Over the summer, the Supreme Court decided in the landmark case of United States vs. Windsor that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, which now paves the way for same-sex couples to potentially enjoy many federal benefits that they weren't entitled to before. Let's take a closer look at DOMA, what the ruling did, and what questions remain.
DOMA basics
DOMA said two primary things:
Section 2 says that states do not have to recognize a same-sex marriage performed outside of its jurisdiction.
Section 3 said that marriage is between one man and one woman only, which means there is no recognition of same-sex spouses under federal law, even if married under state law. This has a negative impact on employees with same-sex spouses, and also creates an administrative burden on employers and their benefit plans since employees are treated differently for state and federal purposes.
United States vs. Windsor
The challenge to federal DOMA came in the form of United States vs. Windsor.
Edith Windsor and her late, same-sex spouse were legally married in Canada and their marriage was recognized in their state of residence, New York. Under Section 3 of DOMA, the federal government did not recognize the couple as legally married. This resulted in Windsor paying more than $300,000 in federal taxes on her inheritance. She would not have had to pay this if her spouse had been a man instead of a woman.
"She sued the federal government, saying she was unconstitutionally discriminated against based on her sexual orientation, and she ended up, in this case, winning. It went up through the federal circuits and the Supreme Court agreed." Callan Carter explained in a recent CER webinar.
The Court not only agreed, but they struck down Section 3 of DOMA, holding that it violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This means that, for purposes of federal law, defining a spouse to exclude same-sex spouses is unconstitutional.
Questions left unanswered
This was indeed a landmark case and opens the door for many sweeping changes in the recognition of same-sex spouses and the receipt of benefits associated with spousal status. However, the ruling only went so far.
"There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. That's not what Windsor said." Carter clarified. "It [also] left Section 2 of DOMA intact. So states can still choose not to honor same-sex marriages performed outside of their particular state." This will mean there continues to be an administrative burden and groups of people with differing treatment in different states. Last but certainly not least, the Court's ruling did not address the constitutionality of state DOMA laws, which allows states to continue to ban gay marriage.
As laws evolve, this may change. Employers who operate in more than one state should watch this space closely to see how employee benefits will be affected.
The above information is excerpted from the webinar "Supreme Court Roundup for California Employers: The Latest Labor and Employment Law Rulings Explained." To register for a future webinar, visit CER webinars.
Attorney Callan Carter is a partner in the San Francisco office of Fisher & Phillips LLP and a member of the firm's Employee Benefits Practice Group.