While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.
Select Citation Style Copy Citation Share to social media Give Feedback External Websites Thank you for your feedbackOur editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
External WebsitesWhile every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.
Select Citation Style Copy Citation Share to social media External Websites Thank you for your feedbackOur editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
External WebsitesBrian Duignan is a senior editor at Encyclopædia Britannica. His subject areas include philosophy, law, social science, politics, political theory, and religion.
Brian Duignan Fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopaedia BritannicaEncyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree. They write new content and verify and edit content received from contributors.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Table of Contents Date: June 26, 2013 (Show more) Location: United States (Show more)Ask the Chatbot a Question
Ask the Chatbot a Question
United States v. Windsor, legal case, decided on June 26, 2013, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (1996; DOMA), which had defined marriage for federal purposes as a legal union between one man and one woman. Noting the traditional authority of the states to define and regulate marriage, the court held (5–4) that the purpose of DOMA was to impose “restrictions and disabilities” upon a class of persons—same-sex couples who were legally married in states that recognize same-sex marriage—by denying them “the benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of their marriages” (including, in the case at hand, a federal estate-tax exemption for surviving spouses). In thus seeking to “injure” and “demean” a group of persons whom the states in question had sought to protect and dignify through recognition of their marriages, the court argued, “DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government” under the Fifth Amendment.
The court’s opinion was written by Anthony M. Kennedy and joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined in part by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., also dissented, in an opinion joined in part by Thomas.