Supreme Court Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act, Sends California’s Prop 8 Back To Lower Court

By a five-to-four vote in United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the part of the federal law denying legally married same-sex couples many of the benefits enjoyed by married heterosexual couples, is unconstitutional. 

In Windsor, Justice Anthony Kennedy unambiguously held that persons whose marriages have been recognized by a State cannot then go unrecognized by Federal law.  To quote from the decision:

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.  By seeking to displace this protection and treating these persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

It is important to note that another section of DOMA, which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, still stands.  It was not at issue in this case.

The justices split along the familiar liberal/conservative lines, with Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan supporting the decision.  Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented.

We have posted a copy of the United States v. Windsor decision online. 

In the other case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court said that the proponents of Proposition 8 did not have standing to defend in court the California law prohibiting same-sex marriage after the state refused to defend it. As a result, the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case but instead ordered the case back to the lower court for dismissal.

By way of background, the Proposition 8 initiative in California that outlawed same-sex marriage in the state was challenged in court immediately after the voters approved it in 2008. 

However, as the court case made its way through the system, the state of California decided against arguing for the law as it would normally do in defense of a state law being challenged.  In their absence, some of the original proponents of Prop 8 came forward to argue in support of the law since the state wouldn’t.  

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that these private proponents did not have standing in the case and should not have been allowed to argue for the law in court.  By denying standing in the case, the Court avoided ruling on the larger issue of the legality of same-sex marriage.  In the words of the Court:

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.

Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden todemonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the Dis­trict Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The “instructions to dismiss the appeal” means that this decision clears the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California, but the decision is limited to California only.

Interestingly, in Hollingsworth, the vote was again five-to-four, but this case did not follow the usual pattern.  Supporting the decision were Justices Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan.  Dissenting from the decision were Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor.

We have also posted a copy of the Hollingsworth v. Perry decision online.

We will be updating this story regularly throughout the day.

NPR’s story on the decisions can be found here.

SCOTUSblog, which has become the go-to site for understanding the Supreme Court, has a lot of clearly-written explanation of the decisions.  It can be found at www.scotusblog.com.

Update 11:50 a.m.

Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens has released a statement on the latest Supreme Court’s decisions, emphasizing that today’s decisions do not affect the state of Georgia:

The decision does not affect existing state definitions of marriage; in fact, it explicitly says that it is limited to marriages recognized by states as lawful. I agree with the Chief Justice that this limitation means what it says. The definition of marriage adopted by Georgia’s voters is unaffected by today’s decision.”

We have posted a copy of his complete statement online.

Update 1:55 p.m.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed has released a statement on the Supreme Court’s ruling that DOMA was unconstitutional, a decision that Mayor Reed called “courageous”:

“It is my hope that today’s decision puts our nation on an inevitable path toward the day when all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation, can enjoy equal protection under the law and marry the ones they love. ”

We have posted the mayor’s entire statement online.

Like many other public figures, Mayor Reed’s position on gay marriage changed last year after several years of opposition to same-sex marriage on religious grounds. He subsequently signed an Atlanta City Council resolution supporting same-sex marriage.

Update 2:25 p.m.

A few minutes ago, former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr gave us a statement regarding today’s DOMA decision.  Barr was a member of Congress when DOMA was originally passed.  The following is his complete statement:

I personally believe marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman and, if it were on the ballot in Georgia, I’d vote that way. However, I have come to believe that it’s yet one more example of the federal government’s delving into areas that throughout our history have been best left to the states. I trust the judgement [sic] of the people of Georgia more than that of Washington, DC.

Update 2:50 p.m.

Democrats in Georgia are very pleased with today’s Supreme Court decisions, according to the Georgia Democratic Party.  “Discrimination, in any form, is wrong,” said Interim Chairwoman Nikema Williams.  “We applaud the court for recognizing that people in loving, caring relationships are afforded certain rights under the law – regardless of gender.” 

State Rep. Simone Bell (D-58) was pleased that same-sex marriages in 12 states will be recognized by the federal government but was not pleased that Georgia is not one of them:

“It’s a bitter sweet [sic] day for states like Georgia since our 2004 constitutional ban on same sex marriage was not nullified by the SCOTUS decision on Defense of Marriage Act. However, those who believe in equality will not rest. We will continue to fight, strategize and build on this historic decision.”

We have posted the Democrat’s statement online in its entirety.

Update 3:40 p.m.

We have learned that NPR will air a live program at 8:00 p.m. tonight to discuss this week’s major Supreme Court decisions.  Here’s a description of the program:

The Supreme Court is finishing its year with rulings on three major cases:  affirmative action in college admissions, the pre-clearance requirements of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the status of gay marriage (Prop 8 and DOMA). 

Join host Linda Wertheimer with guests Ron Elving, Senior Washington Editor, Nina Totenberg, Legal Affairs Correspondent, Tom Goldstein, publisher of and contributor to SCOTUSblog  and Michael Fauntroy, Associate Professor of Political Science at Howard University for an hour long special that will look at these rulings and reflect on the past year with SCOTUS.

WABE will broadcast this live program at 8:00 p.m. tonight instead of the regularly-scheduled program Tell Me More.

Update 3:55 p.m.

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Atlanta, Wilton D. Gregory, released a statement in which he says the Supreme Court’s decision on DOMA “threatens religious freedom”, is “regrettable” and is ”extremely disturbing”:

Today’s unfortunate decision by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act is extremely disappointing.  The Catholic Church promotes and defends marriage by teaching about marriage’s authentic meaning as a lifelong, exclusive, and fruitful communion of one man and one woman. Today’s decision is part of a public debate of great consequence. The future of marriage and the well-being of our society hang in the balance.

As with other reactions, we have posted this statement online.  In addition, a recorded version of this statement is available at the Archdiocese’s website.