United States v. Windsor
E138408
United States v. Windsor is a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act, advancing federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| United States v. Windsor canonical | 12 |
| United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor | 1 |
| United States v. Windsor (as part of the administration’s legal strategy on DOMA) | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1193228 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: United States v. Windsor Context triple: [Anthony M. Kennedy, notableCaseOpinion, United States v. Windsor]
-
A.
Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges is the landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide by ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
-
B.
Lawrence v. Texas (in part)
Lawrence v. Texas (in part) is a landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down laws criminalizing consensual same-sex intimacy, expanding constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.
-
C.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that closely held for-profit corporations can claim religious exemptions from certain federal regulations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
-
D.
Bostock v. Clayton County
Bostock v. Clayton County is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held federal employment discrimination law protects employees from being fired for being gay or transgender.
-
E.
Reed v. Reed
Reed v. Reed is a landmark 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case that for the first time struck down a law for discriminating on the basis of sex under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: United States v. Windsor Target entity description: United States v. Windsor is a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act, advancing federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
-
A.
Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges is the landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide by ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
-
B.
Lawrence v. Texas (in part)
Lawrence v. Texas (in part) is a landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down laws criminalizing consensual same-sex intimacy, expanding constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.
-
C.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that closely held for-profit corporations can claim religious exemptions from certain federal regulations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
-
D.
Bostock v. Clayton County
Bostock v. Clayton County is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held federal employment discrimination law protects employees from being fired for being gay or transgender.
-
E.
Reed v. Reed
Reed v. Reed is a landmark 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case that for the first time struck down a law for discriminating on the basis of sex under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
LGBT rights case
ⓘ
U.S. Supreme Court case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ landmark case ⓘ |
| appealedFrom | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
U.S. federal constitutional law
ⓘ
civil rights law ⓘ family law (federal recognition aspects) ⓘ |
| argumentDate | 2013-03-27 ⓘ |
| citation |
133 S. Ct. 2675
ⓘ
186 L. Ed. 2d 808 ⓘ 570 U.S. 744 ⓘ |
| coDefendant | Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| decidingCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2013-06-26 ⓘ |
| defendant | United States of America ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 12-307 ⓘ |
| fullName |
United States v. Windsor
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor
|
| holding |
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons protected by the Fifth Amendment
ⓘ
federal government must recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed under state law for federal purposes ⓘ |
| impact |
advanced LGBT rights in the United States
ⓘ
invalidated federal non-recognition of same-sex marriages valid under state law ⓘ set precedent for Obergefell v. Hodges ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Elena Kagan
ⓘ
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| joinedScaliaDissent | Clarence Thomas ⓘ |
| leftIntact |
Defense of Marriage Act
ⓘ
surface form:
Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act
|
| legalIssue |
constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act
ⓘ
equal protection under the Fifth Amendment ⓘ federal recognition of same-sex marriages ⓘ federalism and state regulation of marriage ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ |
| originatedFromCourt | United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ⓘ |
| plaintiff | Edith Schlain Windsor ⓘ |
| relatedConstitutionalProvision | Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| relatedStatute | Defense of Marriage Act ⓘ |
| result | federal recognition of same-sex marriages for purposes of federal law ⓘ |
| struckDown |
Defense of Marriage Act
ⓘ
surface form:
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act
|
| subjectMatter |
federal benefits for married couples
ⓘ
same-sex marriage ⓘ |
| subjectOf |
LGBT rights litigation analysis
ⓘ
constitutional law scholarship ⓘ |
| term | 2012 term of the Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: United States v. Windsor Description of subject: United States v. Windsor is a landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act, advancing federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
Referenced by (14)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives
→
notableCaseInvolvement
→
United States v. Windsor
ⓘ
subject surface form:
Donald B. Verrilli Jr.
this entity surface form:
United States v. Windsor (as part of the administration’s legal strategy on DOMA)