This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Court began the argument with a discussion of jurisdiction.
Background and question before the Court
According to Vicki C. Jackson, amicus counsel for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) argued that there is no justiciable case before the Court because the United States does not seek redress and BLAG asserts no judicially cognizable injury.
What each side argues
United States (Petitioner)
According to Mr. Clement, the government notes that up to 1,100 federal provisions define “marriage” and “spouse,” showing congressional involvement in the definition of marital status.
Edith Schlein Windsor (Respondent)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Sotomayor asked who else would be aggrieved if benefits were withheld.
Justice Kennedy asked about the nature of presidential signing statements and their effect on enforcement.
Justice Scalia asked whether the President or the Attorney General can decline to defend a statute they deem unconstitutional.
Justice Alito asked about the purpose of the estate‑tax provision at issue – whether it was meant to foster traditional marriage or simply to capture unified economic units.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg questioned the impact of denying marital benefits such as joint tax returns and Social Security benefits.
Ms. Kaplan noted that same‑sex couples are treated as unmarried for programs that affect family stability, such as the Family Leave Act.
Ms. Kaplan stated that a client had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes because she was treated as unmarried after her spouse’s death.
- [1] 7db5f7b51de842f755de-r1-8fafccbfb71a365d.pdf, p. 6
- [2] 7db5f7b51de842f755de-r1-8fafccbfb71a365d.pdf, p. 22
- [3] 7db5f7b51de842f755de-r1-8fafccbfb71a365d.pdf, p. 23
- [4] 7db5f7b51de842f755de-r1-8fafccbfb71a365d.pdf, p. 24
- [5] 7db5f7b51de842f755de-r1-8fafccbfb71a365d.pdf, p. 61
- [6] 7db5f7b51de842f755de-r1-8fafccbfb71a365d.pdf, p. 56
- [7] 7db5f7b51de842f755de-r1-8fafccbfb71a365d.pdf, p. 95
- [8] 7db5f7b51de842f755de-r1-8fafccbfb71a365d.pdf, p. 95
What the Court decided
Why it matters
A respondent spouse faced $363,000 estate‑tax liability after a partner’s death because the couple was treated as unmarried.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 7db5f7b51de842f755de-r1-8fafccbfb71a365d.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.