This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Outlines > Constitutional Law I Outlines

Same Sex Marriage Cases

Updates Available

This is an extract of our Same Sex Marriage Cases document, which we sell as part of our Constitutional Law I Outlines collection written by the top tier of Georgetown University Law Center students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Constitutional Law I Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Same-Sex Marriage Cases

  1. Perry

    1. Standing

      1. "Whether petitioners have standing under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution in this case."


    2. On the Merits

      1. Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits California from retracting state constitutional law that had allowed same-sex couples to marry.

  2. Windsor

    1. Article III Questions

      1. (1) First, "[w]hether the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case."

        • Article III of the United States Constitution requires that any appeal present a justiciable "case" or "controversy." See Art. III, § 2.

        • "To enforce [the 'cases or controversies'] limitation, we demand that litigants demonstrate a 'personal stake' in the suit. The party invoking the Court’s authority has such a stake when three conditions are satisfied: The petitioner must show that he has 'suffered an injury in fact' that is caused by 'the conduct complained of' and that 'will be redressed by a favorable decision.' And the opposing party also must have an ongoing interest in the dispute, so that the case features 'that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues.' To ensure a case remains 'fit for federal-court adjudication,' the parties must have the necessary stake not only at the outset of litigation, but throughout its course. Camreta v. Greene

          • With respect to a party's standing to appeal, the petitioner must merely show that the "injury in fact" suffered by the petitioner was caused by the judgement of the court below.

        • 28 U.S.C. § 2414 provides that payment of a final judgment against the United States rendered by a federal district court "shall be made on settlements by the Secretary of the Treasury," and that "[w]henever the Attorney General determines that no appeal shall be taken from a judgment or that no further review will be sought from a decision affirming the same, he shall so certify and the judgment shall be deemed final." Thus, the U.S.’s own appeal, and subsequent petition for certiorari, prevents the judgment from becoming final until the case is resolved.

          • Therefore, there is still a case or controversy to resolve.

        • Windsor shares important characteristics with Lovett and Chadha. As in Chadha, the United States and the plaintiff agree that the injunction in the plaintiff’s favor (here, for reimbursement of estate taxes paid) is the proper disposition. And the Court’s resolution of the question of DOMA’s constitutionality will determine whether the U.S. actually makes such a payment: If the Court affirms the court of appeals, the U.S. will pay Windsor; but if it reverses (i.e., holds that DOMA Section 3 is constitutional), the U.S. will not reimburse her. If that is sufficient for Article III jurisdiction even before there are any adverse parties in the case requesting the opposite outcome (as the Court held was the case in the court of appeals in Chadha), that should settle the "case or controversy" question here.

          • And if, in the case of the statutory question in Chadha, the government’s 'status as an aggrieved party . . . [wa]s not altered by the fact that the Executive may agree with the holding that the statute in question is unconstitutional,' 462 U.S. at 931, it is not obvious why the conclusion would be any different for purposes of Article III.

          • In I.N.S. v. Chadha, this Court determined that the government's "status as an aggrieved party under [8 U.S.C.] § 1252 [wa]s not altered by the fact that the Executive may agree with the holding that the statute in question is unconstitutional." Although Chadha involved whether the party was aggrieved for purposes of the statute (repealed in 1988), we see no principled reason why the conclusion would be any different for purposes of Article III. Accordingly, we find that Chadha adds further...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Constitutional Law I Outlines.