Data Portal @ linkeddatafragments.org

Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/United_States_v._Windsor> ?p ?o. }

• United_States_v._Windsor abstract "United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 12 (2013) (Docket No. 12-307), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to heterosexual unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because doing so "disparage[s] and ... injure[s] those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a same-sex couple residing in New York, were lawfully married in Ontario, Canada in 2007. Spyer died in 2009, leaving her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from doing so by Section 3 of DOMA (codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7), which provided that the term "spouse" only applied to marriages between a man and woman. The Internal Revenue Service found that the exemption did not apply to same-sex marriages, denied Windsor's claim, and compelled her to pay $363,053 in estate taxes.On November 9, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against the federal government in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Windsor sought a refund because DOMA singled out legally married same-sex couples for "differential treatment compared to other similarly situated couples without justification." On February 23, 2011, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement from the Obama administration that agreed with the plaintiff's position that DOMA violated the U.S. Constitution and said he would no longer defend the law in court. On April 18, 2011, Paul Clement, representing the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) continued defense of the law. On June 6, 2012, Judge Barbara S. Jones ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and ordered the federal government to issue the tax refund, including interest. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on October 18, 2012.BLAG and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a writ of certiorari in December 2012. On March 27, 2013, the court heard oral arguments. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision declaring Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional "as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment."On the same day, the court also issued a separate 5–4 decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry — a case related to California's constitutional amendment initiative barring same-sex marriage. The decision effectively allowed same-sex marriages in that state to resume after the court ruled that the proponents of the initiative lacked Article III standing to appeal in federal court based on its established interpretation of the case or controversy clause.".
• United_States_v._Windsor wikiPageExternalLink viewcontent.cgi?article=1939&context=faculty_publications.
• United_States_v._Windsor wikiPageExternalLink windsor.pdf.
• United_States_v._Windsor wikiPageExternalLink windsor-v-united-states-complaint.
• United_States_v._Windsor wikiPageExternalLink 12-307.html.
• United_States_v._Windsor wikiPageExternalLink 12-2335_complete_opn.pdf.
• United_States_v._Windsor wikiPageExternalLink tt1512779.
• United_States_v._Windsor wikiPageExternalLink WindsorPetition.pdf.
• United_States_v._Windsor wikiPageExternalLink 17_FEA_DOMA.html.
• United_States_v._Windsor wikiPageExternalLink argument.
• United_States_v._Windsor wikiPageExternalLink 12-307-1-DOJ-Petition.
• United_States_v._Windsor wikiPageExternalLink 12-307_6j37.pdf.
• United_States_v._Windsor wikiPageExternalLink LaycockBerg.pdf.
• United_States_v._Windsor wikiPageID "31039265".
• United_States_v._Windsor wikiPageRevisionID "606271655".
• United_States_v._Windsor arguedate "--03-27".
• United_States_v._Windsor argueyear "2013".
• United_States_v._Windsor decidedate "--06-26".
• United_States_v._Windsor decideyear "2013".
• United_States_v._Windsor dissent "Alito".
• United_States_v._Windsor dissent "Roberts".
• United_States_v._Windsor dissent "Scalia".
• United_States_v._Windsor docket "12".
• United_States_v._Windsor fullname "United States, Petitioner v. Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.".
• United_States_v._Windsor hasPhotoCollection United_States_v._Windsor.
• United_States_v._Windsor holding "Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which federally defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause's guarantee of equal protection. The federal government must recognize same-sex marriages that have been approved by the states. The judgment of the Second Circuit is affirmed.".
• United_States_v._Windsor joindissent "Thomas".
• United_States_v._Windsor joindissent "Thomas; Roberts".
• United_States_v._Windsor joinmajority "Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan".
• United_States_v._Windsor lawsapplied Defense_of_Marriage_Act.
• United_States_v._Windsor lawsapplied Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.
• United_States_v._Windsor litigants "United States v. Windsor".
• United_States_v._Windsor majority "Kennedy".
• United_States_v._Windsor oralargument argument.
• United_States_v._Windsor parallelcitations "133".
• United_States_v._Windsor prior "25920.0".
• United_States_v._Windsor related "* Gill v. OPM and Mass. v. U.S. Dept. of H.H.S * Golinski v. OPM * Pedersen v. OPM * Cardona v. Shinseki".
• United_States_v._Windsor scotus "2010".
• United_States_v._Windsor uspage "12".
• United_States_v._Windsor usvol "570".
• United_States_v._Windsor subject Category:2010_in_New_York.
• United_States_v._Windsor subject Category:2012_in_United_States_case_law.
• United_States_v._Windsor subject Category:2013_in_LGBT_history.
• United_States_v._Windsor subject Category:American_Civil_Liberties_Union_litigation.
• United_States_v._Windsor subject Category:Defense_of_Marriage_Act.
• United_States_v._Windsor subject Category:LGBT_rights_in_New_York.
• United_States_v._Windsor subject Category:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.
• United_States_v._Windsor subject Category:Same-sex_union_case_law.
• United_States_v._Windsor subject Category:United_States_LGBT_rights_case_law.
• United_States_v._Windsor subject Category:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases.
• United_States_v._Windsor subject Category:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court.
• United_States_v._Windsor subject Category:United_States_taxation_and_revenue_case_law.
• United_States_v._Windsor type Case.
• United_States_v._Windsor type LegalCase.
• United_States_v._Windsor type SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase.
• United_States_v._Windsor type UnitOfWork.
• United_States_v._Windsor type Situation.
• United_States_v._Windsor comment "United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 12 (2013) (Docket No. 12-307), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to heterosexual unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because doing so "disparage[s] and ...".
• United_States_v._Windsor label "Edith Windsor".
• United_States_v._Windsor label "United States v. Windsor".
• United_States_v._Windsor label "United States v. Windsor".
• United_States_v._Windsor label "美国诉温莎案".
• United_States_v._Windsor sameAs United_States_v._Windsor.
• United_States_v._Windsor sameAs United_States_v._Windsor.
• United_States_v._Windsor sameAs Edith_Windsor.
• United_States_v._Windsor sameAs m.0gg7stg.
• United_States_v._Windsor sameAs Q7893525.
• United_States_v._Windsor sameAs Q7893525.
• United_States_v._Windsor wasDerivedFrom United_States_v._Windsor?oldid=606271655.
• United_States_v._Windsor isPrimaryTopicOf United_States_v._Windsor.
• United_States_v._Windsor name "United States, Petitioner v. Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.".