Windsor v. United States (in part)
E90997
United States Supreme Court case
constitutional law case
federal jurisdiction case
landmark civil rights case
same-sex marriage case
Windsor v. United States (in part) is a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down key portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, advancing federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Windsor v. United States (in part) canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T752723 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Windsor v. United States (in part) Context triple: [Equal Protection Clause, basisFor, Windsor v. United States (in part)]
-
A.
Dickerson v. United States
Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
-
B.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
C.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
D.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
E.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Windsor v. United States (in part) Target entity description: Windsor v. United States (in part) is a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down key portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, advancing federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
-
A.
Dickerson v. United States
Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
-
B.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
C.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
D.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
E.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (52)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
constitutional law case ⓘ federal jurisdiction case ⓘ landmark civil rights case ⓘ same-sex marriage case ⓘ |
| appealedFrom | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 2013-03-27 ⓘ |
| challengedProvision | Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ⓘ |
| challengedStatute | Defense of Marriage Act ⓘ |
| citation |
133 S. Ct. 2675
ⓘ
186 L. Ed. 2d 808 ⓘ 570 U.S. 744 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Due Process Clause
ⓘ
surface form:
Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause
equal protection principles incorporated into the Fifth Amendment ⓘ |
| counselForRespondent | Roberta A. Kaplan ⓘ |
| counselForUnitedStates | Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2013-06-26 ⓘ |
| defendant | United States of America ⓘ |
| dissentingJustice |
Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
John G. Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
|
| docketNumber | No. 12-307 ⓘ |
| fullName | United States v. Windsor ⓘ |
| holding |
Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons protected by the Fifth Amendment
ⓘ
federal government must recognize same-sex marriages that are lawful under state law ⓘ the Court had jurisdiction despite the Executive’s agreement with the lower court judgment ⓘ |
| impact |
expanded federal benefits to married same-sex couples
ⓘ
invalidated federal non-recognition of same-sex marriages valid under state law ⓘ paved the way for Obergefell v. Hodges ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Elena Kagan
ⓘ
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Article III standing
ⓘ
equal protection under the Fifth Amendment ⓘ federal recognition of same-sex marriages ⓘ jurisdiction when the United States declines to defend a statute ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ |
| originatingCourt | United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ⓘ |
| party | Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives ⓘ |
| plaintiff | Edith Schlain Windsor ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Hollingsworth v. Perry
ⓘ
Obergefell v. Hodges ⓘ |
| remedy | affirmed the judgment of the Second Circuit ⓘ |
| secondCircuitHolding | heightened scrutiny applies to classifications based on sexual orientation ⓘ |
| shortName | Windsor ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
LGBT rights in the United States
ⓘ
marriage recognition ⓘ |
| termOfCourt | October Term 2012 ⓘ |
| vote | 5-4 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Windsor v. United States (in part) Description of subject: Windsor v. United States (in part) is a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down key portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, advancing federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.