Enter a player name to begin or load your saved progress.
Edith Windsor initiated the lawsuit after being denied a federal estate tax exemption following the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer.
Answer: True
Explanation: Edith Windsor initiated the lawsuit after being denied the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses following the death of her wife, Thea Spyer, due to Section 3 of DOMA's non-recognition of their marriage.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted in 1996 and defined marriage solely as a union between one woman and one man for state-level recognition.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted in 1996, defining marriage for federal purposes as a union between one man and one woman, not solely for state-level recognition.
Edith Windsor paid over $300,000 in estate taxes because DOMA prevented federal recognition of her marriage, thus disqualifying her from the spousal deduction.
Answer: True
Explanation: Edith Windsor incurred an estate tax liability exceeding $300,000 because DOMA prevented federal recognition of her marriage, thus disqualifying her from the spousal deduction.
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in New York State before same-sex marriage was legal there.
Answer: False
Explanation: Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Toronto, Canada, at a time when same-sex marriage was not yet legal in their home state of New York.
Edith Windsor's lawsuit was based on being denied the federal spousal deduction for income tax purposes.
Answer: False
Explanation: Edith Windsor's lawsuit was based on being denied the federal spousal deduction for *estate tax* purposes, not income tax purposes.
Who was Edith Windsor, and what was the basis for her lawsuit against the federal government?
Answer: She was a same-sex spouse denied federal estate tax exemption benefits after her wife's death due to DOMA Section 3.
Explanation: Edith Windsor, the plaintiff, was a same-sex spouse whose marriage to Thea Spyer was recognized by New York State. Following Spyer's death, Windsor was denied the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses due to Section 3 of DOMA, prompting her legal challenge.
Which specific section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was declared unconstitutional in *United States v. Windsor*?
Answer: Section 3, which defined marriage for all federal purposes as a union between one man and one woman.
Explanation: Section 3 of DOMA, which defined marriage for all federal purposes as a legal union between one man and one woman, was the provision declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in *United States v. Windsor*.
What specific financial penalty did Edith Windsor face due to DOMA following her wife's death?
Answer: She was required to pay over $363,000 in federal estate taxes.
Explanation: Edith Windsor was compelled to pay over $363,000 in federal estate taxes because DOMA prevented the recognition of her marriage, thus disqualifying her from the unlimited spousal deduction.
What was the significance of Edith Windsor's marriage being performed in Toronto, Canada?
Answer: It allowed them to legally marry at a time when it was not permitted in their home state of New York.
Explanation: Marrying in Toronto, Canada, where same-sex marriage was legal, allowed Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer to enter into a legally recognized marriage at a time when such unions were not permitted in their home state of New York.
The Supreme Court case *United States v. Windsor* primarily concerned whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Answer: True
Explanation: The central legal question in *United States v. Windsor* concerned the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, specifically whether its federal definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection for legally married same-sex couples.
The Supreme Court's ruling against DOMA Section 3 was primarily based on the First Amendment's freedom of religion.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Supreme Court's ruling against DOMA Section 3 was primarily based on the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which includes an equal protection guarantee, rather than the First Amendment.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals applied the rational basis review standard to Section 3 of DOMA.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals applied intermediate scrutiny to Section 3 of DOMA, a standard higher than rational basis review.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that laws discriminating based on sexual orientation only needed to pass rational basis review.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that laws discriminating based on sexual orientation require a standard of review higher than rational basis review.
The Supreme Court held that Section 3 of DOMA violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that Section 3 of DOMA violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which includes an equal protection guarantee, not the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
The *Windsor* ruling expanded the interpretation of "liberty" under the Fifth Amendment to include freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Answer: True
Explanation: The *Windsor* ruling expanded the interpretation of "liberty" under the Fifth Amendment to include protection against federal discrimination based on sexual orientation and marital status.
The Supreme Court found that DOMA Section 3 violated the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Answer: True
Explanation: The Supreme Court found that DOMA Section 3 violated the Equal Protection component implicitly guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
What was the central legal issue adjudicated in the Supreme Court case *United States v. Windsor*?
Answer: Whether Section 3 of DOMA, which defined marriage federally as between one man and one woman, violated the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee.
Explanation: The central legal issue concerned the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, specifically whether its federal definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection for legally married same-sex couples.
Which constitutional amendment served as the primary basis for the Supreme Court's ruling in *Windsor*?
Answer: The Fifth Amendment, including its guarantee of due process and equal protection.
Explanation: The Supreme Court's ruling in *Windsor* was primarily based on the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically its Due Process Clause, which implicitly includes a guarantee of equal protection against federal discrimination.
What standard of judicial review did the Second Circuit Court of Appeals apply to DOMA Section 3?
Answer: Intermediate scrutiny, a standard higher than rational basis review.
Explanation: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals applied intermediate scrutiny to DOMA Section 3, finding it unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantees because it could not satisfy this heightened standard of review.
How did the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause evolve in *Windsor*?
Answer: It affirmed that the clause inherently includes a guarantee of equal protection against federal discrimination.
Explanation: The *Windsor* decision affirmed that the 'liberty' protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause inherently encompasses a guarantee of equal protection against federal discrimination.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Section 3 of DOMA was constitutional, upholding the federal definition of marriage.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional, thereby striking down the federal definition of marriage.
Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion in the United States v. Windsor decision.
Answer: False
Explanation: Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion in the *United States v. Windsor* decision; Justice Elena Kagan was one of the justices who joined the majority.
The Supreme Court stated that DOMA Section 3 validated the dignity of same-sex relationships by providing a clear federal standard.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Supreme Court stated that DOMA Section 3 conveyed a message of "disparag[ing] and injur[ing]" legally married same-sex couples, thereby diminishing their dignity, rather than validating their relationships.
When the Supreme Court said DOMA "demeans the couple," it referred to the financial burden imposed by estate taxes.
Answer: False
Explanation: When the Supreme Court stated DOMA "demeans the couple," it referred to the governmental message of inequality and injury conveyed by denying recognition to their marriages, not solely the financial burden.
The Supreme Court declared Section 7 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Supreme Court declared Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, not Section 7.
The Court stated DOMA "writes inequality into the entire United States Code" because it only affected estate tax law.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Court stated DOMA "writes inequality into the entire United States Code" because its discriminatory definition affected over a thousand federal statutes and regulations, not just estate tax law.
The *Windsor* decision established that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed by the states.
Answer: True
Explanation: The *Windsor* decision established that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed by the states.
DOMA Section 3 prevented federal protections against assault or murder of a family member from applying to same-sex spouses.
Answer: True
Explanation: DOMA Section 3 prevented federal protections against assault or murder of a family member from applying to same-sex spouses, as highlighted in the majority opinion.
The Supreme Court's decision in *Windsor* established that state laws defining marriage were supreme over federal recognition.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Supreme Court's decision in *Windsor* established that the federal government must recognize state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, not that state laws were supreme over federal recognition in this context.
What was the Supreme Court's final determination regarding Section 3 of DOMA?
Answer: It was declared unconstitutional by a 5-4 majority.
Explanation: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional, thereby invalidating the federal definition of marriage that excluded same-sex couples.
According to the Supreme Court's majority opinion, what was the effect of DOMA Section 3 on legally married same-sex couples?
Answer: It created two tiers of marriage, disparaging and injuring those recognized by states but not the federal government.
Explanation: The Supreme Court found that DOMA Section 3 created two tiers of marriage, disparaging and injuring legally married same-sex couples by conveying a message that their unions were less worthy than heterosexual marriages.
What did the Supreme Court mean by stating that DOMA "writes inequality into the entire United States Code"?
Answer: DOMA's discriminatory definition affected over a thousand federal statutes and regulations.
Explanation: The Court meant that DOMA's discriminatory definition permeated over 1,000 federal statutes and numerous regulations, creating systemic inequality across various aspects of federal law, not just the estate tax.
Justice Scalia argued in his dissent that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction because the government had conceded the case.
Answer: True
Explanation: Justice Scalia argued in his dissent that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction because the executive branch had conceded the case, leaving no genuine dispute.
In his dissent, Justice Scalia suggested the majority opinion was primarily driven by concerns about federalism and states' rights.
Answer: False
Explanation: In his dissent, Justice Scalia primarily argued about the Court's jurisdiction and the invalidation of democratically enacted legislation, while Chief Justice Roberts' dissent focused more on federalism concerns.
Justice Scalia argued that the Supreme Court's decision invalidated the democratic process by striking down DOMA.
Answer: True
Explanation: Justice Scalia argued that the Supreme Court's decision invalidated the democratic process by usurping the legislative authority to enact DOMA.
Justice Scalia believed the Supreme Court's handling of the *Windsor* case provided a clear and definitive resolution for all parties.
Answer: False
Explanation: Justice Scalia believed the Supreme Court's handling of the *Windsor* case created uncertainty and "cheated both sides," rather than providing a clear and definitive resolution.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia argued that the Supreme Court lacked the power to rule on the case primarily because:
Answer: The government had conceded the law was unconstitutional, leaving no actual dispute.
Explanation: Justice Scalia contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a "real dispute" after the government conceded the issue, and he further argued the Court lacked constitutional authority to invalidate democratically enacted legislation like DOMA.
What was the primary focus of Chief Justice Roberts' dissenting opinion?
Answer: That the ruling improperly infringed upon the traditional authority of states to define marriage (federalism).
Explanation: Chief Justice Roberts' dissent primarily focused on federalism, arguing the majority opinion encroached upon the traditional state authority to define marriage.
What legal principle did Chief Justice Roberts emphasize in his dissent?
Answer: The importance of federalism and states' traditional role in defining marriage.
Explanation: Chief Justice Roberts' dissent emphasized the principle of federalism, arguing that the Court's decision improperly infringed upon the traditional authority of states to define marriage.
What did Justice Scalia believe was the fundamental problem with the Supreme Court invalidating DOMA?
Answer: It usurped the democratic process and the power of elected representatives.
Explanation: Justice Scalia argued that the Court's invalidation of DOMA represented an overreach of judicial power, usurping the democratic process and the authority of elected representatives.
President Obama praised the Windsor ruling, calling it a setback for marriage equality.
Answer: False
Explanation: President Obama praised the *Windsor* ruling, calling it a "victory for American democracy," not a setback for marriage equality.
The Windsor decision immediately led to the extension of federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
Answer: True
Explanation: The *Windsor* decision immediately prompted the federal government to begin extending benefits and rights to legally married same-sex couples.
The Windsor ruling had little impact on subsequent legal challenges to state-level same-sex marriage bans.
Answer: False
Explanation: The *Windsor* ruling significantly influenced subsequent legal challenges to state-level same-sex marriage bans, providing a strong foundation for those arguments.
The Supreme Court's decision in *Kitchen v. Herbert* found that *Windsor* did not affect prior rulings on same-sex marriage.
Answer: False
Explanation: The decision in *Kitchen v. Herbert* found that *Windsor* represented a significant legal development that rendered prior rulings, such as *Baker v. Nelson*, no longer controlling regarding same-sex marriage.
The Windsor ruling was a key precedent that directly led to the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Answer: True
Explanation: The *Windsor* ruling was a crucial precedent that directly contributed to the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage established in *Obergefell v. Hodges*.
The Windsor ruling primarily affected state-level marriage recognition and benefits.
Answer: False
Explanation: The *Windsor* ruling primarily affected federal recognition and benefits for same-sex couples, not state-level marriage recognition itself.
The *Windsor* decision allowed same-sex couples to file joint federal tax returns.
Answer: True
Explanation: The *Windsor* decision enabled same-sex couples to file joint federal tax returns, among other federal benefits previously denied.
The Supreme Court's decision in *Hollingsworth v. Perry*, issued the same day, upheld California's ban on same-sex marriage.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Supreme Court's decision in *Hollingsworth v. Perry*, issued the same day, allowed same-sex marriages to resume in California, effectively overturning the state's ban.
The term "doctrinal developments" refers to the evolution of legal principles that *Windsor* superseded, like the earlier ruling in *Baker v. Nelson*.
Answer: True
Explanation: The term "doctrinal developments" refers to the evolution of legal principles that *Windsor* superseded, effectively rendering prior rulings like *Baker v. Nelson* no longer controlling.
The *Windsor* decision meant that same-sex couples were only recognized for federal benefits if they lived in a state that recognized their marriage.
Answer: False
Explanation: The *Windsor* decision meant that same-sex couples were recognized for federal benefits regardless of whether they lived in a state that recognized their marriage, provided the marriage was legally performed where entered.
The Supreme Court's decision in *Windsor* was seen as a crucial step towards the nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage.
Answer: True
Explanation: The Supreme Court's decision in *Windsor* was a crucial step towards the nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage, laying essential groundwork for *Obergefell v. Hodges*.
The *Windsor* ruling led to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) definition of 'spouse' being updated to include same-sex marriages.
Answer: True
Explanation: The *Windsor* ruling led to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) definition of 'spouse' being updated to include same-sex marriages, extending FMLA protections.
The lawsuit *De Leon v. Perry* argued that states should be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples if the federal government could.
Answer: False
Explanation: The lawsuit *De Leon v. Perry* argued that states should *not* be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples if the federal government was prohibited from doing so by *Windsor*.
How did President Obama respond to the Supreme Court's decision in *United States v. Windsor*?
Answer: He called it a victory for democracy and supported extending federal benefits.
Explanation: President Obama hailed the *Windsor* ruling as a "victory for American democracy" and affirmed his administration's commitment to extending federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
What was a significant immediate consequence of the *Windsor* decision?
Answer: The federal government began extending benefits and rights to legally married same-sex couples.
Explanation: A significant immediate consequence of the *Windsor* decision was the federal government's commencement of extending rights, privileges, and benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
How did the *Windsor* ruling influence later court decisions regarding state-level same-sex marriage bans?
Answer: It provided a strong legal foundation for challenging state bans as unconstitutional.
Explanation: The *Windsor* ruling provided substantial legal precedent and reasoning that empowered subsequent challenges to state-level same-sex marriage bans, contributing significantly to their eventual invalidation.
In *Kitchen v. Herbert*, the court used the *Windsor* decision to argue that:
Answer: The precedent of *Baker v. Nelson* was no longer controlling due to significant legal changes.
Explanation: In *Kitchen v. Herbert*, the court determined that *Windsor* constituted a significant "doctrinal development" that rendered the prior summary dismissal in *Baker v. Nelson* obsolete, thereby invalidating state-level same-sex marriage prohibitions based on equal protection principles.
The Supreme Court's decision in *Windsor* is considered a major precursor to which later landmark case?
Answer: Obergefell v. Hodges
Explanation: The *Windsor* decision is widely regarded as a critical precursor to *Obergefell v. Hodges*, the landmark case that established a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.
Which of the following was NOT a federal benefit impacted by the *Windsor* ruling?
Answer: Eligibility for state-issued driver's licenses
Explanation: The *Windsor* ruling impacted federal benefits such as Social Security survivor benefits, federal employee health insurance, and estate tax exemptions. Eligibility for state-issued driver's licenses is a state matter and was not directly affected by this federal ruling.
What was the practical outcome of the *Windsor* ruling for same-sex couples regarding federal law?
Answer: It required the federal government to recognize legally valid same-sex marriages for all federal purposes.
Explanation: The practical outcome of the *Windsor* ruling was that the federal government was mandated to recognize legally valid same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including benefits and protections.
The Supreme Court's decision in *Hollingsworth v. Perry*, issued the same day as *Windsor*, had what effect?
Answer: It allowed same-sex marriages to resume in California.
Explanation: The decision in *Hollingsworth v. Perry*, issued concurrently with *Windsor*, effectively permitted same-sex marriages to resume in California by ruling that the proponents of Proposition 8 lacked standing to appeal.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals was the first federal court to rule Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in Windsor's case.
Answer: False
Explanation: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York was the first federal court to rule Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in Windsor's case, not the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Department of Justice actively defended Section 3 of DOMA throughout the lower court proceedings.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Department of Justice ceased defending Section 3 of DOMA after the Second Circuit applied heightened scrutiny, a standard the DOJ believed the law could not satisfy.
The Supreme Court only considered the central constitutional question regarding DOMA Section 3.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Supreme Court considered additional procedural questions regarding jurisdiction and standing, in addition to the central constitutional question concerning DOMA Section 3.
The Department of Justice stopped defending DOMA because it believed the law was constitutional under heightened scrutiny.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Department of Justice stopped defending DOMA because it believed the law could not withstand heightened scrutiny, not because it believed the law was constitutional under that standard.
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) argued that DOMA should be reviewed under heightened scrutiny.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) argued that DOMA should be reviewed under a rational basis standard, not heightened scrutiny.
Roberta Kaplan represented the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) in the Supreme Court case.
Answer: False
Explanation: Roberta Kaplan was the lead counsel representing Edith Windsor; she did not represent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG).
The Supreme Court appointed an amicus curiae to argue the constitutional question of DOMA's validity.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Supreme Court appointed an amicus curiae to argue the procedural questions of jurisdiction and standing, not the central constitutional question of DOMA's validity.
Which entity intervened to defend the constitutionality of DOMA after the Department of Justice declined to do so?
Answer: The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives.
Explanation: The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives intervened to defend Section 3 of DOMA after the Department of Justice announced it would no longer defend the law under heightened scrutiny.
Why was the 'Case or Controversy' clause of Article III of the Constitution relevant to the *Windsor* case?
Answer: It raised questions about whether a genuine legal dispute still existed after the executive branch agreed with the lower court's ruling.
Explanation: The 'Case or Controversy' clause requires a genuine dispute for federal courts to exercise jurisdiction. This clause became relevant because the executive branch's concession raised questions about whether a live controversy persisted.
Which of the following statements best describes the role of Roberta Kaplan in the *Windsor* case?
Answer: She was the lead counsel representing Edith Windsor.
Explanation: Roberta Kaplan served as the lead counsel representing Edith Windsor, successfully arguing her case before the Supreme Court.