This Day in Legal History: Certiorari Granted in Windsor
On September 11, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a petition for certiorari in United States v. Windsor, setting the stage for one of the most consequential civil rights decisions of the decade. The case challenged Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman. Edith Windsor, the plaintiff, had been legally married to her same-sex partner, Thea Spyer, in Canada. When Spyer died, Windsor was denied the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, resulting in a tax bill exceeding $350,000.
Windsor argued that DOMA violated the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection as applied to the federal government. The Obama administration, though initially defending DOMA, reversed course and declined to continue doing so, prompting the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives to intervene. The DOJ's September 11 petition reflected the administration's desire to have the Supreme Court resolve the constitutional question as quickly as possible.
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of Windsor, striking down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that the federal government could not single out same-sex marriages for unequal treatment under the law. The ruling granted same-sex couples access to hundreds of federal benefits and marked a turning point in the legal recognition of LGBTQ+ rights.
The Windsor decision laid the constitutional groundwork for Obergefell v. Hodges two years later, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The filing on September 11, 2012, was a procedural but critical moment that pushed the case toward the highest court in the land. It also signaled a shift in the federal government’s posture toward LGBTQ+ equality—moving from defense of discriminatory laws to active legal opposition.
The trial of Ryan Routh, accused of attempting to assassinate then former President Donald Trump, begins this week in Fort Pierce, Florida. Routh, 59, is facing five federal charges, including attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, and has chosen to represent himself. Prosecutors allege that Routh hid with a rifle near the sixth hole of Trump’s golf course in West Palm Beach last September, intending to kill Trump. He fled after a Secret Service agent spotted him before any shots were fired and was arrested the same day.
The trial opens amid rising concerns about political violence in the U.S., underscored by the recent killing of Trump ally Charlie Kirk in Utah. Trump himself has been targeted multiple times, including a shooting in Pennsylvania in July 2024 that left him wounded. Routh, a former roofing contractor with a history of erratic behavior, had expressed political views supporting Taiwan and Ukraine and previously outlined a bizarre plan involving Afghan refugees.
The case is being heard by Judge Aileen Cannon, the same judge who previously dismissed a separate criminal case against Trump involving classified documents. Cannon has already expressed frustration with Routh during jury selection, rejecting several of his proposed questions as irrelevant. The jury consists of seven women and five men. The trial is expected to spotlight the ongoing increase in politically motivated violence in the U.S.,
Five former federal employees have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), alleging the agency unlawfully dismissed their complaints after being fired early in President Trump’s second term. Represented by Democracy Forward, the plaintiffs claim OSC failed to investigate over 2,000 complaints from probationary employees terminated en masse in February 2025, despite earlier findings that the firings may have violated federal law. The lawsuit, filed in D.C. federal court, seeks a ruling that OSC's blanket dismissal of the complaints was arbitrary and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
Probationary federal employees—often in their first year or newly assigned roles—have fewer job protections, making them vulnerable to politically motivated purges. In this case, the Trump administration dismissed roughly 25,000 such employees, sparking multiple legal challenges. Some courts briefly reinstated the workers, but appeals courts ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing or needed to exhaust administrative remedies before going to court.
OSC, under former Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, had suggested the mass terminations were unlawful. However, after Trump fired Dellinger, his replacement, Jamieson Greer, dismissed all the pending complaints, citing alignment with new administrative priorities. The plaintiffs argue this abrupt shift was politically driven and undermined OSC’s duty to safeguard merit-based civil service protections.
The lawsuit aims to compel OSC to reopen investigations into the firings and reassert that probationary employees still retain legal protections from unlawful dismissals.
US Special Counsel sued for dismissing fired federal workers' complaints | Reuters
The Trump administration has appealed a federal judge’s decision blocking the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, aiming to fire her before the central bank's next interest rate meeting on September 16. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that President Trump's claim—alleging Cook committed mortgage fraud before taking office—likely does not meet the legal threshold to justify her dismissal. The administration’s brief appeal to the D.C. Circuit did not include arguments, but signaled urgency given the upcoming monetary policy meeting.
Cook, who has denied any wrongdoing, filed suit in August claiming that the fraud allegations were a pretext for removing her due to her policy positions. She argues that the law governing the Federal Reserve allows a governor to be removed only “for cause,” a term not clearly defined in the statute and never previously tested in court. Cobb agreed that the case raises new and important legal questions, emphasizing the public interest in shielding the Fed from political pressure.
The DOJ has opened a criminal investigation into the alleged mortgage fraud, with grand jury subpoenas issued in Georgia and Michigan. The case could have broader implications for the independence of federal agencies, especially those like the Fed that have traditionally operated free from executive interference. This follows other high-profile cases in which courts have temporarily blocked Trump from firing leaders of independent agencies, including the U.S. Copyright Office.
Trump has pressured the Fed to lower interest rates and criticized Chair Jerome Powell, though Cook has consistently voted with the Fed majority on rate decisions. Her continued presence at the Fed could influence upcoming policy moves.
Trump administration appeals ruling blocking removal of Fed Governor Cook | Reuters
A federal appeals court has upheld most provisions of a New Jersey law restricting firearms in designated “sensitive places,” such as parks, hospitals, beaches, libraries, and casinos. The 2-1 decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that found the law violated the Second Amendment. The appeals court concluded the restrictions aligned with historical firearm regulations in places traditionally considered sensitive due to their civic or public safety function.
The ruling is a setback for gun rights advocates, following similar decisions by appeals courts in California, Hawaii, and New York. These rulings come in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a new framework for evaluating gun laws—requiring that modern regulations be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm control. While Bruen expanded gun rights, it also acknowledged the legitimacy of restrictions in sensitive locations.
Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, writing for the majority, emphasized that U.S. history supports limiting firearms in specific public areas to preserve peace and safety. Judge Cindy Chung concurred, while Judge David Porter dissented, arguing the government shouldn’t be able to arbitrarily declare places “sensitive” to limit gun rights.
The New Jersey Attorney General praised the decision, while gun rights groups criticized it as an overly deferential interpretation of the Second Amendment.
US appeals court largely upholds New Jersey gun restrictions | Reuters
