Supreme Court Summarizations Coursework (Other (Not Listed) Sample)

Supreme Court Summarizations
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Supreme Court Summarizations
Obergell vs. Hodges
In this case the Supreme Court ruled that all the state laws that banned same-sex marriage and did not recognize such marriages that had been done in other states that allowed same-sex marriages were unconstitutional. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling favored the 14 same-sex couples who sought for their marriages that had occurred in other states to be recognized in Ohio. The themes of the case were the validity of homosexual marriages and Equal Protection Clause as well as the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The appellant in the case, Obergefell, had gone to Maryland to marry his ailing partner suffered from Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The couple settled in Ohio which is their home state, but Obergefell died shortly after the marriage. After the death of his partner, the authorities denied including Obergefell as the surviving partner on his partner’s death certificate based on the fact that same-sex marriages were not recognized in Ohio. Together with other plaintiffs, Obergefell sued the state of Ohio to have their marriage recognized in the state so that he can be listed on the death certificate of his husband. The other plaintiffs sued the state to have their marriages recognized whenever they moved across states. Additionally, they sought to be given adoption rights. Marriage has been defined as a union between a woman and a man, thus the case challenged whether this definion violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S constitution.
The Court maintained that homosexual marriages are supposed to be recognized anywhere if they were conducted in states that recognizes them as per the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States’ Constitution. In its conclusion, the Court held that the Constitution provides protection for personal choices including marriages under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the Clause, liberties including intimate choices such as marriages are protected providing the “right to marry” to all citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment describes marriage as a liberty because it provides couples with various ways of getting freedom such as intimacy and expressions. Moreover, the Court concluded that marriage is true to all individuals regardless of “their sexual orientation.”
In justifying its decision, the Court used the Constitution to describe how “intimate associations” are protected by the “right to marry”. According to the Court, “intimate associations” are ways in which individuals define themselves by showing commitment to others (Obergefell v Hodges, 2015). It further pointed out that same-sex couples are entitled to associations like opposite sex couples. Based on this, the Court held that denying same-sex couples “intimate association” freedom deprives them the equal enjoyment of freedom that is concerned with basic and universal needs of human beings.
Moreover, the Court explained further the benefits of marriage not only to individuals but to the whole society. One example of how marriage benefits the society that the Court emphasized on was how it “safeguards children and families.” Moreover, the Court described benefits that people who are allowed to marry get. They included spirituality, intimacy and expression as well as financial benefits. The Court held that, those who are denied these benefits are deprived of the equal protection being provided by the Constitution. Moreover, the Court highlighted that since marriage plays a significant role in maintaining social order, the Constitution provides various exclusive benefits to those who are allowed to marry. Therefore, depriving same-sex partners such a crucial societal institution not only deprives them their equal rights but also demean them. Based on these foundations, the Court concluded that according to the Fourteenth Amendment all states are required to recognize valid and out-of-state same-sex marriages.
US v Windsor
The plaintiff, Windsor, who was engaged in a same-sex marriage sought Court interventions to recover the tax payment she was charged after inheriting an estate of her partner. As a married person, Windsor was entitled to the estate tax exemption for surviving spouses but she was denied the exemption because the definition of “marriage” and “spouse” under the Defence of Marriage Act does not include same-sex partners. In 2007, Thea Spyer married Edith Windsor in Canada and moved to New York where there marriage was recognized.
Ordinarily, the Federal Law provides an estate tax exemption for spouses who inherit any property from their diseased partners. Windsor attempted to seek the exemption but she was not successful because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) under section 3 of the constitution. DOMA used the federal law and regulations which exclude same-sex marriages to define marriage and spouse. Windsor had to pay $365,053 in estate taxes and attempted to get a refund as provided by the law. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) denied her the exemption. She argued that by excluding the same-sex marriage from its definition of “marriage” and “spouse”, DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The case sought to establish whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment by excluding same-sex couples from the definition of “marriage” and “spouse”.
The Supreme Court maintained that the intentions of DOMA were ill-motivated because it imposed a “disadvantage, separate status, and so a stigma” on homosexual partners which was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. However, Chief Justice John Roberts provided a dissenting opinion where he held that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case and it did not consider the definitions of marriage and spouse as provided by the state. Justice Antonin Scalia joined the dissent by arguing that the review of the case and invalidation of a democratically enacted law was out of the Supreme Court’s jurisdictions (US v Windsor, 2013). He added that the opinion provided by the majority has used the powers of the Supreme Court wrongly. Moreover, he argued that the Court’s decision did not address whether the Equal Protection Clause required a review of laws that limited the definitions of marriage. He also added that the majority’s opinion misunderstood the intentions of DOMA, t