April 2014 – The Windsor Effect: Panel to Discuss the Political and Legal Changes in Bankruptcy, Estate Planning, and Family Law that have Developed One Year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling in United States v. Windsor
The Windsor Effect: Panel to Discuss the Political and Legal Changes in Bankruptcy, Estate Planning, and Family Law that have Developed One Year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling in United States v. Windsor.
By John B. Dorris and Mariane L. Dorris
On June 27, 2014, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Orlando will host a Panel Discussion titled “Marriage After Windsor, the Reorganization of Familiar Concepts: A Discussion of the Windsor Effect on Bankruptcy, Estate Planning, and Family law in the U.S. and Florida.” Panelists will discuss the significant changes occurring throughout the U.S. and Florida in their respective fields. Confirmed Panelists include estate planning and transfer tax specialist Mary Merrell Bailey, Esq., CPA, M.B.A.; Michael E. Morris, Esq., a Central Florida family law practitioner with extensive experience in LGBT family law issues; ACLU Attorney Daniel Tilley, active in the currently pending case Grimsley v. Scott, which is proceeding in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Florida challenging Florida’s refusal to recognize lawful same-sex marriages; Marry Meeks, Esq., plaintiff co-counsel in Pareto v. Ruvin, which is currently pending in South Florida challenging Florida’s ban on same-sex marriage; and John B. Dorris, Esq., an LGBT advocate and bankruptcy practitioner. Civil litigator, and diversity and inclusion advocate, Larry D. Smith, Esq., will serve as the Panel Moderator.
The Panel Discussion is a follow-up from the May 2013 event titled “Is Separate the Indubitable Equivalent of Equal?” where panelists discussed the Supreme Court’s review of California’s Proposition 8 and the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act, (“DOMA”). The panel examined the potential rulings and the historical and legal backdrop of the pending cases. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Windsor struck down DOMA’s Section 3. The Court ruled Section 3’s definition of “marriage” and “spouse” for Federal purposes exclusively as a legal union between a man and a woman unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Since the June 2013 decision, a number of states have moved to allow same-sex marriage including Minnesota, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois, and New Mexico. Same-sex marriage is now authorized in seventeen states and the District of Columbia. Federal district courts in Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Michigan, and Virginia have ruled state prohibitions against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional in light of the Windsor decision. Currently pending in the Ninth Circuit is Sevcik v. Sandoval, a challenge to Nevada’s prohibition against same-sex marriage. Many observers expect the Nevada prohibition to be struck down in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in SmithKine Beecham Corp. v. Abbot Laboratories, which cited Windsor as requiring the application of heightened scrutiny for government created distinctions based on sexual orientation. A broad Ninth Circuit ruling could have a significant impact on the western United States.
Three cases are currently pending in Florida courts challenging Florida’s constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage. In South Florida, plaintiffs are challenging the state prohibition against same-sex marriage in the case Pareto v. Ruvin, filed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. In North Florida, plaintiffs are challenging the State’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in other jurisdictions in the cases Brenner v. Scott and Grimsley v. Scott.
The upcoming Post-Windsor Panel Discussion will provide an update on the pending Florida cases in addition to the significant legal developments in bankruptcy, estate planning, and family law. The Panel will further offer their insights into potential issues that may arise in the next several years as the various state and federal cases work their way through the state judiciary, the U.S. Circuits, and, ultimately, before the U.S. Supreme Court.