Case to Watch: Windsor v. United States
NicholeLike those of the seniors profiled in Gen Silent, there is a good story here. For over 40 years, Thea Spyer and Edie Winsdor were in a long-term committed relationship. In fact, they’d been engaged since the late 1960s. The couple lived in New York City and was among the first to register their domestic partnership when the state began recognizing such arrangements in 1993. In 2007, Thea and Edie traveled to Toronto to be married. Thea died two years later, having suffered for decades from multiple sclerosis and a recently diagnosed heart ailment.
Edie Windsor, ACLU
As Executor of Thea’s estate, and its sole beneficiary as Thea’s spouse, Edie filed a federal tax return and sent an advanced payment of $500,000 for the estate tax. Having received a partial reimbursement for overestimating the amount of tax owed, Edie then sought reimbursement of the remaining $363,053 estate tax. The IRS denied her request because DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996, required that federal laws applying to married couples be interpreted only to recognize heterosexual marriages. In other words, since Edie was Thea’s same sex surviving spouse, Edie is not entitled to any federal benefits (from estate tax exemptions to Social Security death benefits and widow’s insurance benefits to taking unpaid leave to care for family members).
Though at least twelve states provide some form of recognition of same sex relationships, those couples are consistently denied the tax benefits afforded heterosexual couples. In fact, partners in same sex marriages must file as single individuals on their federal tax forms, preventing them from taking advantage of certain tax deductions and leading toward confusion about tax credits they are entitled to claim.
Edie, represented by the ACLU and attorneys from the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, filed suit in the federal court in New York for a refund of the estate tax she had to pay. Her suit argues that DOMA is a violation of equal protection and thus is an unconstitutional law discriminating against same sex couples. Since filing suit (Edie’s case has not yet been heard), a number of developments have occurred. President Obama has determined that Section Three of DOMA is unconstitutional. Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA in court. The House of Representatives, under Speaker John Boehner’s direction and using taxpayer money, hired an outside law firm to support the constitutionality of DOMA in the case against Edie.
State law regulates marriage. New York is one of the states recognizing same sex marriage. However, because of DOMA, Edie’s rights as a surviving spouse are abrogated and her financial security has been damaged simply because the legislation unconstitutionally discriminates between heterosexual and same sex marriages that have been recognized by the state. While striking down DOMA will not create rights to marriage for same sex couples in states where those marriages are not recognized, it will go a long way in ensuring that the federal government does not promote or enable discrimination against same sex couples. The Senate took a step down that road last November in a 10-8 vote in the Judiciary Committee supporting the Respect for Marriage Act (S. 598), which would repeal DOMA. Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) called the vote “a critical step forward in restoring the rights of all lawfully married couples.”