarding DOMA's unconstitutionality, retains a significant enough stake in the issue to support Supreme Court's jurisdiction.
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case [1] [2] [3] concerning same-sex marriage. The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Brief Fact Summary. Windsor (Plaintiff) sued to recover the tax payment she paid after inheriting her same-sex spouse’s estate and being denied the estate tax exemption for surviving spouses because the Defense of Marriage Act defines “marriage” and “spouse” to exclude same-sex couples.
Jun 26, 2013 · United States v. Windsor, legal case, decided on June 26, 2013, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (1996; DOMA), which had defined marriage for federal purposes as a legal union between one man and one woman.
UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, executor of the ESTATE OF SPYER, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit . No. 12–307. Argued March 27, 2013—Decided June 26, 2013 . The State of New York recognizes the marriage of New York residents Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who wed in Ontario, Canada, in 2007.
Mar 27, 2013 · Holding: Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on June 26, 2013. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion.
