Citing Her Advanced Age, Edie Windsor, 83, Petitions Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging DOMA

On June 6th, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Jones ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional in the Edith Windsor case, brought by the ACLU. The case awaits a second round in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

WindsorToday, the HuffPost reports that Windsor's attorneys have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, making it the third involving DOMA that could be considered by SCOTUS as soon as next spring.

HuffPost reports:

Roberta Kaplan, Windsor's lawyer, said that Monday's petition to speed the lawsuit's movement through the courts was due in part to her client's age and health. Windsor has a heart condition, and on June 13, after the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group filed a notice of appeal, Windsor filed a motion to expedite the latest appeal, citing her poor health and a desire to "see the constitutional claim of her spouse's estate resolved during her lifetime."

In the petition to the court, the lawyers argued that the case is a straightforward example of how DOMA financially impacts married same-sex couples.

More on what the ACLU's petition means with regard to the Obama administration's strategy on DOMA from Chris Geidner over at Buzzfeed.


  1. Michael Bedwell says

    RE the linked Buzzfeed article in which the author attempts to deconstruct the multiple approaches the different parties are taking in asking the Supremes for a direct ruling on DOMA: Class can you say, “WHAT THE ____”? Forgive the mixed metaphors, but bombarding a court with multiple cases might sound like a good thing, but when it comes to controversial issues like this the Supremes have a history of looking for an excuse NOT to rule this way or that—or at all—and, thus, it seems to this layperson that, however well-intended, these differing approaches—rather than a UNITED, singular strategy—could blow up in our faces.

    The author is definitely wrong about one thing. He asserts that “the Obama administration [argued heightened scrutiny] should apply to sexual orientation classifications” when they essentially argued AGAINST ANY standard when they inexplicably and inexcusably continued to DEFEND Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell last year EVEN AFTER REPEAL, resulting in the reversal of the ruling against it in the Log Cabin challenge [thus, opening the legal door for the ban to be BROUGHT BACK in the future]. Therefore, we HOPE he is wrong about the potentially self-destructive mixed messages the Obama DOJ seems to be sending to the courts re DOMA: “…the Department of Justice has argued …arguments made by the administration to defend DOMA in court prior to February 2011 would continue to form a ‘REASONABLE argument’ for UPHOLDING DOMA under rational basis scrutiny.” [Emphasis mine.] It seemed self-obvious when they were ferociously defending DOMA in 2009 using arguments more reprehensible even than those used to pass the law in 1996 that they would come back to bite them in the ass if they ever “changed their minds.” Are they now painting a fresh target on it at the gay community’s peril?

Leave A Reply