Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Kory Edwards and Tori Emminger

No description

Tori Emminger

on 9 December 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Kory Edwards and Tori Emminger

United States vs. Windsor 2012
Tori Emminger and Kory Edwards

Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer's marriage was recognized by the state of New York
Windsor's spouse died and left her their estate
DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) states that federally, legal unions are only between a man and a woman
Windsor was taxed $363,000
Windsor filed a law suit in order to declare DOMA unconstitutional
Majority Opinion Reasoning:
DOMA is in violation of fifth amendment rights that guarantee equal protection.
In this case, DOMA violates the fifth amendment because it suggests that those in a same-sex marriage are unequal and does not recognize state laws.
Concurring Opinion Reasoning (Kennedy):
US government must support Supreme Court's power regarding this case.
US Treasury must refund tax money.
DOMA diminishes power of state courts.
Opinion Reasoning (Alito):
Same sex marriage is not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition"
DOMA does not disturb the defining of marriage
Does the Defense of Marriage Act bereave same sex couples, who were married under state law, of their fifth amendment rights?
5 votes for Windsor, 4 against
DOMA deprives same-sex couples federal rights that they have been granted from individual state laws
The court ruled that DOMA violated fifth amendment rights
Dissenting Opinion Reasoning (Roberts):
Supreme Court does not have the power to justify Congress' passing of DOMA
Majority did not address the definition of marriage
Dissenting Opinion Reasoning (Scalia):
Majority did not address whether the Equal Protection Clause allows the court to review the definition of marriage
Impact of Decision:
DOMA is unconstitutional and does not have the ability to define marriage
economic deficit ensured because of refunding taxes
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group presented significant arguments
Full transcript