United States v. Windsor
E138408
United States v. Windsor is a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act, advancing federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| United States v. Windsor canonical | 12 |
| United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor | 1 |
| United States v. Windsor (as part of the administration’s legal strategy on DOMA) | 1 |
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
LGBT rights case
ⓘ
U.S. Supreme Court case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ landmark case ⓘ |
| appealedFrom | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
U.S. federal constitutional law
ⓘ
civil rights law ⓘ family law (federal recognition aspects) ⓘ |
| argumentDate | 2013-03-27 ⓘ |
| citation |
133 S. Ct. 2675
ⓘ
186 L. Ed. 2d 808 ⓘ 570 U.S. 744 ⓘ |
| coDefendant | Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| decidingCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2013-06-26 ⓘ |
| defendant | United States of America ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 12-307 ⓘ |
| fullName |
United States v. Windsor
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor
|
| holding |
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons protected by the Fifth Amendment
ⓘ
federal government must recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed under state law for federal purposes ⓘ |
| impact |
advanced LGBT rights in the United States
ⓘ
invalidated federal non-recognition of same-sex marriages valid under state law ⓘ set precedent for Obergefell v. Hodges ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Elena Kagan
ⓘ
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| joinedScaliaDissent | Clarence Thomas ⓘ |
| leftIntact |
Defense of Marriage Act
ⓘ
surface form:
Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act
|
| legalIssue |
constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act
ⓘ
equal protection under the Fifth Amendment ⓘ federal recognition of same-sex marriages ⓘ federalism and state regulation of marriage ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ |
| originatedFromCourt | United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ⓘ |
| plaintiff | Edith Schlain Windsor ⓘ |
| relatedConstitutionalProvision | Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| relatedStatute | Defense of Marriage Act ⓘ |
| result | federal recognition of same-sex marriages for purposes of federal law ⓘ |
| struckDown |
Defense of Marriage Act
ⓘ
surface form:
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act
|
| subjectMatter |
federal benefits for married couples
ⓘ
same-sex marriage ⓘ |
| subjectOf |
LGBT rights litigation analysis
ⓘ
constitutional law scholarship ⓘ |
| term | 2012 term of the Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
Referenced by (14)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives
→
notableCaseInvolvement
→
United States v. Windsor
ⓘ
subject surface form:
Donald B. Verrilli Jr.
this entity surface form:
United States v. Windsor (as part of the administration’s legal strategy on DOMA)