United States, Petitioner v. Edith Schlain Windsor

Summary

The Court first held that it possessed jurisdiction despite the Executive's agreement with Windsor: the unpaid refund order left the United States with a real economic stake, and BLAG's vigorous defense of DOMA supplied the adverseness that prudential considerations demand. On the merits, it held that Section 3 of DOMA — which defines 'marriage' and 'spouse' under federal law to exclude same-sex partners — is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment, because its purpose and effect were to impose disadvantage, a separate status, and stigma on the very class of state-lawful marriages New York sought to protect, and it affirmed the Second Circuit's judgment ordering a refund. The Court expressly declined to decide whether BLAG has standing on its own authority and whether DOMA's intrusion on state power violates federalism. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Alito each dissented, arguing the Court lacked jurisdiction and that DOMA served legitimate interests in uniformity and stability rather than animus.