The Expanding Power of U.S. v. Windsor The heartening effects of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling last June striking down the core of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, continue to ripple outward. On Jan. 21, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that gays and lesbians may not be excluded from juries on the basis of their sexual orientation. In a strongly worded opinion, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, explained that the reasoning of United States v. Windsor - in which the Supreme Court gutted DOMA, the spiteful 1996 law that denied federal benefits to married same-sex couples - compelled the Ninth Circuit's holding. "Jury service is one of the most important responsibilities of an American citizen," Judge Reinhardt wrote. Although the Windsor case addressed only marriage, Judge Reinhardt added, the Supreme Court's decision was premised on the idea of equal dignity for all, a dignity enhanced by "responsibilities, as well as rights." The Ninth Circuit is just the latest court to rely on the Windsor decision to expand the equal treatment of gays and lesbians. In recent weeks, federal judges in Utah and Oklahoma have cited Windsor in striking down state bans on same-sex marriage, a federal judge in Ohio ordered that state to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and state courts in New Jersey and New Mexico have relied on the ruling to permit same-sex marriages there. The Ninth Circuit case involved a dispute between two drug companies, SmithKline Beecham and Abbott Laboratories, over the marketing and pricing of certain H.I.V. medications. During jury selection in the trial, Abbott's lawyer eliminated a prospective juror who had made several references to his male partner. The lawyer relied on what is known as a peremptory challenge, which allows the striking of a limited number of potential jurors without explanation. The Supreme Court has prohibited the use of such strikes based on a juror's race or gender; after the Windsor case, the Ninth Circuit reasoned, that prohibition must extend to a juror's sexual orientation. "Gays and lesbians have been systematically excluded from the most important institutions of self-governance" based on persistent prejudice, the court wrote. Critics contend that the Windsor ruling is more properly understood to protect each state's right to decide its own marriage laws. But that misses Windsor's essence, which is that DOMA's central, impermissible purpose was "to impose inequality" on a class of individuals without legitimate justification. In applying heightened judicial scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation, the Ninth Circuit used a standard the Windsor ruling never explicitly applied. But the impact of that scrutiny is likely to be felt throughout the Ninth Circuit's nine states, in cases involving public employment, family law and same-sex marriage itself. While the Supreme Court has so far declined to decide whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it is increasingly clear that because of its holding in Windsor, the court will be confronted with that issue sooner rather than later. Seventeen states now permit same-sex marriage - not counting Utah and Oklahoma, where officials are challenging the recent judicial rulings - and that number is likely to grow in the next few years. The court has laid the groundwork for the recognition of equal rights for all. Now it must follow through on its own reasoning.