On June 26, 2013, The United States Supreme Court decided two landmark cases that drastically affected the rights of same sex couples in California and the nation. The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act making it possible to extend federal benefits to legally married same sex couples. The Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry et al. also rejected an appeal which sought to reinstate the Proposition 8 ban on same sex marriages in California, making it legal, once again, for same sex couples to be married in California.
United States v. Windsor and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
California has recognized same sex unions for some time in the form of domestic partnerships and through legal marriages during the period between the Court’s ruling in In Re Marriages Cases ,43 Cal.App 4th 757 (2008) in May 2008 and the passage of Proposition 8 in November 2008 banning same sex marriages. However, same sex unions were not afforded all the rights that married opposite sex couples enjoyed. These limitations were all imposed with the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 which defined marriage as “legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” 1 U.S.C. §7. As an example, same sex couples were not eligible to receive social security benefits if a spouse died and although spouses in a same sex marriage could appoint their partner as a beneficiary on any state governed private retirement plan, they were not allowed to do so under federal plans. Same sex couples also could not file joint federal income tax returns.
Those limitations were abolished for legally married same sex couples with the ruling in United States v. Windsor 570 U.S. ____ (2013). Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a same sex couple residing in New York State, were married in Canada in 2007 because New York had not yet legalized same sex marriage. When Thea Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to her partner, Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, but was barred from doing so because §3 of DOMA defined marriage as between “one man and one woman”. Under this definition, Windsor could not qualify as a surviving spouse. Windsor paid $363,053 in estate taxes to the federal government and then sought a refund from the IRS which was immediately denied. Windsor brought suit to collect her estate taxes, contending that DOMA violates the principles of equal protection incorporated in the Fifth Amendment.
Though the Department of Justice opted not to defend §3’s constitutionality, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives voted to intervene in the litigation to defend §3. The District Court permitted the intervention but ruled against the United States, finding §3 unconstitutional and ordering the Treasury to refund Windsor’s tax with interest. The Second Circuit affirmed and the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy struck down §3 of DOMA. He reasoned that if a marriage is sanctioned by a state then the Federal government has no right to contradict that marriage and deny those couples federal rights afforded other married couples. Justice Kennedy wrote:
DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.
570 U.S. 22-23 (2013).
While the Supreme Court spoke strongly about upholding the rights of same sex marriages, the holding in Windsor is not a federal mandate or federal recognition of same sex marriages. The Windsor ruling only extends federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples. Same sex couples who live in states where same sex marriage is not sanctioned do not benefit by this ruling.
The Federal rights now afforded to same sex couples who are legally married in the state of California or any other state that recognizes same sex marriages include, but are not limited to the following;
– Federal Tax Returns: same sex couples may now file joint federal tax returns
– Social Security: surviving spouses may qualify for Social Security benefits
– Family and Medical Leave Act: same sex couples now qualify under FMLA and may receive benefits while caring for an ailing spouse
– Employee Benefits for Federal Workers: benefits now extend to same sex spouses
– Veteran and Military Benefits: benefits now extend to same sex spouses
Though the Windsor ruling opens many doors for legally married same sex couples, it will take some time to implement these benefits and answer some of the questions on which the decision is silent. For instance, it is still unclear whether the DOMA decision will be applied retroactively allowing for the filing of amended tax returns. The decision also does not address the fact that the IRS defines marriage by the laws of the state of residence and not the state of marriage. So a same-sex couple married in California who move to a state that does not recognize same sex marriage may or may not be able to claim federal benefits.
Hollingsworth et al v. Kristin Perry et al. and Proposition 8
In its second ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of Proposition 8. With the passage of Proposition 8 in November 2008, same sex marriages were once again banned in California. Kristin Perry and her partner Sandra Stier challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 8 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. On August 4, 2010 District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 holding that it was unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it denied gays and lesbians marriage licenses: When local officials refused to defend Proposition 8, its proponents stepped in and challenged the District Court ruling in Hollingsworth et al v. Kristin Perry et al. The California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit held that the proponents had standing to challenge the District Court ruling. The case came up for review before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the proponents did not have standing, negating the need for a review of the merits. The Court specifically found that while the proponents had standing to challenge the constitutionality of Prop 8 in the District Court case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, it did not have standing to appeal the District Court decision once the District court determined that Prop 8 was illegal since the Court did not order the proponents to do anything or refrain from doing anything and therefore suffered no harm.
The Hollingsworth ruling is a procedural ruling. Because the Appellants did not have standing to appeal the case, the U.S. Supreme Court did not address the constitutionality of Proposition 8, leaving Judge Walker’s District Court ruling overruling Proposition 8 firmly intact. On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit panel removed the stay placed on the District Court’s order, allowing same-sex marriages to proceed once again in California. On that same day, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, the plaintiffs in the underlying District Court case, were married in San Francisco with California Attorney General Kamala Harris officiating at the ceremony.