A policy in the United States denied couples in same-sex relationships the same rights and privileges afforded different-sex couples was deemed unconstitutional in a landmark civil rights case in which the majority opinion wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.", Who was it that wrote this?
United States v. Windsor United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-307 ), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that making peremptory challenges based solely on a prospective juror's sex is unconstitutional. "J.E.B." extended the court's existing precedent in "Batson v. Kentucky" (1986), which found race-based peremptory challenges in criminal trials unconstitutional, and "Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company" (1991), which extended that principle to civil trials. As in "Batson", the court found that sex-based challenges violate the Equal Protection Clause.