The Federal Defense of Marriage Act has already been held unconstitutional by a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Today’s decision from the Second Circuit following suit and consciously anticipating SCOTUS review applies the “intermediate scrutiny” standard and was authored by a judge usually thought to be very much on the conservative side.
It also presents an obviously tangible standing claim on emotionally compelling facts: eligibility for over $360,000 in tax refunds based on life insurance proceeds from the plaintiff’s wife. And it disposes with the troublesome Baker v. Carr question head-on, on federalism grounds, and proceeds to offer substantial dicta about substantial changes in doctrine underlying equal protections jurisprudence between 1971 and today.
For SSM junkies, this is worth a read. SCOTUS could in theory grant certiorari for this term, but that strikes me as unlikely to occur. Next term, however, seems like a pretty good bet.
Burt, are there other instances of a state binding the federal gov’t?
A while ago, I read of a criminal case where the federal government was forced to accept a state’s definition of marriage in regards to spousal testimony, in regards to age of consent or consanguinity or something like that.
My memories, however, are quite vague, and the Googles do nothing.
That makes sense, Alan, although I would think Congress could specifically exempt the federal government from, well, just about anything via the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
The circuit courts are federal circuits, aren’t they?
Err…federal COURTS, I meant to say.