Beyond Levels of Scrutiny: Windsor and 'Bare Desire to Harm'

29 Pages Posted: 8 Sep 2014 Last revised: 2 Dec 2014

Date Written: September 4, 2014

Abstract

In United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court left many people unsatisfied when it failed to identify the level of scrutiny to apply to laws that classify by sexual orientation. That question however was not even presented. DOMA makes no reference to sexual orientation, but it does speak of “man” and “woman.” It classifies on the basis of sex. Sex-based classifications are presumptively unconstitutional. The Court avoided this rationale for its result, probably because it did not want to reach the question of whether states could deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

The equal protection analysis upon which the Court did rely, the lesser-used “bare desire to harm” doctrine, had nothing to do with levels of scrutiny. It looked past that heuristic device to the underlying purposes of equal protection. This was a rare but appropriate response to an unusual kind of law, one that singles out a particular class and imposes an unprecedentedly broad disability upon it.

Keywords: US v. Windsor, gay rights, equal protection, sex discrimination

JEL Classification: K10, K30

Suggested Citation

Koppelman, Andrew M., Beyond Levels of Scrutiny: Windsor and 'Bare Desire to Harm' (September 4, 2014). Case Western Reserve Law Review, Forthcoming; Northwestern Public Law Research Paper 14-36. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2492543

Andrew M. Koppelman (Contact Author)

Northwestern University School of Law ( email )

375 E. Chicago Ave
Chicago, IL 60611
United States
312-503-8431 (Phone)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
190
rank
153,595
Abstract Views
1,574
PlumX Metrics