DOMA at SCOTUS

It isn't often that cases before the US Supreme Court are easily understood by the average American, but United States v Windsor, the case involving the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, is one such case.

The respondent in this case, Edith Windsor, was married to Thea Spyer in Canada in 2007. The couple's marriage was legally recognized by the state of New York where they lived. When Spyer died in 2009, Windsor should have been entitled to inherit her wife's estate without tax penalty, but because DOMA prohibits the Federal government from recognizing any marriage that involves people of the same gender, Windsor was on the hook to the IRS for more than $360,000. She sued in Federal District Court based on the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. When the US Department of Justice notified the court that it was unwilling to defend the government in the suit, a strange thing happened: The House of Representatives intervened using the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to defend the government. This was an extraordinary event for BLAG, a group that prior to Windsor had filed mostly amicus briefs, because instead of advising the Congress about legal issues, it was fulfilling a role of the executive branch as defined by the Judiciary Act of 1789. In spite of this monumental shift in the separation of powers, the Court nonetheless found that Section III of DOMA was unconstitutional, and Windsor was entitled to a refund.

DOJ, on behalf of BLAG, appealed to the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals, where Windsor again prevailed, the Court again citing the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment. The 2-1 majority found that, "(h)omosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public." Essentially saying that allowing voters to decide this case was unfair because it made partners in same-sex marriages a quasi-suspect class. 

Should the SCOTUS reverse the lower courts, it would require them to rule in favor of Federal law superseding state law. This would be especially surprising given that the current Court has a history of favoring states' rights.