United States v. Windsor: Difference between revisions
both cases prompt decision, not one |
no need to name the plaintiff's attorney's again |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
The administration intends to continue enforcing the law until it is either repealed by Congress or finally declared unconstitutional in court.<ref>GLAD: [http://www.glad.org/current/news-detail/glad-statement-on-dojs-announcement-it-wont-defend-constitutionality-of-dom/ "GLAD Statement on DOJ's Announcement it Won’t Defend Constitutionality of DOMA in Pedersen," February 23, 2011], accessed February 23, 2011</ref> |
The administration intends to continue enforcing the law until it is either repealed by Congress or finally declared unconstitutional in court.<ref>GLAD: [http://www.glad.org/current/news-detail/glad-statement-on-dojs-announcement-it-wont-defend-constitutionality-of-dom/ "GLAD Statement on DOJ's Announcement it Won’t Defend Constitutionality of DOMA in Pedersen," February 23, 2011], accessed February 23, 2011</ref> |
||
Judge James C. Francis has set April 18 as the deadline for Congress to intervene in the case. He also scheduled a May 9 conference with the Department of Justice, the House DOMA defense lawyers and |
Judge James C. Francis has set April 18 as the deadline for Congress to intervene in the case. He also scheduled a May 9 conference with the Department of Justice, the House DOMA defense lawyers and the plaintiff's attorneys lawyers to consider how to proceed in light of the President's decision.<ref>''Metro Weekly'' [http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/03/may-9-set-as-hearing-date-show.html "May 9 Set As Hearing Date Showdown Between DOJ and House GOP Lawyers in Windsor DOMA Case," March 15, 2011]</ref><ref>''Metro Weekly'': [http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/windsor_order.pdf "Order," March 15, 2011], accessed March 16, 2011</ref> |
||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Revision as of 19:04, 16 March 2011
| Windsor v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Full case name | Windsor v. The United States Of America |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | James C. Francis |
| Keywords | |
| Defense of Marriage Act, Equal protection, Same-sex marriage, State's rights | |
Windsor v. United States is a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff in the suit challenges the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines the terms "marriage" as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
The law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed Windsor v. United States in District Court in New York on behalf of Edith S. Windsor, the widow of Thea C. Spyer.[1] [2] The two New York women married in Toronto in 2007 and New York officially recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.[3][4] Windsor paid $350,000 in federal taxes on her inheritance from Spyer's estate. If federal law accorded their marriage the same status as opposite-sex marriages, she would have paid no tax."[5][6]
On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder released a memo regarding two lawsuits challenging DOMA Section 3, Windsor and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management. It explained that the Obama administration had determined that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, and therefore it could no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA's Section 3.[7] The Windsor and Pedersen cases are widely credited as the primary reason for Obama administration's decision.[8] [9] The administration intends to continue enforcing the law until it is either repealed by Congress or finally declared unconstitutional in court.[10]
Judge James C. Francis has set April 18 as the deadline for Congress to intervene in the case. He also scheduled a May 9 conference with the Department of Justice, the House DOMA defense lawyers and the plaintiff's attorneys lawyers to consider how to proceed in light of the President's decision.[11][12]
See also
References
- ^ ACLU: Complaint in Windsor v. United States, accessed March 1, 2011
- ^
Andrew M. Harris (28 February 2011). "Widow's $363,000 Tax Bill Led to Obama Shift on Marriage Act". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 5 March 2011.
{{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ ACLU: "Windsor v. United States: Edie Windsor Challenges DOMA," February 23, 2011, accessed February 28, 2011
- ^ Law.com:Mark Hamblett, "Obama No Longer Will Defend Marriage Act, February 24, 2011, accessed February 28, 2011
- ^ New York Times: John Schwartz, "Gay Couples to Sue Over U.S. Marriage Law," November 8, 2010, accessed February 28, 2011
- ^ Washington Blade: [Chris Johnson, "Two new lawsuits target DOMA," November 9, 2010], accessed February 28, 2011
- ^ "Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act" (Press release). United States Department of Justice. February 23, 2011. Retrieved February 23, 2011.
- ^ Wall Street Journal: "The Lawsuits Behind Obama’s Gay-Marriage Shift" February 23, 2011, accessed February 23, 2011
- ^ Washington Post: "Edie and Jerry: The real people behind DOJ's shift on DOMA," February 23, 2011, accessed February 23, 2011
- ^ GLAD: "GLAD Statement on DOJ's Announcement it Won’t Defend Constitutionality of DOMA in Pedersen," February 23, 2011, accessed February 23, 2011
- ^ Metro Weekly "May 9 Set As Hearing Date Showdown Between DOJ and House GOP Lawyers in Windsor DOMA Case," March 15, 2011
- ^ Metro Weekly: "Order," March 15, 2011, accessed March 16, 2011