DOCSLIB.ORG

First Amendment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
First Amendment FIRST AMENDMENT RELIGION AND EXPRESSION CONTENTS Page Religion ....................................................................................................................................... 1013 An Overview ........................................................................................................................ 1013 Scholarly Commentary ................................................................................................ 1014 Court Tests Applied to Legislation Affecting Religion ............................................. 1016 Government Neutrality in Religious Disputes .......................................................... 1020 Establishment of Religion .................................................................................................. 1022 Financial Assistance to Church-Related Institutions ............................................... 1022 Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Released Time ....... 1043 Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Prayers and Bible Reading ..................................................................................................................... 1044 Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Curriculum Re- striction ..................................................................................................................... 1048 Access of Religious Groups to School Property ......................................................... 1048 Tax Exemptions of Religious Property ...................................................................... 1051 Exemption of Religious Organizations from Generally Applicable Laws ............... 1052 Sunday Closing Laws .................................................................................................. 1053 Conscientious Objection .............................................................................................. 1054 Regulation of Religious Solicitation ........................................................................... 1055 Religion in Governmental Observances ..................................................................... 1055 Religious Displays on Government Property ............................................................ 1056 Miscellaneous ............................................................................................................... 1058 Free Exercise of Religion ................................................................................................... 1059 The Belief-Conduct Distinction .................................................................................. 1061 The Mormon Cases ...................................................................................................... 1063 The Jehovah’s Witnesses Cases ................................................................................. 1064 Free Exercise Exemption from General Governmental Requirements ................... 1066 Religious Test Oaths ................................................................................................... 1075 Religious Disqualification ........................................................................................... 1075 Freedom of Expression—Speech and Press ............................................................................. 1076 Adoption and Common Law Background ......................................................................... 1076 Freedom of Expression: The Philosophical Basis ............................................................. 1082 Freedom of Expression: Is There a Difference Between Speech and Press? ................. 1083 The Doctrine of Prior Restraint ......................................................................................... 1086 Injunctions and the Press in Fair Trial Cases .......................................................... 1088 Obscenity and Prior Restraint ................................................................................... 1090 Subsequent Punishment: Clear and Present Danger and Other Tests ......................... 1091 Clear and Present Danger .......................................................................................... 1093 The Adoption of Clear and Present Danger .............................................................. 1096 Contempt of Court and Clear and Present Danger .................................................. 1097 Clear and Present Danger Revised: Dennis .............................................................. 1100 Balancing ..................................................................................................................... 1101 The ‘‘Absolutist’’ View of the First Amendment, with a Note on ‘‘Preferred Posi- tion’’ ........................................................................................................................... 1106 1009 VerDate Apr 15 2004 09:05 Jun 25, 2004 Jkt 077500 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 8221 Sfmt 8221 C:\CONAN\CON023.XXX PRFM99 PsN: CON023 1010 Freedom of Expression—Speech and Press—Continued Subsequent Punishment: Clear and Present Danger and Other Tests—Continued Of Other Tests and Standards: Vagueness, Overbreadth, Least Restrictive Means, and Others .................................................................................................. 1107 Is There a Present Test? ............................................................................................. 1109 Freedom of Belief ................................................................................................................ 1110 Flag Salute Cases ........................................................................................................ 1111 Imposition of Consequences for Holding Certain Beliefs ......................................... 1112 Right of Association ............................................................................................................ 1114 Political Association .................................................................................................... 1120 Conflict Between Organization and Members .......................................................... 1123 Maintenance of National Security and the First Amendment ....................................... 1126 Punishment of Advocacy ............................................................................................. 1126 Compelled Registration of Communist Party ........................................................... 1129 Punishment for Membership in an Organization Which Engages in Proscribed Advocacy ................................................................................................................... 1129 Disabilities Attaching to Membership in Proscribed Organizations ....................... 1130 Employment Restrictions and Loyalty Oaths ........................................................... 1133 Legislative Investigations and the First Amendment .............................................. 1137 Interference With War Effort ..................................................................................... 1138 Suppression of Communist Propaganda in the Mails .............................................. 1139 Exclusion of Certain Aliens as a First Amendment Problem .................................. 1139 Particular Government Regulations That Restrict Expression ...................................... 1140 Government as Employer: Political and Other Outside Activities .......................... 1141 Government as Employer: Free Expression Generally ............................................ 1144 Government as Educator ............................................................................................ 1149 Government as Regulator of the Electoral Process: Elections ................................. 1154 Government as Regulator of the Electoral Process: Lobbying ................................. 1162 Government as Regulator of Labor Relations ........................................................... 1163 Government as Investigator: Reporter’s Privilege .................................................... 1164 Government and the Conduct of Trials ..................................................................... 1166 Government as Administrator of Prisons .................................................................. 1170 Government and Power of the Purse ......................................................................... 1173 Governmental Regulation of Communications Industries .............................................. 1176 Commercial Speech ..................................................................................................... 1176 Taxation ....................................................................................................................... 1186 Labor Relations ........................................................................................................... 1188 Antitrust Laws ............................................................................................................ 1188 Radio and Television ................................................................................................... 1189 Governmentally Compelled Right of Reply to Newspapers ..................................... 1193 Regulation of Cable Television ................................................................................... 1193 Government Restraint of Content of Expression
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rational Basis "Plus" Thomas B
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2017 Rational Basis "Plus" Thomas B. Nachbar Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Nachbar, Thomas B., "Rational Basis "Plus"" (2017). Constitutional Commentary. 1094. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/1094 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NACHBAR_DRAFT 4.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 7/13/17 12:45 PM RATIONAL BASIS “PLUS” Thomas B. Nachbar* INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court has asserted the power to review the substance of state and federal law for its reasonableness for almost 200 years.1 Since the mid-1960s, that review has taken the form of the “familiar ‘rational basis’ test,”2 under which the Court will strike a statute if it is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.3 The test is hardly perfect. It lacks, for one thing any textual basis in the Constitution.4 It has been criticized from both ends, as alternatively a judicial usurpation of legislative power5 or “tantamount to no review at all.”6 But the Court has applied it for decades,7 and while the test is not universally loved, neither is it particularly controversial, at least as rules of constitutional law go. If rational basis scrutiny itself is largely uncontroversial, the same cannot be said for so-called “rational basis with bite,” “rational basis with teeth,” or—as I shall call it—“rational basis plus” review.8 Rational basis plus is, as Justice O’Connor * Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Right/ Classification Purpose/Statutory Fit
    RIGHT/ CLASSIFICATION PURPOSE/STATUTORY FIT 1) FUNDAMENTAL/SUSPECT = COMPELLING/NECESSARY TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF 2) INTERMEDIATE = IMPORTANT/SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED 3) MERE = LEGITIMATE/RATIONALLY RELATED CHARLOTTESVILLE, PORTLAND - ALT RIGHT MARCHING IN REVERSE (LIBERAL COLLEGE TOWNS, JEWISH CITY) FACT SPECIFIC – WHAT SAID, WHERE 1. RIGHT TO MARCH THROUGH STREETS OR SIDEWALKS (COSTS AND LIABILITY) ? 2. RIGHT TO MARCH THROUGH CAMPUS OF PUBLIC UNIVERSITY ? 3. RIGHT TO MARCH THROUGH CAMPUS OF PRIVATE UNIVERSITY ? ACTUALLY PRACTICE THIS – EVEN IN SMALL TOWNS. BASIC FIRST AMENDMENT FOUNDATION: 1) CONGRESS/STATE (14 AMENDMENT) CAN VIOLATE FIRST AMENDMENT (NOT EMPLOYER – NFL - KAPERNICK) 2) PRIVATE = TORT, NOT FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION 3) BEWARE IF NON SPEECH ELEMENT – CAN BE PUNISHED EG SPRAY PAINT ANTI-SEMETIC ON SCHOOL WALLS 4) MANY CRAZY LAWS AND ORDINANCES IN EXISTENCE. USSC DOES NOT REPEAL – STILL ON BOOKS 5) MANY PRACTICES VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT AREN’T CHALLENGED (EG PUBLIC PROFANITY ARREST) BASIC – WHAT IS THE MEANING OF FIRST AMENDMENT ? ASSUME NO KNOWLEDGE OF CASE LAW. EVERYONE IS A FIRST AMENDMENT LIBERAL. 1) MUSIC ? RHAPSODY IN THE RAIN (1966). 2) PROCREATE, INTERCOURSE, FORNICATE, FREAKING 3) GENOCIDE ? HATE SPEECH ? INTERNET TROLLS ? 4) SNOWDEN AND THE HACKIVISTS 5) TRY TO BRIBE JUDGE ? 6) WHEN CAN GOV’T ARREST ? BIG DATA AND PROBLEMS USA TODAY - AUGUST 19, 2019 1. CONNECTICUT – TRYING TO BUY HIGH CAPACITY RIFLE MAGAZINES ON LINE AND FACEBOOK “AN INTEREST IN COMMITTING A MASS SHOOTING”. COPS FOUND 2 GUNS, AMMUNITION, BODY ARMOR AND OTHER EQUIP. 2. FLORIDA – MULTIPLE TEXTS WITH PLANS TO COMMIT A MASS SHOOTING. “LARGE CROWD FROM 3 MILES AWAY. 100 KILLS WOULD BE NICE.
    [Show full text]
  • Attorney Discipline for Offensive Personality in California Robert C
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 31 | Issue 5 Article 5 1-1980 Attorney Discipline for Offensive Personality in California Robert C. Black Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert C. Black, Attorney Discipline for Offensive Personality in California, 31 Hastings L.J. 1097 (1980). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol31/iss5/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Attorney Discipline for "Offensive Personality" in California By ROBERT C. BLACK* According to one of the most venerable and dubious of legal fictions, everyone is presumed to know the law.' Fortunately for our peace of mind, most of us know little of the myriad laws we are obliged to obey. Although they never discuss the subject, lawyers are well aware that any serious attempt by the authorities to enforce all the en- actments which technically are in force would sabotage the social or- der.2 Despite the strictures of legal ethics,3 insofar as lawyers provide guidance for the practical conduct of real life they necessarily counte- nance and even commit nominal infractions routinely. With law, as with everything else, there can be too much of a good thing; and if there is anything we have too much of, it is law: "There is not much danger of erring upon the side of too little law.
    [Show full text]
  • Nondelegation and the Unitary Executive
    NONDELEGATION AND THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE Douglas H. Ginsburg∗ Steven Menashi∗∗ Americans have always mistrusted executive power, but only re- cently has “the unitary executive” emerged as the bogeyman of Amer- ican politics. According to popular accounts, the idea of the unitary executive is one of “presidential dictatorship”1 that promises not only “a dramatic expansion of the chief executive’s powers”2 but also “a minimum of legislative or judicial oversight”3 for an American Presi- dent to exercise “essentially limitless power”4 and thereby to “destroy the balance of power shared by our three co-equal branches of gov- ernment.”5 Readers of the daily press are led to conclude the very notion of a unitary executive is a demonic modern invention of po- litical conservatives,6 “a marginal constitutional theory” invented by Professor John Yoo at UC Berkeley,7 or a bald-faced power grab con- jured up by the administration of George W. Bush,8 including, most ∗ Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. ∗∗ Olin/Searle Fellow, Georgetown University Law Center. The authors thank Richard Ep- stein and Jeremy Rabkin for helpful comments on an earlier draft. 1 John E. Finn, Opinion, Enumerating Absolute Power? Who Needs the Rest of the Constitution?, HARTFORD COURANT, Apr. 6, 2008, at C1. 2 Tim Rutten, Book Review, Lincoln, As Defined by War, L.A. TIMES, Oct. 29, 2008, at E1. 3 Editorial, Executive Excess, GLOBE & MAIL (Toronto), Nov. 12, 2008, at A22. 4 Robyn Blumner, Once Again We’ll Be a Nation of Laws, ST.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Experience with Intermediate Scrutiny Under the North Carolina Constitution: Blankenship V
    MARTIN FINAL 5/20/2011 3:35 PM Recent Experience with Intermediate Scrutiny Under the North Carolina Constitution: Blankenship v. Bartlett and King ex rel. Harvey- Barrow v. Beaufort County Board of Education Mark D. Martin & Daniel F.E. Smith* I. INTRODUCTION In two recent interpretations of the North Carolina Constitution, the Supreme Court of North Carolina adopted and developed a unique form of intermediate scrutiny. Blankenship v. Bartlett1 addressed a challenge to judicial districts under the state equal protection clause.2 King ex rel. Harvey-Barrow v. Beaufort County Board of Education3 decided a state constitutional claim to alternative-education services during a disciplinary suspension.4 By applying intermediate scrutiny, the court resolved these two challenging state constitutional cases. As the name implies—and as the bench and bar know very well— intermediate scrutiny falls somewhere “in between” strict scrutiny and rational basis review.5 Strict scrutiny, the “most exacting scrutiny,” is applied to suspect classifications and those impinging on fundamental * Senior Associate Justice and Research Assistant, Supreme Court of North Carolina. Nothing in this Article should be viewed as an opinion about the merits of pending or future cases that may come before the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The purpose of this Article is to chronicle significant legal developments in North Carolina and place them in the academic literature on state constitutional adjudication. The legal value vel non of these developments and their implications for future cases are left to the academy and other legal commentators. We wish to thank Justice Robert H. Edmunds, Tom Davis, and Jake Parker for their assistance with this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Speech for Lawyers W
    Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Volume 28 Article 3 Number 2 Winter 2001 1-1-2001 Free Speech for Lawyers W. Bradley Wendel Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation W. Bradley Wendel, Free Speech for Lawyers, 28 Hastings Const. L.Q. 305 (2001). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol28/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Free Speech for Lawyers BYW. BRADLEY WENDEL* L Introduction One of the most important unanswered questions in legal ethics is how the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression ought to apply to the speech of attorneys acting in their official capacity. The Supreme Court has addressed numerous First Amendment issues in- volving lawyers,' of course, but in all of them has declined to consider directly the central conceptual issue of whether lawyers possess di- minished free expression rights, as compared with ordinary, non- lawyer citizens. Despite its assiduous attempt to avoid this question, the Court's hand may soon be forced. Free speech issues are prolif- erating in the state and lower federal courts, and the results betoken doctrinal incoherence. The leader of a white supremacist "church" in * Assistant Professor, Washington and Lee University School of Law. LL.M. 1998 Columbia Law School, J.D. 1994 Duke Law School, B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Equal Rights Amendment Revisited
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 94 | Issue 2 Article 10 1-2019 The qualE Rights Amendment Revisited Bridget L. Murphy Notre Dame Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Law and Gender Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation 94 Notre Dame L. Rev. 937 (2019). This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Law Review at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized editor of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\94-2\NDL210.txt unknown Seq: 1 18-DEC-18 7:48 THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT REVISITED Bridget L. Murphy* [I]t’s humiliating. A new amendment we vote on declaring that I am equal under the law to a man. I am mortified to discover there’s reason to believe I wasn’t before. I am a citizen of this country. I am not a special subset in need of your protection. I do not have to have my rights handed down to me by a bunch of old, white men. The same [Amendment] Fourteen that protects you, protects me. And I went to law school just to make sure. —Ainsley Hayes, 20011 If I could choose an amendment to add to this constitution, it would be the Equal Rights Amendment . It means that women are people equal in stature before the law. And that’s a fundamental constitutional principle. I think we have achieved that through legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Public Use Clause and Heightened Rational Basis Review Commentary Essays
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Connecticut Law Review School of Law 2016 The Public Use Clause and Heightened Rational Basis Review Commentary Essays Lynn E. Blais Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review Recommended Citation Blais, Lynn E., "The Public Use Clause and Heightened Rational Basis Review Commentary Essays" (2016). Connecticut Law Review. 336. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/336 CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 48 JULY 2016 NUMBER 5 Essay The Public Use Clause and Heightened Rational Basis Review LYNN E. BLAIS In their lead essay for this volume, Wesley Horton and Levesque persuasively demonstrate that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London was neither novel nor wrong. They then suggest that Kelo’s detractors drop their continued crusade to overturn that decision and shift their focus from challenging the use of eminent domain for private economic development plans to challenging eminent domain abuse in general. To that end, Horton and Leveque offer the provocative proposal that the Court adopt a ten-factor heightened rational basis test to apply to all condemnations. Using this test, they argue, courts can invalidate ill-advised exercises of eminent domain while upholding condemnations that truly serve a public purpose. I agree with Horton and Levesque’s defense of Kelo. That decision clearly follows from the Court’s prior precedent and correctly implements the Public Use Clause. In this Essay, however, I challenge the wisdom of Horton and Levesque’s proposal to subject all condemnations to heightened rational basis review under their ten-factor test.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court's Attack on Attorneys' Freedom of Expression: the Gentile V
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 43 Issue 4 Article 43 1993 The Supreme Court's Attack on Attorneys' Freedom of Expression: The Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada Decision Suzanne F. Day Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Suzanne F. Day, The Supreme Court's Attack on Attorneys' Freedom of Expression: The Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada Decision, 43 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 1347 (1993) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol43/iss4/43 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE SUPREME COURT'S AITACK ON ATTORNEYS' FREEDOM OF ExPRESSION: THE GENTILE v. STATE BAR OF NEVADA DECISION TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............. ............ 1349 A. The Dilemma of the Defense Attorney ....... 1349 B. State Court Rules Restricting Attorney Communication with the Media ............. 1350 11. CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS RAISED BY RESTRICTING PRETRIAL PUBLICITY THROUGH CURBING THE SCOPE OF ATrORNEY SPEECH: THE FAIR TRIAL - FREE PRESS DEBATE ...... ........................ 1351 A. The Sheppard v. Maxwell Decision: The United States Supreme Court's Directive to Trial Court Judges ............................ 1352 B. The Conflicting First Amendment Rights of Attorneys, Sixth Amendment Rights of the Defendant, and the State and Public Interest in the Impartial Administration of Justice ........... 1355 1. What the Amendments Guarantee ......... 1355 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Attorney Solicitation: the Scope of State Regulation After <Em>Primus</Em> and <Em>Ohralik</Em>
    University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Volume 12 1978 Attorney Solicitation: The Scope of State Regulation After primus and Ohralik David A. Rabin University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr Part of the Legal Profession Commons, and the Marketing Law Commons Recommended Citation David A. Rabin, Attorney Solicitation: The Scope of State Regulation After primus and Ohralik, 12 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 144 (1978). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol12/iss1/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ATTORNEY SOLICITATION: THE SCOPE OF STATE REGULATION AFTER PRIMUS AND OHRALIK Within the past few years, there has been a growing concern­ both within and without the legal profession-over increasing the layman's access to legal services. Two of the principal means of increasing this access, advertising and solicitation, 1 have long been prohibited by the organized bar, although a few minor exceptions have been allowed. In lff77, the question of the constitutionality of prohibitions against legal advertising was presented to the United States Supreme Court in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona. 2 The Court ruled in a landmark decision that certain types of advertising could not be prohibited, but expressly reserved the question of the con­ stitutionality of prohibitions against in-person solicitation.3 Eleven months after Bates, the Court decided two attorney solicitation cases, In re Primus4 and Ohra/ik v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Poor As a Suspect Class Under the Equal Protection Clause: an Open Constitutional Question
    Loyola University Chicago, School of Law LAW eCommons Faculty Publications & Other Works 2010 The oP or as a Suspect Class under the Equal Protection Clause: An Open Constitutional Question Henry Rose Loyola University Chicago, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs Part of the Civil Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Rose, Henry, The oorP as a Suspect Class under the Equal Protection Clause: An Open Constitutional Question, 34 Nova Law Review 407 (2010) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE POOR AS A SUSPECT CLASS UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE: AN OPEN CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION HENRY ROSE* (ABSTRACT) Both judges and legal scholars assert that the United States Supreme Court has held that the poor are neither a quasi-suspect nor a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Unit- ed States Constitution. They further assert that this issue was decided by the Supreme Court in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). It is the thesis of this article that the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether the poor are a quasi-suspect or a suspect class under Equal Protec- tion. In fact, the majority in San Antonio Independent School District v. Ro- driquez found that the case involved no discrete discrimination against the poor. Whether the poor should constitute a quasi-suspect or suspect class under Equal Protection remains an open constitutional question.
    [Show full text]
  • Same-Sex Marriage: a Legal Background After United States V
    Same-Sex Marriage: A Legal Background After United States v. Windsor Alison M. Smith Legislative Attorney September 11, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43481 Same-Sex Marriage: A Legal Background After United States v. Windsor Summary The issue of same-sex marriage generates debate on both the federal and state levels. Either legislatively or judicially, same-sex marriage is legal in more than a dozen states. Conversely, many states have statutes and/or constitutional amendments limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman. These state-level variations raise questions about the validity of such unions outside the contracted jurisdiction and have bearing on the distribution of state and/or federal benefits. As federal agencies grappled with the interplay of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the distribution of federal marriage-based benefits, questions arose regarding DOMA’s constitutionality and the appropriate standard (strict, intermediate, or rational basis) of review to apply to the statute. In United States v. Windsor, a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriage, violated due process and equal protection principles. As such, federal statutes that refer to a marriage and/or spouse for federal purposes should be interpreted as applying equally to legally married same-sex couples recognized by the state. However, the Court left unanswered questions such as (1) whether same- sex couples have a fundamental right to marry and (2) whether state bans on same-sex marriage are constitutionally permissible. In the aftermath of the Windsor decision, lower federal courts have begun to address the constitutionality of state statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.
    [Show full text]