My first take on today’s oral argument in the Supreme Court:
The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556, on April 28, considering the questions whether same-sex couples have a right to marry and to have their marriages recognized by states other than those in which they marry. The case consolidated appeals from the plaintiffs in four states – Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky — whose district court … <Read More>
Yesterday the Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Windsor, affirming the 2nd Circuit and holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the 5th Amendment, and Hollingsworth v. Perry, holding that the initiative proponents of Proposition 8, who had been allowed to intervene in its defense at trial, lacked standing to appeal the district court’s ruling. The decisions will go into effect after the Court issues its mandate, which is normally … <Read More>
[First draft of history. This posting was written within the first few hours after the Supreme Court’s release of its decisions this morning in US v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry. I’ll certainly have second thoughts and third thoughts, etc…. but this is the first draft of history.]
In a pair of 5-4 rulings released on June 26, the United States Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates … <Read More>
This morning, March 27, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, in which Edith Schlain Windsor, the surviving spouse of Thea Clara Spyer, sued the federal government in her capacity as executor of her wife’s estate for a refund of the estate tax that was levied in 2009. At issue in the case is the constitutionality of Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which … <Read More>
When the Supreme Court granted the Solicitor General’s petition for certiorari on December 7, 2012, in United States v. Edith Windsor, posing the question whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection rights of married same-sex couples by denying them federal recognition, the Court added two questions: Whether the government’s “agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives [the Supreme Court] of jurisdiction to decide this case, and … <Read More>