United States v Windsor: (Docket no 12-307): Supreme Court of the United States: Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan JJ; Roberts CJ, dissenting; Scalia and Thomas JJ dissenting, joined by Roberts CJ as to part I; Alito J dissenting, joined by Thomas J as to parts II and III: 26 June 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constitutional rights – United States – Standing to defend – Federalism / State sovereignty – Equal protection under the law – Due process of law – Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as union of man and woman for all purposes in federal law – Same-sex couple legally married in Canada and living in New York State where marriage recognized as valid – Upon partner’s death widow barred by DOMA from estate tax exemption otherwise available to surviving partner of heterosexual married couple – Widow claiming DOMA violating principle of federalism and constitutional principles of due process and equal protection under law – United States Executive declining to defend constitutionality of DOMA in court while continuing to enforce law – Congressional Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) voting to intervene in litigation to defend constitutionality – Second Circuit Court of Appeals upholding district court ruling that DOMA unconstitutional and ordering refund of taxes paid – United States refusing to comply – United States and BLAG appealing to Supreme Court – Whether US agreement with widow’s legal position precluding further review – Whether appeal by BLAG establishing controversy sufficient for Supreme Court jurisdiction under Article 3 – Whether DOMA violating principles of federalism – Whether violating basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to federal government under Fifth Amendment – US Const Art 3; US Const Amend 5; The Defense of Marriage Act, 110 Stat 2419 sec 3; Qualified domestic trust, 26 USC sec 2056(a)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.030 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".