DOMA Found Unconstitutional By High Court.

Two New York women were lawfully married in Canada in 2007. One of them died in 2009, leaving her entire estate to the survivor who sought to claim the estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. The Defense of Marriage Act [28 U.S.C. § 1738C ; DOMA] barred her from succeeding on her exemption claim. § 3 of DOMA amends the Dictionary Act [1 U.S.C. § 7] to provide: “. . . the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” The high court, in an opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, and joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, noted that New York recognizes same-sex marriages, and stated DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government. The opinion further states: “DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.”

In his dissent, joined by Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia stated the majority opinion is “jaw-dropping,” and “an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere ‘primary’ in its role.” U.S. v. Windsor  (U.S. Sup. Ct.; June 26, 2013) 133 S.Ct. 2675, [186 L.Ed.2d 808].