{"id":1590,"date":"2013-11-11T22:58:51","date_gmt":"2013-11-12T03:58:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/?p=1590"},"modified":"2017-10-08T23:17:40","modified_gmt":"2017-10-09T03:17:40","slug":"windsor-federalism-and-the-future-of-marriage-litigation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/2013\/11\/windsor-federalism-and-the-future-of-marriage-litigation\/","title":{"rendered":"Windsor, Federalism, and the Future of Marriage Litigation"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/88\/2017\/10\/2017-09-12T221354Z_1_OV6YAQT7V_RTRMADC_0_PEOPLE-EDITHWINDSOR-OBIT.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-2105\" src=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/88\/2017\/10\/2017-09-12T221354Z_1_OV6YAQT7V_RTRMADC_0_PEOPLE-EDITHWINDSOR-OBIT.jpg\" alt=\"Edie Windsor outside SCOTUS\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" srcset=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/88\/2017\/10\/2017-09-12T221354Z_1_OV6YAQT7V_RTRMADC_0_PEOPLE-EDITHWINDSOR-OBIT.jpg 640w, https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/88\/2017\/10\/2017-09-12T221354Z_1_OV6YAQT7V_RTRMADC_0_PEOPLE-EDITHWINDSOR-OBIT-300x169.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">Mark Strasser*<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/88\/2013\/11\/Strasser_Windsor_Federalism_and_the_Future_of_Marriage_Litigation.pdf\">Please click here for a PDF of the article<\/a><\/p>\n<p>In <em>United States v. Windsor<\/em>,<a title=\"\" href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a> the United States Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).<a title=\"\" href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]<\/a> Now that section 3 has been invalidated, section 2 of DOMA may also be challenged.<a title=\"\" href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\">[3]<\/a> The constitutionality of DOMA section 2 was not before the <em>Windsor<\/em> Court, so the Court could not have been expected to address its validity directly. Nonetheless, the <em>Windsor<\/em> opinion provides surprisingly little express guidance with respect to whether section 2 also violates constitutional guarantees.<a title=\"\" href=\"#_ftn4\" name=\"_ftnref4\">[4]<\/a> Further complicating any analysis of that section\u2019s validity is that the section has not been authoritatively construed. The constitutionality of section 2 (and even its being subject to challenge) will depend greatly on its authoritative interpretation and, in addition, on a clear articulation of the constraints, if any, on the power of a state to refuse to recognize a marriage validly celebrated in a sister domicile. If section 2 is construed narrowly and is found not to afford states a power that they do not already possess, then it would seem immune from challenge; however, in that event, a key provision of several state mini-DOMAs will lose even the veneer of legality.<!--more--><\/p>\n<p>Part II of this Article discusses <em>Windsor<\/em>. Part III examines that decision\u2019s possible implications for section 2 of DOMA, including some possible constructions of the provision and some of the differing constitutional implications of these alternate constructions. Part IV analyzes <em>Windsor<\/em>\u2019s possible implications for state same-sex marriage bans. The Article concludes that while <em>Windsor<\/em> could have been clearer with respect to its implications for section 2 and for some of the state same-sex marriage bans, the most plausible interpretation of <em>Windsor<\/em> establishes the constitutional invalidity of DOMA\u2019s section 2 and of many state mini-DOMAs, in part if not in whole.<\/p>\n<div>\n<p>Citation:\u00a0<span style=\"font-size: 13.333333969116211px; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: normal;\">Mark Strasser,\u00a0<\/span><i style=\"font-size: 13.333333969116211px; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: normal;\">Windsor, Federalism and the Future of Marriage Litigation<\/i><span style=\"font-size: 13.333333969116211px; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: normal;\">, 37\u00a0<\/span><span style=\"font-size: 13.333333969116211px; color: #222222; line-height: normal; font-family: Arial; font-variant: small-caps;\">Harv. J. L. &amp; Gender Online<\/span><span style=\"font-size: 13.333333969116211px; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: normal;\">\u00a01\u00a0(2013).<\/span><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><em>Notes<\/em><\/p>\n<p>* Trustees Professor of Law, Capital University Law School, Columbus, Ohio.<br \/>\n<a title=\"\" href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]<\/a> 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).<br \/>\n<a title=\"\" href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]<\/a> 1 U.S.C. \u00a7 7 (1996).<br \/>\n<a title=\"\" href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\">[3]<\/a> 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1738C (1996).<br \/>\n<a title=\"\" href=\"#_ftnref4\" name=\"_ftn4\">[4]<\/a> Justice Kennedy merely mentioned it in his opinion. <em>See <\/em><em>Windsor<\/em>, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2682\u201383 (2013) (\u201cSection 2, which has not been challenged here, allows States to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other States.\u201d).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Mark Strasser* Please click here for a PDF of the article In United States v. Windsor,[1] the United States Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).[2] Now that section 3 has been invalidated, section 2 of DOMA may also be challenged.[3] The constitutionality of DOMA section 2 was not [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"aside","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[35,30],"class_list":["post-1590","post","type-post","status-publish","format-aside","hentry","category-online-journal","tag-family-law","tag-lgbtq","post_format-post-format-aside"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZQij-pE","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1590","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1590"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1590\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1590"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}