It came as no great surprise that the U.S. Supreme Court withheld its opinion on two landmark decisions on same-sex marriage rights until the last decision day of the 2012-2013 term. This, however, would be the only lack of surprise of the day, as the Court delivered two opinions that significantly change the landscape for employee benefits in the United States.
In United States v. Windsor, commonly referred to as the “DOMA case,” the court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the portion of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as a “legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” for the determination of federal benefits is in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
In the opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that “the federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.”
As a result, married same-sex couples in the now 13 states (including California) and the District of Columbia where such unions are legal become eligible for equal benefits under numerous federal programs, including COBRA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, immigration law, and Social Security.
To qualify for benefits under DOMA, a couple must have a valid marriage certificate, so same-sex couples in states without legalized same-sex marriage aren’t affected by the decision. This could create confusion for multistate employers.
In the second key decision, Hollingsworth v. Perry, or the Prop 8 case, the issue before the Court was whether Proposition 8, a California voter initiative that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Rather than decide on this issue directly, the Supreme Court dismissed the case on procedural grounds, holding that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked the right to appeal a lower court’s decision striking down the law.
As a result, the lower court’s decision stands, paving the way for same-sex marriages in California to resume.