United States v. Windsor Oral Argument
2013-03-27T14:04:15-04:00https://ximage.c-spanvideo.org/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwaWN0dXJlcy5jLXNwYW52aWRlby5vcmciLCJrZXkiOiJGaWxlc1wvMzg0XC8yMDEzMDMyNzE0MDQyMzAwMV9oZC5qcGciLCJlZGl0cyI6eyJyZXNpemUiOnsiZml0IjoiY292ZXIiLCJoZWlnaHQiOjUwNn19fQ==The Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Windsor, docket number 12-307, a case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). At issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to rule on the federal government’s case, and whether the House Republican leaders as defenders of DOMA had Article III “standing” to pursue their appeal. After arguments on jurisdiction, issues of the constitutionality of section III of DOMA were addressed. Lawyers argued over the requirement in the law that limited the definition of marriage to a union between a man and woman, thus denying federal spousal rights to same-sex marriages conferred on couples in states where the practice had been made legal.
The court on June 26, 2013, issued a 5-4 decision that Section 3 of DOMA was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The court on June 26, 2013, issued a 5-4 decision that Section 3 of DOMA was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Windsor, docket number 12-307, a case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOM… read more
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Windsor, docket number 12-307, a case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). At issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to rule on the federal government’s case, and whether the House Republican leaders as defenders of DOMA had Article III “standing” to pursue their appeal. After arguments on jurisdiction, issues of the constitutionality of section III of DOMA were addressed. Lawyers argued over the requirement in the law that limited the definition of marriage to a union between a man and woman, thus denying federal spousal rights to same-sex marriages conferred on couples in states where the practice had been made legal.
The court on June 26, 2013, issued a 5-4 decision that Section 3 of DOMA was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. close
People in this video
-
-
Paul D. Clement Attorney
-
-
Vicki C. Jackson Attorney
-
-
Roberta A. Kaplan Attorney
-
-
-
-
-
Sri Srinivasan Attorney
-
Hosting Organization
Purchase a Download
United States v. Windsor Oral Argument
-
MP4 video - Standard
- Price:
- $6.99
-
MP3 audio - Standard
- Price:
- $0.99
Related Video
-
Hollingsworth v. Perry Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, docket number 12-144, on the constitutionality of California…
-
Shelby County v. Holder Oral Argument
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, docket 12-96. The case concerns Congress' 2006 r…
-
Missouri v. McNeely Oral Argument
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Missouri v. McNeely, docket number 11-1425, to weigh the public’s interes…
-
Florida v. Jardines Oral Argument
The Court heard oral argument in Florida v. Jardines, docket number 11-564, which addressed the use of drug-sniffing dog…
User Created Clips from This Video
-
- 2 minutes
- 102 views
-
- 3 minutes
- 34 views
-
- 2 minutes
- 25 views
-
- 1 minute
- 24 views