Analysis and Description of the US Judicial System - Case Study Example

Understanding the Court System Understanding the Court System The judicial in the United s is a complicated system. It is composed of federal courts and state courts. The Supreme Court is the most powerful court in the land. Trial courts and appellate courts makeup the Supreme Court. The chief justice heads it with eight associate justices under him. The mandate of the court lies in solving constitutional cases which may have been referred from lower level courts (Us Courts, 2014). The sole responsibility of any court is the interpretation of the law. In the case of United States vs. Edith Schlain Windsor, the plaintiff sort to seek justice in a court of law. Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer who were women had married legally. They took their vows while in Canada in 2007 and later came back to New York. Unfortunately, Spyer passed on in 2009.Windsor inherited their property. The law required that in such events, the bereaved partner could enjoy tax exemption on the inherited property. However, the federal government denied her this privilege because it did not recognize same-sex marriage. The decision contradicted with the laws of the state government. The plaintiff obliged and paid the required taxes but filed a lawsuit disputing the legality and validity of the case. Windsor won the case, and the federal government was ordered to pay back her money. The court reviewed the decisions of other lower courts and declared that its ruling was final (Supreme Court, 2013). It was held that the court had the power to analyze the facts of the case carefully. The case had created a lot of division among the interested parties and had to be referred to a higher court for interpretation. The federal remained adamant to pay the money has it had been ordered yet it did not defend its action any issue which brought more confusion in the case (Supreme Court, 2013). The court held that the federal Defense of Marriage Act violated which the federal government was using in its defense was essentially an invalid law. This is because it was unfair and contradicted with the laws of the state of New York. The constitution itself defended the rights of the minority groups, and the federal government undermined this basic principal. Since the federal government was charged with the responsibility of defending the constitution, it had to honor it. The same government violated the rights of a citizen by denying compensating Windsor. Whereas the state government supported same-sex marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act contravened state government laws. The main intention of the act was to disgrace and discriminate a group that had been already accepted in the society. The federal government was shooting its leg by denying recognizing Windsor’s marriage because it had sworn to protect citizens equally through the Fifth Amendment. The act of the federal government undermined the plight of Windsor and was insensitive to her emotional pain. The pain must have caused an injury to her just like it was held in the case of Lujan vs. Defenders of Wildlife in 1992.The only way the complainant could recover from the pain she was undergoing was by being refunded her money (Supreme Court, 2013). The case was heard at the District court which is under the federal government system. The interested parties in the case agreed that the court had the responsibility of in making a ruling for the case. Professor Vicki Jackson included as a friend for the court who argued that the court had no powers to interpret the case. The court had the power to hear the case since it was a unique matter that had brought a lot of heat to the federal government. Further, the matter was interfering with the activities of the state government (Supreme Court, 2013). The Act had created a conflict between the laws of New York and those of the federal government because it interfered with the autonomy of state governments. It also brought injustice in the society because it treated same-sex marriage partners unequally with other married couples of opposite sexes a creating confusion in the institution of marriage (Supreme Court, 2013). The action of the district court was justifiable. In the case of Loving vs. Virginia, it was held that the family issues were guided by the laws of the State. In addition, in the case of Sosna vs. Iowa, it was concluded that the involvement of the State government in family affairs dated back to the days when the American constitution was promulgated. Although marriage laws could differ from one State to another, they were guided by the same philosophies. The state government was accessing its democratic right by allowing same-sex marriage and therefore the federal government had erred by disobeying instruction given by the court. The New York State government was proactive by urgently amending the marriage laws to allow for same-sex marriage because it had become a contemporary issue in the society that could not be assumed. Amendments have been made in the law to enable such groups to enjoy rights given to married couples of the opposite sex. Since the State had made the decision through consultation, it was wrongful to deny the people of the State their say. In the case of Haddock vs. Haddock, it was decided that it is against the law for the federal government to interfere with the issue because it had no jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage act is archaic because it does not even consider the children of sex marriage partners. The children are charged exorbitant prices for medication care and compensation to those children in case of death is slight compared to that given to children raised by parents of opposite sex (Supreme Court, 2013). The Domestic for Marriage Act denies people rights that had already been established by the laws in New York. New York had given the people the freedom to marry irrespective of their gender in order to uphold their dignity. On the hand, the federal government decided to despise the achievements made by the State of New York so that it could discriminate the people from getting access to services they deserved. The act derailed the rights of this group by disregarding the Fifth Amendment requirements. The New York State government had not overstepped its mandate by encouraging same-sex marriage through legislation. It was inappropriate for the Federal government to depend on the definition of marriage to deny Windsor her right and instead it could have put measures to ensure such people received the same benefits as other did. The District court had acknowledged the fact that the Defense for Marriage Act was unconstitutional and therefore invalid. The judgment was not taken properly by the Justice Department, and it appealed the decision. The move was a blow because the Court of appeal upheld the decision of the District court (Supreme Court, 2013). The fact that the two courts ruled in favor of Windsor could not have been a coincidence because both courts had considered material facts for the case carefully. The fact that the Federal government had also conceded defeat in the case also indicates that it had realized its mistakes, but failure to compensate Windsor amounted to gross violation of her private life. The Federal government was insincere by disregarding the order to refund Windsor because earlier on it had declared the Defense for Marriage Act invalid in another case. The court had generated a lot of heat when it was under the jurisdiction of the District court given the fact that Windsor also had a right to challenge the amount of tax she had to pay for her property. Windsor case may be decided using the past precedence as in the case of Hein vs. Freedom From religion Foundation incorporation. Windsor acted within the law by seeking legal redress given that she had qualified for a tax exemption yet she was forced to remit the wrong amount of money.Also, the federal government did not use due process to defend its position made the case to be contentious (Supreme Court, 2013). Prior to the ruling, the government had information regarding the case and could have prevented a legal tussle that was witnessed between legal practitioners and other members of the judiciary. The parties to the case agreed on some issue yet the government the matter was being complicated by the government. Instead, the federal government chose to stick to the Defense for Marriage Act to support its position. According to an impartial advisor to the court, the case could have been solved amicably without creating any tension. He contended that since the president had accepted that Windsor deserved compensation, the parties to the case were no longer at conflict (Supreme Court, 2013). The claims that the government could have undergone losses by paying Windsor were untrue since the government also paid claims from couples from opposite sex partners. The federal government defended itself because it claimed that paying Windsor could amount to a violation of Defense of Marriage Act. Her claims were inconsistent with Article III jurisdiction. Given the material facts that were given during the case proceedings, it is clear that the Federal government grossly violated the rights of an innocent citizen who was defended by the law of her State. It was right for the District Court to defend Windsor because her case was valid whereas the assertions put forth by the federal government could not hold any water (Silkenat &Shulman, 2007). References Silkenat, J. R., & Shulman, M. R. (2007). The imperial presidency and the consequences of 9/11: Lawyers react to the global war on terrorism. Westport, CT: Praeger Security International. Supreme Court of the United States, (2013).Certiorari to The United States Court of Appeal For The Second Circuit. US courts. (2012).The Supreme Court of The United States. [Retrieved 24.10.2014]. Read More