Clinic Had Brief Filed On Behalf of Widow Hit With Huge Tax Bills After Her Spouse Died

Media Contact: Public Affairs, 212-854-2650 or

New York, Oct. 18, 2012The Columbia Law School Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic today applauded the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) for violating the Constitution’s equality guarantee.

The court held, with two judges in the majority and one in dissent, that the federal government’s discrimination against same-sex couples’ marriages could not be justified under intermediate-level scrutiny by the court. In particular, the court rejected arguments that government interests in conserving resources, preserving uniformity in marriage-recognition practices, or encouraging procreation among heterosexuals could justify DOMA’s discrimination against gay and lesbian married couples.

The Clinic’s brief to the court had argued that these interests could not justify the Defense of Marriage act under any level of judicial review.

The court’s decision came in the case of Windsor v. United States. Edie Windsor, the plaintiff, first met her spouse, Thea Speyer, in 1963; the couple was engaged in 1967. Forty years later, they legally married in Toronto. After Speyer died in 2009, leaving her estate to Windsor, the United States sent Windsor a tax bill for more than $363,000. If the couple’s marriage had been recognized, Windsor would not have faced any taxes on the estate because of the tax code’s marital exemption.

“Today’s decision joins a landslide of other federal court rulings striking down the Defense of Marriage Act,” said Suzanne B. Goldberg, the Herbert and Doris Wechsler Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Sexuality & Gender Law Clinic. “The Court rightly found that the government has no good reason for promoting marriages of heterosexuals at the expense of gay people’s equality rights.” She added: “As the Court recognized, the federal government may not treat Edie’s marriage as though it did not exist, especially when her home state – New York –recognizes same-sex couples’ marriages.”

In this case, as in other suits now challenging DOMA, the Obama administration has agreed with many of the plaintiff’s legal arguments and has taken the position that DOMA is unconstitutional. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a group comprised of five leaders of the House of Representatives, has stepped in to defend DOMA, over the objections of two of the group’s five members.

Windsor is represented by the ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Columbia Law School’s Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic addresses cutting-edge issues in sexuality and gender law through litigation, legislation, public policy analysis and other forms of advocacy. Under the guidance of Professor Suzanne Goldberg, clinic students have worked on a wide range of projects, from constitutional litigation to legislative advocacy to immigration cases, to serve both individual and organizational clients in cases involving issues of sexuality and gender law.

For more information, please visit: To contact Goldberg: call (212) 854- 0411 or email



Add a comment

Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.



"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Activism Adoption adultery Advocacy Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Clinic Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Earth Day Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Feminism Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy Gender Justice GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton Hiring HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Intersectional Feminism Islamophobia Israel Jobs Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Marriage Equality Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Obergefell Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Exemptions Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work Silencing of voices SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Solidarity Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Work Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.