Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
DOJ Memo in Support of Edie Windsor

DOJ Memo in Support of Edie Windsor

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,009|Likes:
Published by JoeSudbay
DOJ supports Edie Windsor's case against DOMA, which is now being defended by John Boehner and his lawyer, Paul Clement.
DOJ supports Edie Windsor's case against DOMA, which is now being defended by John Boehner and his lawyer, Paul Clement.

More info:

Published by: JoeSudbay on Aug 20, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

01/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
 )EDITH SCHLAIN WINDSOR,
et al.
,))Plaintiff,)v.)Civil Action No. 10-CV-8435 (BSJ)(JCF))THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )ECF CASE)Defendant.))
DEFENDANT UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM OF LAWIN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTAND INTERVENOR’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ -JCF Document 72 Filed 08/19/11 Page 1 of 30
 
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act(“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7. Plaintiff brings this action as the executor of her late same-sexspouse’s estate, seeking a refund of $363,053.00 of federal estate taxes that – but for DOMA – the estate would not have paid due to the marital deduction.Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates. Section 3 treats same-sex coupleswho are legally married under their states’ laws differently than similarly situated opposite-sexcouples, denying them the status, recognition, and significant federal benefits otherwise availableto married persons. Under well-established factors set forth by the Supreme Court to guide thedetermination whether heightened scrutiny applies to a classification that singles out a particular group, discrimination based on sexual orientation merits heightened scrutiny. Under thisstandard of review, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. 1
Case 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ -JCF Document 72 Filed 08/19/11 Page 2 of 30
 
BACKGROUNDI.THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
The Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) was enacted by Congress in 1996. DOMA hastwo main provisions. Section 2 of DOMA provides that no state is required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of another state that treats a relationship between two persons of the same sex as a marriage under its laws. 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. Section 3 of DOMAdefines the terms “marriage” and “spouse” for purposes of federal law:In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation,or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the UnitedStates, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and onewoman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of theopposite sex who is a husband or a wife.1 U.S.C. § 7. Section 3 thereby excludes same-sex relationships from the definition of marriageor spouse for purposes of federal law, even if that relationship is recognized under state law.Only Section 3 is at issue here.
II.PLAINTIFFS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Plaintiff Edith Schlain Windsor and her late spouse Thea Clara Spyer were married inToronto, Canada in May 2007. Am. Compl. ¶ 3. At that time, the couple had been livingtogether in New York for approximately 40 years.
See
 
id. ¶¶
26, 28. New York law thenrestricted marriage to opposite-sex couples, s
ee
 
 Hernandez v. Robles
,
 
7 N.Y.3d 338, 357 (2006), but “accord[ed] marriages between same-sex couples the same legal validity as marriages between opposite-sex couples. New York has long recognized as valid same-sex marriages thatwere solemnized under the laws of other States or nations, such as plaintiff Edith Windsor’sCanadian marriage to Thea Spyer.” Brief for the State of New York as Amicus Curiae in2
Case 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ -JCF Document 72 Filed 08/19/11 Page 3 of 30

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
dbreith liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->