Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act's (DOMA) exclusion of same-sex partners from the definition of "spouse" in federal statutes is unconstitutional. The Court must determine whether the Government or BLAG had the right to appeal. Windsor had standing to challenge the collection of a specific tax assessment as unconstitutional, and the United States has a sufficient stake in this case to support Article III jurisdiction. The Court must consider the evolving perception of same-sex marriage and the fact that some states have acknowledged that denying same-sex couples access to lawful marriage is unjust. Congress has the power to ensure efficiency in the administration of its programs and to choose what larger goals and policies to pursue.
The dissenting opinion agrees that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review the lower court's decisions and that Congress acted constitutionally in passing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It argues against the majority's view that DOMA was motivated by a desire to harm and finds insufficient evidence to prove that the Act's principal purpose was to codify malice. The dissent emphasizes that the Court's ruling is limited to the recognition of same-sex marriages that a state has already recognized and does not address whether states can continue to use the traditional definition of marriage. The author argues that the Supreme Court lacked the authority to decide the lawsuit and suggests sending the case back to the Court of Appeals with instructions to dismiss the appeal. Justice Alito dissents from the majority's decision and argues that the issue of same-sex marriage should be left to the people and their elected representatives.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.