United States v. Windsor
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 Anthony McLeod Kennedy on Jun 26, 2013. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Thomas joined and in which Chief Justice Roberts joined as to Part I. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Thomas joined as to parts II and III.
Disclosure: Kevin Russell of the law firm Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel on an”amicus“brief filed by former senators in support of Edith Windsor in this case.
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. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Thomas joined and in which Chief Justice Roberts joined as to Part I. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Thomas joined as to parts II and III.
Recommended Citation: United States v. Windsor, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/windsor-v-united-states-2/