Supreme Court Issues Two Historic Decisions on Same-Sex Marriage: What Does This Mean for Employee Benefit Plans?

by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court (the "Court") issued two significant decisions relating to same-sex marriage, both of which will have far-reaching effects on the design and tax treatment of employee benefit plans.  Although the effects of Hollingsworth v Perry generally extend only to employees residing in California, the implications of U.S. v Windsor are important for benefit plan administrators across the country.

The practical impact of these decisions on the design and administration of employee benefit plans is still being assessed and the Court left many questions unanswered.  For example, while it is now clear that the definition of "spouse" in the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") is unconstitutional, benefit plan administrators must grapple with the absence of a uniform definition of "spouse."  A patchwork of state laws governing the definition of "spouse" creates significant uncertainty relating to the tax treatment of same-sex spousal benefits.  As we explain below, clear guidance in this area would be welcome.


Hollingsworth v Perry.  While this case has a complicated procedural history, and was decided on the narrow issue of "standing," the result is essentially that same-sex marriage in California is once again legally permitted.

The Court's decision in Hollingsworth v Perry involved an appeal by the proponents of Proposition 8 in California to overturn the Ninth Circuit's affirmation of the federal District Court's decision that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.  Proposition 8 was approved by the California voters in 2008 and amended the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California.  The Court did not address the merits of the constitutional challenge to Proposition 8 and limited its ruling to the issue of whether the proponents of Proposition 8 had standing under federal law to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

The Court held in a 5:4 decision that the proponents of Proposition 8 did not have standing to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision.  The impact of the Court's decision to employers with employees in California is that the holdings of the District Court in Perry v. Schwarzenegger in 2010 and the California Supreme Court's decision in In re Marriage Cases in 2008 (that preceded Proposition 8) are now the law of the land in California.  In the Perry case, the District Court declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the state of California from enforcing it.  In the In re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court ruled that limiting the official designation of marriage in California to opposite-sex couples violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution  Thus, same-sex marriage in California is legal once again.

U.S. v Windsor.  In U.S. v Windsor, the Court struck down section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional because it violates basic due process and equal protection principles under the U.S. Constitution.  Section 3 of DOMA denies federal recognition to same-sex spouses.  It provides as follows:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation or interpretation of various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

The Court found that section 3 of DOMA has a far-reaching impact as it enacts a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statutes.  The Court found that the definition and regulation of marriage has historically been the realm of the states and that section 3 of DOMA deviates markedly from that tradition because of its reach and intent and it has the effect of disadvantaging a class of citizens that some states have tried to protect.  The Court's decision is limited to section 3 of DOMA and did not strike down any other section of DOMA, such as section 2 which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of another state.

Impact of the Court's Decisions on Employee Benefit Plans

Section 3 of DOMA is now unconstitutional and the many aspects of federally-governed  employee benefit plans involving "spouses" will soon undergo significant changes, but the Windsor decision leaves many questions unanswered. 

Retroactive Application of Windsor Decision and Interaction with State Law. The Court in the Windsor decision left open the question whether section 3 of DOMA should be treated as if it was never enacted in 1996, thus potentially making the Court's decision retroactive to 1996.  Prior to the enactment of section 3 of DOMA, the Internal Revenue Service relied on state law to determine an individual's status as a spouse for tax purposes. Although the Court did not explicitly address this retroactivity issue, the decision holds that  "[T]his opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages."  "Lawful marriage" is not defined or further described in the decision, and leaves open to speculation whether "lawful marriages" for federal law purposes (such as taxation) include all same-sex marriages lawfully performed in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, regardless of where the couple currently resides.  For example, is a couple who married in Massachusetts (a state that recognizes same-sex marriage) but currently lives in Texas (a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage) in a "lawful marriage" and therefore entitled to equal protection under federal law?  Is that couple therefore entitled to the same tax treatment for employee benefit plan purposes as a couple who married in New York (a state that recognizes same-sex marriage) and who still lives in New York?  

Although the Court struck down section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional, it reiterated that the definition and regulation of marriage has historically been the realm of the states.  Currently, 12 states and the District of Columbia explicitly recognize same-sex marriage.  In addition, some states that may not permit same-sex marriage do recognize marriages in other states.  Until the Internal Revenue Service provides guidance, benefit plan administrators may be required to navigate a patchwork quilt of state laws to determine the appropriate tax treatment of same-sex spouses under their employee benefit plans. 

In addition to dealing with changes to the tax treatment of same-sex spouses under employee benefit plans, benefit plan administrators also will need to deal with other design changes to their employee benefit plans, such as eligibility of same-sex spouses to certain "surviving spouse" benefits under retirement plans and to COBRA benefits under group health plans. 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 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.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

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.


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 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:

- 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.