United States v. Windsor was the 2013 Supreme Court decision that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages. By a 5–4 vote, the Court held that Section 3 of DOMA — the provision defining “marriage” and “spouse” in exclusively opposite-sex terms for every federal law — violated the Fifth Amendment’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.1Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. United States v. Windsor After Windsor, the federal government had to treat same-sex couples who were legally married under state law the same as any other married couple.
The Plaintiff and the $363,053 Tax Bill
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer had been together for more than four decades when they married in Canada in 2007. They lived in New York, which recognized their marriage. Spyer died in 2009 and left her estate to Windsor.
Federal tax law allows property passing from a deceased spouse to a surviving spouse to qualify for an unlimited marital deduction, which effectively wipes out estate tax on that transfer.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 26 U.S. Code 2056 – Bequests, Etc., to Surviving Spouse Because DOMA required the federal government to treat Windsor as unmarried, the IRS denied the deduction and billed her $363,053 in estate taxes on property that would have passed tax-free to any opposite-sex widow.1Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. United States v. Windsor She paid the tax, was refused a refund, and sued.
What DOMA Section 3 Did
Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Section 3 created a federal definition: for every federal statute, regulation, and agency ruling, “marriage” meant only a union between one man and one woman, and “spouse” meant only a person of the opposite sex.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 1 U.S. Code 7 – Marriage
That single sentence controlled how the federal government administered taxes, Social Security, immigration, veterans’ benefits, military housing, and hundreds of other programs. A 2004 Government Accountability Office report counted 1,138 federal statutory provisions where marital status affected benefits, rights, or obligations.4U.S. Government Accountability Office. Defense of Marriage Act – Update to Prior Report Under DOMA, a couple legally married in Massachusetts or any other recognition state was treated as unmarried for all of them.
The Court’s Reasoning
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.1Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. United States v. Windsor The opinion rested on two connected ideas: the states’ traditional authority to define marriage, and constitutional limits on Congress’s power to single out a group for unequal treatment.
Kennedy wrote that when a state extends marriage to same-sex couples, it confers a dignity and status the federal government has no legitimate basis to strip away. DOMA’s purpose, the majority found, was to impose inequality — to write into federal law a judgment that same-sex marriages were less worthy than opposite-sex ones. That purpose could not satisfy the due process and equal protection principles the Fifth Amendment protects.5Legal Information Institute. United States v. Windsor
The ruling had a clear boundary. It struck down only the federal definition. It did not require any state that banned same-sex marriage to start issuing licenses. Couples living in non-recognition states remained caught between conflicting rules: married under federal law if they had wed in a recognition state, but potentially unmarried under the law of their home state.
The Dissents
Chief Justice Roberts dissented on jurisdictional grounds and argued that Congress’s interest in nationwide uniformity justified DOMA. He emphasized that the majority’s reasoning did not address whether states themselves could limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.1Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. United States v. Windsor
Justice Scalia filed a sharper dissent, arguing that the Court had neither jurisdiction to hear the case nor authority to strike down DOMA, and accusing the majority of dressing up a policy preference as constitutional law. Justice Alito, joined in part by Justice Thomas, wrote separately that the Constitution did not speak to the question and that the issue belonged to the democratic process.
Why the Court Reached the Merits
The case arrived in an odd posture. After Windsor won below, the Obama administration announced it agreed with the ruling and would no longer defend DOMA in court. The executive branch nonetheless kept enforcing the law, so Windsor still had not received her refund. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House stepped in to defend Section 3. The Court held that a live controversy remained under Article III because the government still owed Windsor money it refused to pay, and BLAG’s defense supplied the adversarial argument needed to decide the merits.5Legal Information Institute. United States v. Windsor
What Changed for Married Couples After the Ruling
Federal agencies moved quickly. Within weeks, the Treasury and the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2013-17, announcing that same-sex couples legally married in any jurisdiction would be treated as married for all federal tax purposes. The IRS read the gender-neutral terms “spouse” and “marriage” throughout the tax code to include same-sex spouses, calling that “the most natural reading of those terms.”6Internal Revenue Service. Revenue Ruling 2013-17 Same-sex couples could now file joint federal returns, claim the same deductions, and use the same tax brackets as any other married couple.
Agencies adopted a place-of-celebration rule: if a marriage was valid where the ceremony took place, the federal government recognized it no matter where the couple later lived. The Social Security Administration began processing survivor benefit claims for same-sex spouses under the same rules that apply to any surviving spouse.7Social Security Administration. Who Can Get Survivor Benefits Military personnel could enroll same-sex spouses in federal health insurance and qualify for housing allowances. The Department of Veterans Affairs updated its policies so all legally married veterans could access spousal benefits, including burial rights in national cemeteries.
From Windsor to Obergefell to the Respect for Marriage Act
Windsor left the state-level question open. That gap closed on June 26, 2015, when the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges. In another 5–4 opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires every state to license same-sex marriages and to recognize those performed in other states.8Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Obergefell v. Hodges
For seven years after Obergefell, marriage equality rested entirely on Supreme Court decisions. That changed in 2022, after Justice Thomas’s concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization suggested the Court should reconsider Obergefell. Congress responded by passing the Respect for Marriage Act, which President Biden signed on December 13, 2022.9Congress.gov. H.R.8404 – Respect for Marriage Act
The Respect for Marriage Act repealed both operative sections of DOMA. It set a new federal rule: for all federal purposes, a person is considered married if the marriage is between two individuals and was valid where performed.10Congress.gov. H.R.8404 – Respect for Marriage Act – Text It also barred any state official from denying full faith and credit to an out-of-state marriage based on the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the spouses, and it created a private right of action along with authority for the Attorney General to sue for violations.11Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 1738C – Certain Acts, Records, and Proceedings and the Effect Thereof Federal recognition and interstate recognition of same-sex marriages are now written into the United States Code, no longer dependent on court rulings alone. Edith Windsor’s tax dispute is where that shift began.