Editor's note: A Justice editor spending the summer in Washington, D.C. had the opportunity to witness the delivery of Wednesday's Supreme Court decisions as a member of the student press. The following coverage is an account of her experience.

WASHINGTON-David Baker, a 24-year-old from Salt Lake City, stood at the steps of the Supreme Court on Wednesday to witness history. He anxiously anticipated the delivery of the Supreme Court's opinion on United States v. Windsor, a case that would determine the constitutionality of section three of the Defense of Marriage Act.

For Baker, the road to this moment was an arduous one. Before graduating from the University of Utah in 2009, he had attended Brigham Young University, a private Mormon institution, for one year before they asked him to leave for practicing homosexuality.

After switching to the University of Utah, Baker started coming out to more family members and friends. "Since then friends have been very supportive. It's taken some time for some of them, but they've all come around and been supportive," he said.

Baker made his statement clear, holding a colorful sign that read "Gay Mormon for Marriage Equality."

"I'm here today because I believe that civil marriage is a civil right, and that as nine justices are about to read the opinion on how they voted on my rights that it's important that I'm here," he said.

Current university students also lined the steps of the Supreme Court building. Kate Gaziano, a sophomore at the University of Virginia, is an active Republican as well as an ally. "I think there's a point to be made that college students who identify themselves as Republican are quite a majority, in my opinion, supporting marriage equality," she said in an interview with the Justice.

Sharon Burk and Mollie Wagoner, both juniors at American University, have been a couple for one year. The two held a sign that read "Born this Way" with a dyed rainbow background. "We just felt today is the day," said Wagoner in an interview with the Justice.

Inside the courtroom
U.S. v. Windsor was the first decision to be announced. Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court.

The case arose after Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer, both from New York City, got married in Canada in 2007. Spyer passed away in 2009 and left her property to Windsor. However, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prevented the Internal Revenue Service from being able to recognize the marriage, and Windsor was forced to pay about $360,000 in taxes on the property. Windsor sued, and the case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Kennedy led a 5-4 majority in declaring DOMA unconstitutional. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan all concurred in the decision.

"DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty," said Kennedy as he delivered the majority opinion.

As Kennedy explained, the definition of marriage under federal law as the bond between a man and a woman, which excludes same-sex couples from federal recognition, makes same-sex couples feel "less respected than others," and therefore is in violation of the fifth amendment and its due process and equal protection principles.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia dissented. Scalia was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and in part by the Chief. Justice Samuel Alito also dissented, joined in part by Thomas.

Scalia proceeded to deliver his dissent to the majority opinion. Scalia favored a democratic resolution to the challenge of DOMA, opposing the Supreme Court's active role in ruling on its constitutionality. Scalia said that the majority had "an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society."

Chief Justice Roberts then proceeded to deliver the opinion for Hollingsworth v. Perry, a case pertaining to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8.

Proposition 8, an amendment to the California state constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriage, passed as a part of a referendum in 2008. However, following the enactment, two same-sex couples filed challenges to Proposition 8 in federal court in California. The California government officials who would have had to defend the law in court declined to do so; therefore the proponents of Proposition 8 volunteered. The California Supreme Court ruled that the proponents could do so under state law.

The Supreme Court found that the petitioners of Proposition 8 did not have standing to appeal the district court order, and therefore the decision of the Ninth Circuit still stands. The circuit was essentially ordered to dismiss the case on the grounds that it has no sufficient standing.

The decision was also 5-4, with the majority comprised of Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan. Kennedy dissented, and was joined by Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor.

As Roberts explained in the opinion, "litigants must suffer their own injuries," and that the "petitioners have not suffered such injuries" to warrant the existence of a case.

Although this decision will lead to the immediate reinstatement of same-sex marriage legalization in the state of California as reported by the Associated Press on June 28, it is not because of the Supreme Court's ruling-rather, it is due to the overturn within the state of California itself. The U.S. court of appeals in California lifted the hold on same-sex marriage, which would have been a 25-day hold to give the proponents an opportunity to have the case reheard.

Therefore, 13 states-now including California and Washington, D.C. due to the striking of DOMA-that recognize same-sex marriage will continue to institute their laws as they stand; however, the 37 remaining states that do not recognize same-sex marriage are not required to make any changes. The Supreme Court, in this sense, has left the decision in the hands of each individual state.

The crowd reacts
An even larger crowd than the crowd that had been waiting before anyone was allowed into the courtroom flooded the front of the Supreme Court building at the conclusion of the session. As Windsor and her representation walked out of the building, they bowed, indicating to the crowd before them that they had won the case.

The crowd began to chant "Thank you," and a sign that said "Thank you Edie Windsor Our Hero" stood above the multitude of people. Some cried and others rejoiced.

Erin Goodman, who was one of many awaiting the decision outside of the Supreme Court, expressed excitement after she heard court's decision. "I plan to get married, and I want to be sure that my spouse has the same benefits if something happens to me, or, you know, God forbid she's in the hospital, I want to be able to be there and support her. It's just a big step forward because everyone should have that right," she said in an interview with the Justice.

After celebrating the victory for the LGBT community, the rainbow sea dispersed. Members of the crowd outside of the Supreme Court that needed to return to the 37 remaining states that have yet to legalize same-sex marriage joked, "Should we get married now before we go home?"

Prof. Peter Woll (POL) was not surprised by the Supreme Court decisions. "The Court exercised judicial self-restraint in the Prop 8 case to avoid getting involved in the politics of gay rights," he wrote in an email to the Justice.

Regarding Windsor, Woll said, "[N]ote that the Court used the 5th amendment due process clause to overturn the law, which avoided having to find that gays constitute a 'suspect class' under equal protection. Note equal protection is a component of 5th amendment due process but the real constitutional basis of the clause is in the 14th amendment that applies to state, not the federal [government]."

Lecturer Daniel Breen (LGLS) commented on the results of the cases. "It is a crucial feature of Constitutional Law that the government can not deny benefits to people simply out of a desire to harm them-which, for Kennedy, is the only thing that can explain DOMA. I think he is certainly right about that," he wrote in an email to the Justice.

Breen concluded that if the Supreme Court had wanted to do so, it "could have given a much more expansive ruling about marriage rights, but largely for prudential reasons, I think, declined to do so."

Despite the lack of a "death-blow" to the existing state law marriage limitations, Breen remains optimistic about the future for same-sex marriage.

"The general tenor of the opinion is consistent with what several state courts have already said-there is probably no good reason to give marriage benefits to some people while denying them to others. It will be harder and harder to defend marriage bans as the years go on, and Windsor contributes to that trend," he wrote.
*