Statements (66)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
March 27, 2013
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Analyzed for its constitutional implications.
Frequently discussed in legal education. Continues to influence legal discussions on marriage. Set the stage for future rulings on marriage equality. Critics argued it overstepped judicial authority. Examined federalism and states' rights. |
| gptkbp:case_follow_ups |
Followed by further legal challenges.
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
gptkb:United_States_v._Windsor
Documented in legal databases. 12-307 Available in Supreme Court archives. Appealed from the Second Circuit |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
Unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment
Concluded with a landmark decision. DOMA's Section 3 was unconstitutional. Impacted federal policies on marriage. Influenced public opinion on same-sex marriage. Led to state-level legal changes. |
| gptkbp:case_reactions |
Mixed reactions from the public.
|
| gptkbp:case_responses |
Responses varied across political lines.
|
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Pivotal in the fight for marriage equality
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
Civil rights case
Supported by various civil rights organizations. Equal protection and due process violations |
| gptkbp:consequences |
Influenced state laws on marriage
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:United_States_government
gptkb:Edith_Windsor |
| gptkbp:date |
March 27, 2013
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:decision_vote |
5-4
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia
Opposed by conservative groups. |
| gptkbp:effective_date |
2013-06-24
June 26, 2013 |
| gptkbp:historical_context |
Part of the broader LGBTQ+ rights movement
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
569 U. S. 1
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Legal recognition of same-sex marriages in the U. S.
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
gptkb:569_U._S._1_(2013)
|
| gptkbp:is_standardized_by |
Heightened scrutiny
|
| gptkbp:judges |
Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Constitutional review of federal law
Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts |
| gptkbp:legacy |
Legacy of advancing LGBTQ+ rights.
|
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
gptkb:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit
2012-2013 Judicial activism |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Defense_of_Marriage_Act_(DOMA)
|
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
Equal protection under the law
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:Roberta_Kaplan
|
| gptkbp:lower_court_decision |
Reversed and remanded
|
| gptkbp:material |
Challenged the constitutionality of DOMA
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Struck down Section 3 of DOMA
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
Federal recognition of same-sex marriages
Same-sex marriage rights Cited in subsequent marriage equality cases. |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy
|
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Celebrated by LGBTQ+ advocates
|
| gptkbp:publications |
Discussed in law journals.
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Obergefell_v._Hodges
United States v. Obergefell |
| gptkbp:signed_by |
Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Landmark ruling for LGBTQ+ rights
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:569_U._S._1_(2013)
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
5
|