Supreme Court Rules DOMA Is Out, Same-Sex Marriages Are Legal

by Fisher Phillips
Contact

As the 2012 term of the U. S. Supreme Court comes to a close, the Justices left the most politically and emotionally charged decisions for last. On June 26, 2013, the Court handed down its decision striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in United States v. Windsor.  A companion case challenging California’s Proposition 8 was remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit for lack of standing by the proponents of the law in Hollingsworth v. Perry

While the political and cultural impact of the decisions will be felt nationwide, there will also be some direct effects felt by employers.

Background

DOMA, enacted in 1996, is the controversial law which has been the subject of much national debate concerning the legalization of same-sex marriage.  At the time the statute was enacted, states that opposed same-sex marriages were concerned that they would be required to legally recognize such marriages performed in states where they may be legal. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution generally requires that states recognize public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

Section 2 of DOMA, which was not at issue before the Supreme Court, stipulates that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state, or recognize a right or claim arising from the relationship.  But Section 3 of DOMA, which was at the heart of the appeal in Windsor, provides that for all purposes of federal law, marriage means “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”  It further states that “spouse” refers “only to a person of the opposite-sex who is a husband or wife.”

The controversy in Windsor began in New York in 2010.  Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer married in Toronto, Canada in 2007.  As residents of New York, their same-sex marriage was recognized by state law.  In 2009, Spyer passed away, leaving her estate to her spouse, Windsor.  Since the marriage between Spyer and Windsor was not recognized by federal law (because of Section 3 of DOMA) the federal government taxed the estate $363,000.  Had their marriage been recognized, Spyer’s estate would have qualified for a marital exemption, i.e., no taxes would have been imposed.

Windsor filed suit in federal district court in New York seeking a declaration that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.  Windsor prevailed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. 

The controversy in Hollingsworth began in California in 2008.  Same-sex marriage became legal in that state on June 17, 2008, after the California Supreme Court held that state laws limiting marriage to couples of the opposite sex violated the state constitution. Later, same-sex marriages ceased to be legal in California with the passage of Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008.  The voters in California approved a ballot measure that provided “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”  Hence, only same-sex marriages performed in California between June 17 and November 4, 2008, are currently recognized.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights filed the Hollingsworth case on behalf of two same-sex couples who were denied the ability to marry after the passage of Proposition 8.  The couples sought to have the measure declared unconstitutional and sued several state officials who declined to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8.  The federal district court then permitted the proponent of the ballot measure, ProtectMarriage.com led by California State Senator Dennis Hollingsworth, to intervene as defendants. The district court ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional and the 9th Circuit agreed.

The appeals before the Supreme Court followed and oral arguments were heard by the Justices on March 26-27, 2013.

Issues On Appeal

The appeal in Windsor presented three questions:

  • whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their state;
  • whether the executive branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprived the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to decide the case; and
  • whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (BLAG) had standing under Article III of the Constitution to argue the case. 

The Hollingsworth case presented the following issues:

  • whether ProtectMarriage.com (Hollingsworth) had standing under Article III of the Constitution to argue the case; and
  • whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

The Decisions

Upon determining that the Court had jurisdiction to hear the case and that the parties had proper standing, the Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in Windsor that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. The Court held that federal DOMA deprives persons of the equal liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment. The opinion stated:

By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate states.  Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulate the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy, but DOMA, with a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statutes and the whole realm of federal regulations, has a far greater reach.  Its operation is also directed to a  class of persons that the law of New York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect. 

The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, reviews the history of the constitutional guarantees afforded to marriage as an area that has long been regarded as an “exclusive province of the States.”  Since Section 3 of DOMA rejects the concept that domestic relations are reserved to the states, it has now been overturned on the grounds that it denies a class of people, in states where same-sex marriage is legal, due process and equal protection under the law.  As the Court put it:

DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctions marriages.  It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State.  It also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. 

In the companion case, Hollingsworth, the Court did not reach the constitutionality issue of California’s Proposition 8.  The opinion, which was also a 5-4 decision, was written by Chief Justice Roberts, who explained that Hollingsworth did not have legal standing to challenge the ruling of the California Supreme Court before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Hollingsworth case has been remanded to the 9th Circuit, but the practical result of today’s ruling is that Proposition 8 has been overturned based upon the substantive rulings by the lower courts which deemed it unconstitutional.  Therefore, same-sex marriage will again be legally recognized in California.

The Impact On Employers

As Justice Kennedy explained in the Windsor opinion, Section 3 of DOMA wrote “inequality into the entire United States Code.”  Now that this section has been struck down, presumably federal benefits and protections currently provided to opposite-sex couples will be extended to those in state-recognized same-sex marriages.  This decision could impact federal laws and regulations in numerous areas, including employment law.  Now that same-sex marriage is squarely resting in the hands of each state to determine whether it will be legally recognized, employers are left wondering what this means for them.

In the context of employee benefits, employers with pension and 401(k) plans may be required to recognize same-sex spouses for purposes of determining surviving spouse annuities or death benefits and administration of qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs).  Federal income tax treatment of health and welfare coverage may also be affected, in that employees will no longer be taxed on the value of the coverage for a same-sex spouse that is not a federal tax dependent under Internal Revenue Code Section 152.

Employers will also have to offer COBRA continuation and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) special enrollment rights to same-sex spouses.  Federal leave laws, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which provides that an employee may take job protected leave to care for a spouse with a serious health condition or  medical and non-medical leave for a spouse serving in the Armed Forces, are also implicated.

This change to federal recognition of same-sex marriages will only occur in states where same-sex marriage is recognized.  Currently, there are thirteen states which recognize same sex marriage: Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and now California.  It is also recognized in the District of Columbia.  Therefore, employers in those states should continue to monitor state and federal legislation that may seek to clarify the impact of today’s rulings in these areas and consult with their benefits counsel about potential impacts for current and upcoming benefit plan years.  This should, however, be welcome relief for those employers in the above states whose payroll departments  have been struggling with different state and federal taxation of the same employee benefit.

Written by:

Fisher Phillips
Contact
more
less

Fisher Phillips on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.