United States v. Windsor (12-307)

argument 12-307

United States v. Windsor

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 54m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

Why does the Court question whether there is a justiciable case or controversy in United States v. Windsor?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument this morning in case twelve three hundred seven, United States versus Windsor, and we'll begin with jurisdictional discussion. Ms. Jackson?

Ketanji Brown Jackson 0:15

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court, there is no justiciable case before this court. Petitioner, the United States, does not ask this court to redress the injuries it asserts. The House of Representatives' bipartisan legal advisory group, the BLAG, which does seek redress in the form of reversal, asserts no judicially cognizable injury. While it is natural to want to reach the merits of such a significant issue, as in reigns against Byrd, this natural urge must be put aside because, however important the constitutional question, Article three prevents its decision here and requires this court to await another case, another day to decide the question. In the district court, Ms. Windsor alleged classical Article three injury for which she sought redress.

Ketanji Brown Jackson 1:06

Other persons injured by DOMA's operation could likewise sue in a first instance court and if their challenge succeeds obtain relief. But to exercise jurisdiction on this appeal, when the United States asked for the judgment below, Fully agrees with it

Elena Kagan 1:25

and Who else is going to be aggrieved if she's not? Meaning another person who is whose benefits are withheld, tax refund is withheld, is going to be in an identical situation to her. Who else? could come in.

Ketanji Brown Jackson 1:43

Your Honor, uh, it is possible that in district courts where other taxpayers sue the United States on similar relief, that the district courts will rule differently. At least one district court that I'm aware of, in a case called Louis V. Holder, ruled against upheld DOMA, even though the government had switched its position at that time. In addition, the issue of DOMA's

Unknown 2:05

Excuse me, if if there's no jurisdiction here, why was there jurisdiction uh uh at the trial level? I mean the government comes in and says, I agree. Uh Or if there was jurisdiction, why why did the court ever have to get to the merits? If if if you have a Let's say a lawsuit uh on on an indebtedness. And the alleged debtor comes in and says, Yeah, I owe the money. But I'm just not gonna pay it. which is the equivalent of the government saying, Yeah, it's unconstitutional, but I'm going to enforce it anyway. What would happen in that in that indebtedness suit is that the court would enter judgment and say, if you agree that you owe it, By God, you should pay it. And there would be a judgment right there without

Unknown 2:48

Any consideration of the merits, right? Why didn't that happen here?

Ketanji Brown Jackson 2:52

Your Honor, uh the The two questions that you asked me, why did district court have jurisdiction? The first answer is that the party invoking the district court's jurisdiction was Ms. Windsor, who did have an injury. As to why the District Court didn't enter judgment when the United States switched its position, uh I I imagine that the court was would have wanted to have um development of that issue which was achieved through the intervention of the black in the trial court, so that the judgment of unconstitutionality and of refund would have had a robust hearing. That is very

Unknown 3:38

peculiar. When when when both parties to the case agree on what the law is? What, the j just for fun? The district judge is is is gonna have a hearing?

Ketanji Brown Jackson 3:48

Well, uh, Your Honor, the jurisdiction of the Court, it seems to me, is not affected by the length of the proceedings it undertook and can I have

Unknown 3:58

jurisdiction now. I'm talking about why the district court, without getting to the merits, should not have entered judgment uh against the government.

Ketanji Brown Jackson 4:07

I am not sure I have a wonderful answer to that question, Justice Scalia, but I do think the case bears some similarities to Kentucky against Indiana, which was discussed by the parties, where Kentucky sued Indiana in this court's original jurisdiction on a contract. The two states had a contract. Indiana agreed it was obligated to perform, but it wasn't performing. Uh there it was worried about a state court lawsuit. This court exercised original jurisdiction to give Kentucky relief.