Résultats de recherche
26 juin 2013 · United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) Windsor and Spyer, two women, married in Canada in 2007. Their home state, New York, recognized the marriage. Spyer died in 2009 and left her estate to Windsor, who sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case concerning same-sex marriage. The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment .
- Roberts
- United States, Petitioner v. Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.
- Kennedy, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
On November 9, 2010 Windsor filed suit in district court seeking a declaration that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. At the time the suit was filed, the government's position was that DOMA must be defended. On February 23, 2011, the President and the Attorney General announced that they would not defend DOMA.
UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, executor of the ESTATE OF SPYER, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit. No. 12–307. Argued March 27, 2013—Decided June 26, 2013. The State of New York recognizes the marriage of New York residents Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who wed in Ontario, Canada, in 2007.
26 juin 2013 · United States v. Windsor, legal case, decided on June 26, 2013, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (1996; DOMA), which had defined marriage for federal purposes as a legal union between one man and one woman.
Windsor claimed the federal estate-tax exemption for surviving spouses but was denied under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. § 7. The provision amends the definition of marriage to a “union between one man and one woman” and defines spouse as an opposite-sex husband or wife.
27 mars 2013 · Holding: Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on June 26, 2013. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion.
