This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/us/supreme-court-defense-of-marriage-act.html
The article has changed 14 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Justices Weigh Law Denying U.S. Benefits to Gay Spouses | |
| (about 4 hours later) | |
| WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court returns to the subject of same-sex marriage for a second day on Wednesday, when the justices hear arguments about the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. | WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court returns to the subject of same-sex marriage for a second day on Wednesday, when the justices hear arguments about the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. |
| While Tuesday’s case, about California’s ban on same-sex marriage, has the potential to establish a constitutional right for gay and lesbian couples to marry, Wednesday’s case is comparatively modest: it asks whether married same-sex couples are entitled to federal benefits. | While Tuesday’s case, about California’s ban on same-sex marriage, has the potential to establish a constitutional right for gay and lesbian couples to marry, Wednesday’s case is comparatively modest: it asks whether married same-sex couples are entitled to federal benefits. |
| The 1996 law defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman for purposes of more than 1,000 federal laws and programs, and it thus excludes married same-sex couples from benefits to which their opposite-sex counterparts are entitled. (Another part of the law, not before the court, says that states need not recognize same-sex marriages from other states.) | The 1996 law defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman for purposes of more than 1,000 federal laws and programs, and it thus excludes married same-sex couples from benefits to which their opposite-sex counterparts are entitled. (Another part of the law, not before the court, says that states need not recognize same-sex marriages from other states.) |
| Nine states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, and about 18,000 same-sex couples married in California before voters there overturned a State Supreme Court decision that had established a right to such marriages. | Nine states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, and about 18,000 same-sex couples married in California before voters there overturned a State Supreme Court decision that had established a right to such marriages. |
| If the United States Supreme Court strikes down the challenged part of the 1996 law, married same-sex couples in those places would start to receive federal benefits. But such a decision would not require any state that does not allow same-sex marriage to permit it. | If the United States Supreme Court strikes down the challenged part of the 1996 law, married same-sex couples in those places would start to receive federal benefits. But such a decision would not require any state that does not allow same-sex marriage to permit it. |
| A ruling reaching that larger question would have to come from the case argued Tuesday, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144. | A ruling reaching that larger question would have to come from the case argued Tuesday, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144. |
| Wednesday’s case, United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, concerns two New York City women, Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer, who married in 2007 in Canada. Ms. Spyer died in 2009, and Ms. Windsor inherited her property. | Wednesday’s case, United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, concerns two New York City women, Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer, who married in 2007 in Canada. Ms. Spyer died in 2009, and Ms. Windsor inherited her property. |
| The 1996 law did not allow the Internal Revenue Service to treat Ms. Windsor as a surviving spouse, and she faced a tax bill of about $360,000 that a spouse in an opposite-sex marriage would not have had to pay. | The 1996 law did not allow the Internal Revenue Service to treat Ms. Windsor as a surviving spouse, and she faced a tax bill of about $360,000 that a spouse in an opposite-sex marriage would not have had to pay. |
| Ms. Windsor sued, and in October the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, struck down the 1996 law. The decision was the second from a federal appeals court to do so, joining one last May from a court in Boston. | Ms. Windsor sued, and in October the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, struck down the 1996 law. The decision was the second from a federal appeals court to do so, joining one last May from a court in Boston. |
| When the Supreme Court agreed in December to hear her case, Ms. Windsor, 83, said she was thrilled. “I wish Thea was here to see what is going on,” she said. | When the Supreme Court agreed in December to hear her case, Ms. Windsor, 83, said she was thrilled. “I wish Thea was here to see what is going on,” she said. |
| The case features some unusual alignments, thanks to the Obama administration’s shifting attitudes toward same-sex marriage and the 1996 law. Until 2011, the federal government enforced and defended the law, as is customary for all federal laws. | The case features some unusual alignments, thanks to the Obama administration’s shifting attitudes toward same-sex marriage and the 1996 law. Until 2011, the federal government enforced and defended the law, as is customary for all federal laws. |
| But in February of that year, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he and President Obama had concluded that the law was unconstitutional and unworthy of defense in court. Mr. Holder added that the administration would continue to enforce the law. | But in February of that year, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he and President Obama had concluded that the law was unconstitutional and unworthy of defense in court. Mr. Holder added that the administration would continue to enforce the law. |
| That effectively put the administration on both sides of the case. It agrees with Ms. Windsor that the law is unconstitutional, but will not pay her the tax refund she seeks. House Republicans, represented by Paul D. Clement, a former United States solicitor general, intervened in the case to defend the law, losing in the lower courts. | That effectively put the administration on both sides of the case. It agrees with Ms. Windsor that the law is unconstitutional, but will not pay her the tax refund she seeks. House Republicans, represented by Paul D. Clement, a former United States solicitor general, intervened in the case to defend the law, losing in the lower courts. |
| Even though the administration’s legal position prevailed in the lower courts, it filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, saying the matter should be decided by the nation’s highest tribunal. | Even though the administration’s legal position prevailed in the lower courts, it filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, saying the matter should be decided by the nation’s highest tribunal. |
| The Supreme Court appointed Vicki C. Jackson, a law professor at Harvard, to argue a position not fully supported by any party: that the case’s odd procedural posture means the court lacks jurisdiction to decide it. The court scheduled a separate 50-minute argument on that question. | The Supreme Court appointed Vicki C. Jackson, a law professor at Harvard, to argue a position not fully supported by any party: that the case’s odd procedural posture means the court lacks jurisdiction to decide it. The court scheduled a separate 50-minute argument on that question. |
| The main argument, scheduled to last an hour, features a rematch between Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. and Mr. Clement, who were adversaries a year ago in arguments over President Obama’s health care law. Ms. Windsor is represented by Roberta A. Kaplan, a lawyer in New York with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. | The main argument, scheduled to last an hour, features a rematch between Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. and Mr. Clement, who were adversaries a year ago in arguments over President Obama’s health care law. Ms. Windsor is represented by Roberta A. Kaplan, a lawyer in New York with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is thought to hold the crucial vote in the case. He wrote the majority opinions in Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 decision that struck down a Texas law making gay sex a crime, and in Romer v. Evans, a 1996 decision that struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that banned the passage of laws protecting gay men and lesbians. | Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is thought to hold the crucial vote in the case. He wrote the majority opinions in Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 decision that struck down a Texas law making gay sex a crime, and in Romer v. Evans, a 1996 decision that struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that banned the passage of laws protecting gay men and lesbians. |
| In the Windsor case, two of Justice Kennedy’s central concerns — states’ rights and gay rights — may be said to align, and many observers predict that he will vote to strike down the law. | In the Windsor case, two of Justice Kennedy’s central concerns — states’ rights and gay rights — may be said to align, and many observers predict that he will vote to strike down the law. |