Statements (177)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:affects |
Federal recognition of same-sex marriages
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
April 22, 2013
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
gptkb:Marriage_equality_movement
Constitutional interpretation |
| gptkbp:case_number |
12-307
Challenged DOMA's definition of marriage |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
5-4 ruling
Increased visibility for LGBTQ issues Influenced public opinion on same-sex marriage Led to increased visibility for LGBTQ+ issues Expanded rights for same-sex couples Struck down federal law Legal recognition of same-sex relationships Strengthened arguments for marriage equality Encouraged state-level marriage equality Majority opinion supports equality Impact on state laws regarding marriage Unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Contributed to the national dialogue on marriage equality Encouraged advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights Expanded civil rights for same-sex couples Reinforced the principle of equality in marriage Reaffirmed the role of the Supreme Court in protecting minority rights Highlighted the importance of judicial review in civil rights cases Set the stage for future legal battles over marriage equality Facilitated discussions on civil rights and liberties Legal validation of same-sex relationships Influence on public opinion regarding same-sex marriage Recognition of same-sex marriages in federal law |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Landmark ruling
Catalyst for future rulings |
| gptkbp:case_types |
Constitutional law case
Civil rights case |
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
gptkb:United_States_federal_law gptkb:United_States_government gptkb:Edith_Windsor |
| gptkbp:date |
June 26, 2013
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:2013
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States June 26, 2013 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Chief_Justice_John_Roberts
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia gptkb:Justice_Samuel_Alito gptkb:Justice_Clarence_Thomas gptkb:Separation_of_powers States' rights Constitutional interpretation Legal precedent for future cases Judicial activism Judicial restraint Role of the judiciary Public opinion on marriage Constitutional challenges to state laws Public policy considerations Federalism concerns Judicial overreach Impact on LGBTQ+ rights advocacy Impact on family law Judicial interpretation of federal statutes Legal ramifications for states Constitutional interpretation of equal protection Judicial interpretation of the Constitution Judicial philosophy of originalism Legislative intent of DOMA Role of the Supreme Court in social issues Historical context of marriage laws Constitutional amendments regarding marriage Constitutional limits on marriage definitions Cultural implications of ruling Cultural shifts in marriage perception Definition of marriage Effect on federal benefits Effect on immigration law Federal versus state jurisdiction Future of marriage equality legislation Impact on federalism principles Impact on traditional marriage Implications for religious institutions Legal challenges to DOMA's constitutionality Legal definitions of family Legal implications for tax law Legal standing of plaintiffs Long-term effects on marriage laws Potential backlash from ruling Potential for future litigation Potential for state-level amendments Role of the Supreme Court in defining marriage Social norms regarding marriage Social stability concerns |
| gptkbp:effect_on_federal_law |
Federal benefits extended to same-sex couples
|
| gptkbp:effect_on_states |
States allowed to recognize same-sex marriages
|
| gptkbp:election |
5-4
|
| gptkbp:held_that |
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional
|
| gptkbp:historical_context |
gptkb:Civil_Rights_Movement
Part of the broader LGBTQ+ rights movement Same-sex marriage legalization movement |
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
United States v. Windsor
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Same-sex marriage rights
Federal benefits for same-sex couples Legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States |
| gptkbp:influenced_by |
gptkb:California_Proposition_8
gptkb:Bowers_v._Hardwick |
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
Edith Windsor and the United States government
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
Legal precedent for future cases
570 U. S. 744 (2013) |
| gptkbp:is_countered_by |
gptkb:Section_3_of_DOMA
|
| gptkbp:judged_by |
Reversed lower court ruling
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
gptkb:Justices_Anthony_Kennedy
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia gptkb:Justice_John_Roberts gptkb:Justice_Samuel_Alito gptkb:Justice_Clarence_Thomas gptkb:Justices_Clarence_Thomas gptkb:Justices_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg Justices Samuel Alito Justices Stephen Breyer Justices Sonia Sotomayor Constitutionality of federal statutes Justices Elena Kagan Constitutionality of DOMA |
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Same-sex marriage legislation
|
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Set a precedent for future marriage equality cases
Recognition of same-sex marriages State marriage laws Encouraged challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Defense_of_Marriage_Act_(DOMA)
Due process rights Equal protection under the law Constitutional challenge to DOMA |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Federal benefits for same-sex couples
Invalidation of federal law Invalidated DOMA's definition of marriage |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
gptkb:Equal_protection_clause
Due process clause |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:The_American_Civil_Liberties_Union
gptkb:Roberta_Kaplan Addressed discrimination against same-sex couples Discussed the role of federalism in marriage laws Examined the constitutionality of federal marriage definitions Evaluated the government's interest in marriage definitions |
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:Respect_for_Marriage_Act
gptkb:Marriage_Equality_Act Influenced the legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide Led to further state-level marriage equality laws |
| gptkbp:location |
gptkb:Washington,_D._C.
|
| gptkbp:material |
Challenge to federal law
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Section 3 of DOMA struck down
Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional struck down DOMA |
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:Constitution
gptkb:Obergefell_v._Hodges Rights of same-sex couples |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy
5-4 |
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Mixed reactions
Criticized by conservative groups Widely celebrated by LGBTQ+ advocates Celebration among LGBTQ advocates |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:United_States_v._Loving
gptkb:United_States_v._Texas gptkb:Hollingsworth_v._Perry gptkb:Baker_v._Nelson |
| gptkbp:related_to |
LGBT rights
|
| gptkbp:responds_to |
gptkb:United_States
|
| gptkbp:signatories |
gptkb:Edith_Windsor
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Legal recognition of same-sex marriage
Struck down federal definition of marriage Expansion of marriage rights Constitutional rights for same-sex couples Struck down federal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman Landmark ruling for marriage equality |
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
3
|