The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and change frequently; always consult with a qualified professional regarding your specific situation. The author and publisher assume no liability for any actions taken based on this information.
- Two Supreme Court decisions drove the legal headlines that day
- United States v. Windsor was about federal recognition of marriage
- Hollingsworth v. Perry was about standing, not the merits
- Federal and state roles looked different across the two cases
- Common misunderstandings can come from reading headlines alone
- Sources
Key Facts
- Federal level: On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry.
- Federal level: In United States v. Windsor, the Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment.
- Federal and state: The Windsor decision addressed federal recognition of marriages when a state recognizes a marriage under its own law.
- Federal level: The Windsor case involved a federal estate tax refund claim that turned on whether the federal government recognized a same-sex marriage.
- State level: Hollingsworth v. Perry arose from a challenge to California’s Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment about the definition of marriage.
- Federal level: In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court ruled that the initiative’s proponents lacked Article III standing to appeal in federal court.
- Federal level: The Hollingsworth decision meant the Supreme Court did not decide the Proposition 8 dispute on the constitutional merits.
- Federal and state: Together, these decisions highlighted how federal constitutional rules and state marriage laws can interact in different ways.
Two Supreme Court decisions drove the legal headlines that day
June 26, 2013 is often described as a turning point in modern civil rights law because the Supreme Court released two major decisions about same-sex marriage at the federal and state levels.
The first decision, United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), focused on a federal statute and federal benefits.
The second decision, Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013), centered on a California voter initiative but turned on a federal standing rule.
United States v. Windsor was about federal recognition of marriage
In Windsor, the Court considered Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defined “marriage” and “spouse” for federal law in a way that excluded same-sex couples even when their marriage was recognized by a state.
The Court’s holding was that Section 3 was unconstitutional as a deprivation of equal liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment.
The case facts described in the Court’s syllabus include an estate tax dispute in which Edith Windsor sought a refund after paying $363,053 in federal estate taxes because her marriage was not treated as a marriage for federal purposes under Section 3.
Hollingsworth v. Perry was about standing, not the merits
Hollingsworth came from a federal lawsuit challenging California’s Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
The Supreme Court ruled that the initiative’s official proponents did not have Article III standing to appeal after state officials declined to appeal an adverse federal trial court judgment, and the Court therefore did not reach the merits of the constitutional questions presented.
Federal and state roles looked different across the two cases
Marriage law in the United States often involves both state law and federal law, but the issues can be different depending on what is being challenged.
In Windsor, the dispute centered on a federal definition used across federal law, and the Court’s reasoning discussed how marriage regulation has traditionally been treated as an area within state authority while federal law can attach federal consequences to state-recognized statuses.
In Hollingsworth, the core issue at the Supreme Court stage was procedural and constitutional in a different way, because federal courts may only decide cases when the party invoking the court’s power has standing under Article III.
Common misunderstandings can come from reading headlines alone
One common point of confusion is treating these cases as if they answered every question about same-sex marriage nationwide, even though Windsor addressed a federal statute and Hollingsworth turned on who could appeal in federal court.
Another frequent misunderstanding is assuming that a Supreme Court decision automatically resolves all related state-law questions, even though states and the federal government can be involved in different parts of the legal framework.
