United States: Doma And The Constitution

June 27, 2013.  Yesterday was a landmark day in America.  The United States Supreme Court ruled that a statute passed by a large majority of both houses of Congress (by 5:1 margins) and approved as law by President Clinton on subjects related directly to the operation of the national government was unconstitutional because it encroached upon the rights of the individual states to regulate matters of family law.  It is a fascinating decision and it features some fascinating dissenting opinions that merit careful thought.

The case involved a homosexual or lesbian couple who married lawfully in Canada.  They lived and one of them died in New York state, a state that does give recognition to a marriage formed by two people of the same sex.  One of the pair died and left a substantial inheritance to her married partner.  As most of us know, the United States taxes the estates of those who die possessed of wealth of a certain size and that tax is substantial.  If you are married at the time of your death, you may leave an unlimited amount of wealth to your spouse without paying any estate tax.  If you leave it to someone not your spouse, the estate tax is imposed.

In 1996 Congress enacted and the executive branch signed the Defense of Marriage Act.  In substance it provided that all of the benefit's the federal government conferred upon married couples were not to be made available unless the couple consisted of a man and a woman.  When Thea Speyer died and left her estate to her spouse Edith Windsor the United States imposed $360,000 in estate taxes because, under DOMA, the government of the United States did not recognize their marriage even though Canada had sanctioned it and New York (their home state) had, by judicial decision and state executive order given recognition to these relationships.

Ms, Windsor paid the tax but sued for a refund claiming that DOMA deprived her of equal protection under the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution.  Put simply, Ms. Windsor contended that the government of the United States had no justifiable basis to discriminate between married persons of the same sex and married persons of opposite sex.  The trial court, which is to say the United States District Court in Manhattan agreed with Ms. Windsor and directed the Internal Revenue Service to refund the tax on the basis that the 1996 DOMA did discriminate based on sexual orientation without a sound basis to do so.  Even though the Obama administration announced that it actually agreed with the District Court, it filed an appeal nonetheless so that the case could be reviewed by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals.  The clear purpose was to secure appellate review of the case even though the government agreed with the taxpayer.  On October 18, 2012 a three judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that persons of the same sex who were married under state law were a "quasi suspect" class for whom heightened scrutiny would be employed in evaluating any statute that treated them differently than others.  This was the first cases in which a United States appellate court had defined people of the same sex as quasi suspect and that statutes subjecting them to differing treatment were subject to intermediate scrutiny.

The United State Supreme Court decided to hear the case in December, 2012 although their order granting review directed the parties to brief whether this was a true "case or controversy" since the executive branch had taken the legal position on appeal that Ms. Windsor was wrongfully discriminated against and entitled to her tax refund.

A side note.  On June 6 of this year the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reported that for the first time, a majority of Americans favor same sex marriage while 42% continue to oppose it.  The study noted how quickly attitudes toward this change in a fundamental institution of life had changed in the past decade.

Nonetheless, despite what the public may think, the Congress has never repealed or modified this law.  In its decision on June 26, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit decision and held that DOMA effectively created contradictory legal approaches to the same relationship within one state and thus diminished the predictability and therefore, the stability of relationships that the State of New York had, decided to endorse.  The decision was 5 justice voted to affirm and 4 dissented.

For this writer, what we see in the Windsor case is a sound public principal erected upon a very suspect constitutional base.  Were I King, (an aspiration which has thus far been thwarted) I would get government out of the business of deciding who could be married and who could not. Anyone of any sexual orientation could register to be married and thus voluntarily subject themselves to state laws governing marriage and divorce based upon their own decision.  Moreover, I don't think it can be lost on any thinking individual that while we pretend to celebrate marriage through legislation like DOMA, we have concurrently made divorce more easily available than ever before (at least during what we term the "Christian era").

But the dissenting opinions of Justices Roberts, Alito and Scalia note that there are profound procedural and substantive defects with the reasoning of the majority opinion.  The procedural one has to do with what Constitutional scholars call the real case or controversy doctrine.  The original of the principle dates to the administration of President Washington when the administration asked Chief Justice John Jay for advice concerning a federal law.  Jay wrote in response that the Supreme Court was not an advisory arm of government but an adjudicative one where only real cases involving adverse parties would be heard.  In this case, the United States took an appeal from a decision which it said it agreed with (DOMA is unconstitutional) in the hope that appellate courts would sustain their view of the law even though the view of the administration was directly opposite that enacted by the people through their representatives in Congress.  In 1911 a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that it would not hear a case involving Indian affairs where the court found the two parties before the court were not adverse but merely seeking an advisory opinion.  Muskrat v. United States 219 U.S. 346.

On the substantive side the Court did not find this to be a case commanding strict scrutiny as in race and sex based bias. There, the discrimination has been positively legislated against. Ironically, whether one sees it for better or worse, Congress legislated for this kind of discrimination, just as it has in the past approved laws discriminating in favor of veterans, first time home buyers or a panoply of other classes.  In this case the Court majority has said this is an encroachment of states rights to regulate family relations.

Certainly, there is a long history of the United States government abstaining from involvement in cases involving child custody, divorce, support and adoption. * But, here, the United States was not attempting to pre-empt state law or otherwise undermine its effect.  In the case of Ms. Speyer's estate, the government said only that because of the nature of their relationship, the Speyer-Windsor family was not eligible for a federal exemption from a federal estate tax.  If Ms. Speyer and Ms. Windsor had lived for fifty years together in a state of complete harmony but without the benefit of a Canadian marriage license, the tax would have been due and collectible.  If one wishes to argue that this form of discrimination is stupid, this author would wholeheartedly agree.  But can we really say that the federal government has wrongfully encroached upon a state's rights to regulate the family relationship of its citizens by adopting legislation that imposes a federal tax on a state's citizens.  Had DOMA held that New York could not recognize marriage by persons of the same sexual orientation, I join with a majority.  But in this case, while I "concur" with the result espoused by the majority, a constitutional subterfuge was employed that leaves me uneasy.

In the end, neither side really got what they wanted.  As the Wall Street Journal noted in its editorial this morning, what will become of the couple that marries in Hawaii while working for the United States government, only to be re-assigned by the government to a state that does not recognize marriages between same sex individuals?  Is it an act of discrimination for the government to make such an assignment because it will affect how the couple would be treated?

DOMA was an ill-conceived statute that merely pretended to "preserve marriage."  It has now bred a decision that pretends to celebrate federalism and the rights of states to experiment this experiment will be one marked by continued confusion.

*     The Congress has successfully entered this area before with statutes like the Parental Kidnap Prevention Act 28 U.S.C. 1728; The Child Support Recovery Act 18 U.SC. 228; Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.

**. Another curiosity. Ms. Speyer and Ms. Windsor married in 2007 and Ms. Speyer died in 2009.  Ms. Windsor asserted her spousal exemption rights not under a state statute (that was not passed until June, 2011) but what amounted to an executive order issued by then Gov. David Patterson in May, 2008 following a case decided by a New York Appeals Court.  See Martinez v. County of Monroe 850 NYS 2d 740 (2008).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions