Windsor, Animus, and the Future of Marriage Equality
Susannah William Pollvogt
University of Denver Sturm College of Law
February 21, 2013
Columbia L. Rev. Sidebar __ (2013, Forthcoming)
U Denver Legal Studies Research Paper No. 13-27
Before Windsor, there were three unanswered questions about the doctrine of unconstitutional animus: (1) how the Court defined animus; (2) what the Court accepted as evidence of animus; and (3) how the Court understood the relationship between animus and rational basis review. After Windsor, these three questions remain unanswered. Indeed, these precise questions were the object of heated --- and ultimately unresolved --- debate between the majority and dissenting opinions in the case. Thus, with Windsor, the Court declared that animus remains a relevant concept in the Court’s equal protection jurisprudence and confirmed that proving the presence of animus is a viable strategy for winning a marriage equality challenge. And yet the Court failed to clarify the contours of the concept, leaving advocates, as well as lower federal and state courts, without guidance on how to articulate and apply the doctrine.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 59
Keywords: same-sex marriage, marriage equality, Hollingsworth v. Perry, United States v. Windsor, equal protection, animus, unconstitutional animusAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: February 22, 2013 ; Last revised: November 2, 2013
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.328 seconds