The Supremes seem ready to rule – finally – on the constitutionality of Defense of Marriage Act.

“Do you think they will punt on this one too?” That was the first thing I heard in the Supreme Court pressroom as arguments over the Defense of Marriage Act got underway on March 27. And though one can never be sure of anything after an oral argument, it looks to me like there will be no jurisdictional punt by the U.S. Supreme Court on the DOMA case. Unlike the Prop. 8 case argued March 26, United States v. Windsor seems headed for a ruling on the merits. If so, there will be a definitive decision by roughly the end of June on the constitutionality of the federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages that are valid under state law.


And since the decision will ultimately rest with Justice Anthony Kennedy, the most important signals coming from the court that morning were his comments, which suggested that he had too many misgivings to allow DOMA to survive. In response to the argument that DOMA helps states by not favoring same-sex marriage, Kennedy noted that Congress “is helping states [only] if they do what we [Congress] want them to do,” which, he noted, is not consistent with state law dominance on the rights of children as well as of spouses. (Kennedy appeared troubled by the possibility that Congress has any authority to define marriage.)


The four progressive justices showed no hesitation in attacking the arguments offered for DOMA. “What kind of marriage is this?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked the lawyer defending DOMA when he asserted that DOMA permits some states to allow gay marriage. Ginsburg later described DOMA as a law that creates “skim milk marriages.” Justice Elena Kagan politely ridiculed the claim that Congress’ goals for passing DOMA were neutral, citing legislative history embracing the effort to legislate moral disapproval of gay couples. And the general thrust of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s questions left no real doubt about her leanings.


Nor did there seem to be any doubt about the conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, all of whose questions indicated support for DOMA. A number of observers had thought before the argument that Roberts might be movable because, in enacting DOMA, Congress deviated from a long-standing policy of accepting whatever definition of marriage had been adopted by the state where a particular couple resides. But there was no sign during the hearing that Roberts was perturbed by this departure from past practice.


Some justices questioned whether the court had jurisdiction of the case, though five votes for that conclusion seemed unlikely. The jurisdiction questions arose from the unusual posture of the Justice Department: It argued that DOMA is unconstitutional even though it also has the duty to defend the validity of all federal laws. To maintain both this substantive position and to ensure that appellate courts would have jurisdiction to review lower court opinions, DOJ (unlike what California officials did in the Prop. 8 case) continued to participate in the litigation and to file appeals even when the lower courts found DOMA invalid.


Thus, DOJ was in the position of appealing decisions that it had “won” in the sense of agreeing with the lower court, even though it had also lost, that a federal law was being stricken. At least some justices believe that the Administration can’t have it both ways. Meanwhile, defending DOMA substantively was left to private attorneys retained by House Republicans.


In the end, however, the Court has compelling institutional reasons to use the case before it now to resolve the merits about DOMA, rather than delay that inevitable day of reckoning. 


NAN D. HUNTER is the associate dean for graduate programs and a professor of law at Georgetown University.