This meant, for example, that individuals in same-sex marriages were ineligible for benefits from federal programmes such as the Social Security pension system if their partners died.
Edith Windsor, an 83-year-old widow, said it was unfair that she was required to pay $363,000 (£239,000) in extra taxes after her wife's death, simply because she was a woman
The Case
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a same sex couple residing in New Yorkwere lawfully married in Ontario,Canada in 2007.
Thea Spyer died in 2009, leaving her entire Estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the Federal Estate Tax Exemption for surviving spouses . She was barred from doing so by Section 3 of DOMA), which provided that the term "spouse" only applies to a marriage between a man and woman.
The Internal Revenue Service found that the exemption did not apply to 'Same Sex Marriage' denied Edith Windsor's claim, and compelled her to pay $363,053 in estate taxes
On November 9, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against the federal government in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Windsor sought a refund because DOMA singled out legally married same-sex couples for "differential treatment compared to other similarly situated couples without justification
On February 23, 2011, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement from the Obama administration that agreed with the plaintiff's position that DOMA violated the US Constitution and said he would no longer defend the law in court
On April 18, 2011,Paul Clement representing the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group(BLAG) continued defense of the law
US District Court for the Southern District of New York Decision
On June 6, 2012, Judge Barbara S Jones ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and ordered the federal government to issue the tax refund, including interest
The US Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on October 18, 2012
Appeal To US Supreme Court
BLAG and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court which granted a writof certiorari in December 2012
On March 27, 2013, the court heard oral arguments
SC Decision
On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision declaring Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional "as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment
Hollingsworth v Perry, filed by two lawyers, Theodore Olson and David Boies, working together on behalf of their California clients -
Sandra Stier and Kristin Perry
Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami
The Case
In May 2009, the alameda County Clerk-Registrar, Patrick O'Connell, denied Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier a marriage license because they are a same-sex couple
For the same reason, Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County Clerk, denied Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo a marriage license
The couples sued the two county clerks and several state officials
Attorney General Jerry Brown chose not to defend the lawsuit, saying that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution and should be struck down.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also declined to participate in the defense but said it was appropriate for the courts to hear the case and "resolve the merits of this action expeditiously" because it "presents important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination
Decision
On August 4, 2010, Judge Walker announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning Proposition 8 based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution
JudgeWalker concluded that California had no rational basis or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses .He further noted that Proposition 8 was based on traditional notions of opposite-sex marriage and on moral disapproval of homosexuality, neither of which is a legal basis for discrimination.
The State of California did not appeal the decision. However, the defendant-intervenors (including the official proponents of Proposition 8) did challenge it.
Court of Appeals
On August 4, 2010, the defendant-intervenors filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit
On August 12, 2010, the defendant-intervenors filed an "emergency motion" in the Ninth Circuit for a Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
On August 16, 2010, the Ninth Circuit unanimously granted the motion to stay, ordered expedited briefing on the merits of the appeal, and directed the parties to brief the issue of why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of standing
The merits were heard by a different 3-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit consisting of -
- Michael Hawkins
- Stephen Reinhardt
- N Randy Smith
On December 6, 2010, the judges heard oral arguments, which were also televised and made available on C-SPAN
Court of Appeals Decision
On February 7, 2012, the 3-Judge Panel Ruled 2–1 in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional
Judge Reinhardt authored the majority opinion and Judge Smith filed a dissent on the constitutional issue while concurring that the defendant-intervenors had the standing to appeal and that Judge Walker's ruling should not be denied
On February 21, 2012, Proposition 8 supporters requested an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit
On June 5, 2012, the request was denied; at least four of the twenty-nine judges would have decided to rehear the case. The ruling was temporarily stayed to allow an appeal to the US Supreme Court
Appeal to US Supreme Court
On July 31,2012,Proponents of Proposition 8 appealed the case (captioned Hollingsworth v. Perry) to the U.S. Supreme Court
On August 24, opponents of Proposition 8 asked the Supreme Court not to hear the case.
On Dec 7,2012,The US Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case ordering the parties to brief and argue the additional question of whether supporters of Prop. 8 have standing i.e., a legal right to be involved in the case, under Article III , Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution
US Supreme Court Decision
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court rendered its 5–4 decision, declining to revisit the Ninth Circuit's decision, because it disagreed with the Ninth Circuit's decision affirming the proponents' standing.
On November 2, 2010, Brown was elected Governor and Kamala Harris was elected attorney general.Both ran on platforms promising not to defend the proposition, so despite the change of administration, the state continued to decline defending Proposition 8 in court.The Court stated that the backers of Proposition 8 had in fact lacked appellant standing,and that "Petitioners’ arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive".For the same reason the Supreme Court ruled Proposition 8 proponents lacked standing at the Supreme Court, they also ruled they had lacked standing at the appeal court, and that ruling too should have been dismissed for lack of standing. Therefore the case was returned to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to vacate their former ruling (affirming the district court's overturn of Proposition 8). This leaves the original district court ruling (overturning Proposition 8) as the final ruling in the case; it also means that the Supreme Court did not discuss the underlying substantive merits of the case, and the case has not resulted in a formal precedent for states other than California
On June 28,2013,following the Supreme Court decision,the same Ninth Circuit panel dissolved its stay of the district court's order, allowing same-sex marriages to proceed in California
The same day, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, plaintiffs in the case, married with California Attorney General Kamala Harris officiating at the ceremony
Two legal challenges to the implementation of the ruling followed, both dismissed by the courts
- The day after the Ninth Circuit dissolved its stay, proponents of
Proposition 8 filed an emergency application asking the Supreme Court to
enforce the usual 25 day period in which the losing party may make a
petition for rehearing;Circuit Justice Kennedy, overseeing the Ninth Circuit, denied the request on June 30, 2013.
- Proposition 8 supporters also petitioned the Supreme Court of California on July 12, 2013, to ask the court to stay, and then override, the statewide application of the court's ruling, contending it was not a class action and applied only to the counties and specific individuals named in the suit. Their argument was rejected by California's governor, who on legal advice "ordered" the change to license issue, California's Attorney General Kamala Harris, who noted that "state officials are obligated to govern marriage equally in all counties and that Walker's ruling specifically covers those officials"San Francisco's city attorney who stated that it was "the most basic concepts of American law ... that a state court will not overrule the federal judiciary",and by 24 defendant County Clerks who through their lawyer stated that their role was ultimately state supervised and it would be unfeasible to have a "patchwork" of different marriage criteria varying between the counties of a single state. On July 15, the court unanimously declined the request for immediate action and requested arguments from the parties, and on August 14, in a one-sentence unanimous order without dissent, unanimously rejected the argument by Proposition 8 proponents
No comments:
Post a Comment