Statements (57)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:advertising |
Gained significant media attention
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
2012-03-27
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Analyzed for its implications on federalism
Relevant to ongoing debates about marriage equality Frequently discussed in legal circles Implications for federal benefits for same-sex couples Critiqued for its narrow focus on DOMA |
| gptkbp:case_number |
gptkb:United_States_v._Windsor
Documented in legal textbooks Challenged by Edith Windsor |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
Influenced public opinion on same-sex marriage
Impacted federal policies on marriage benefits Led to changes in state laws regarding marriage Struck down discriminatory federal law Unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Windsor entitled to a tax refund Impact on the legality of same-sex marriage nationwide |
| gptkbp:case_reactions |
Reactions from political leaders
|
| gptkbp:case_responses |
Responses from various advocacy groups
|
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Pivotal in the fight for marriage equality
Considered a turning point in LGBTQ rights |
| gptkbp:case_types |
Civil rights case
|
| gptkbp:championship |
5-4
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia
|
| gptkbp:docket_number |
12-307
|
| gptkbp:effective_date |
2013-01-15
|
| gptkbp:historical_context |
Part of a broader trend towards marriage equality
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
569 U. S. 1 (2013)
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Influenced future same-sex marriage cases
Legalization of same-sex marriage in several states |
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:United_States_government
gptkb:Edith_Windsor |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
gptkb:569_U._S._1
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Supreme Court review of lower court decisions
|
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
Federal jurisdiction
|
| gptkbp:legacy |
Legacy in advancing LGBTQ rights
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Context of LGBTQ rights movement
|
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Set a precedent for future cases regarding marriage rights
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Defense_of_Marriage_Act_(DOMA)
Unconstitutionality of DOMA |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Expanded rights for same-sex couples
|
| gptkbp:legislation |
Influenced state-level marriage equality laws
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Struck down Section 3 of DOMA
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
Federal recognition of same-sex marriages
Same-sex marriage rights Established precedent for equal protection under the law |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy
|
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Widely celebrated by LGBTQ advocates
|
| gptkbp:publications |
Published in law journals
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Hollingsworth_v._Perry
Followed by additional legal challenges |
| gptkbp:significance |
Constitutional rights for same-sex couples
Landmark ruling for LGBTQ rights |
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Florida_v._Jardines
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
4
|