Supreme Court strikes down DOMA
The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a key piece of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies federal recognition to same-sex marriages.
June 26, 2013 at 08:16 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a key piece of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies federal recognition to same-sex marriages.
The court ruled 5-4 that Section 3 of the law, which prevents married same-sex couples from receiving federal benefits, is unconstitutional because it “violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government.”
“DOMA's avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the states,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito wrote three separate dissenting opinions, with Scalia arguing that the court should not have ruled on DOMA and that it was wrong on the merits.
The court did not rule on the merits of Hollingsworth v. Perry, another notable gay marriage case centering on Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative that banned gay marriage in the state. A federal judge struck down the ban and, after state officials declined to defend the measure on appeal, its private sponsors pursued the appeal with the 9th Circuit.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled 5-4 that the sponsors did not have the standing to defend the law. “We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. Roberts was joined in his opinion by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer.
Instead the high court sent the case back to California, where the district court's decision to invalidate the initiative stands.
Although neither ruling held that gay couples have a constitutional right to marriage, they still represent victories for gay rights advocates.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of the gay marriage debate, see:
Rhode Island becomes 10th state to legalize gay marriage
High court hears cases on gay marriage
2nd Circuit strikes down Defense of Marriage Act
Boy Scouts reaffirm policy against admitting gay leaders
1st Circuit strikes down DOMA, sets stage for SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Free Microsoft Browser Extension Is Costing Content Creators, Class Action Claims
- 2Reshaping IP Policy Under the Second Trump Administration
- 3Lawyers' Reenactment Footage Leads to $1.5M Settlement
- 4People in the News—Feb. 4, 2025—McGuireWoods, Barley Snyder
- 5Eighth Circuit Determines No Standing for Website User Concerned With Privacy Who Challenged Session-Replay Technology
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250