Yesterday the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law defining marriage as only between man and woman, for violating the Constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Plaintiff Edith Windsor, pictured, will not have to pay the more than $300,000 in taxes on her late wife's estate for which she would have been liable under the law.
This decision affects all federal laws that use the words "marriage" or "spouse," including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (which I addressed in an article for Minnesota Lawyer in April). For the philistines in the crowd lacking a subscription to this esteemed regional legal journal, I will briefly summarize the changes.
The FDCPA allows debt collectors to discuss a person's debts with their spouses without first getting consent from the debtor themselves. Marriages are ostensibly open and honest relationships, and this allowance reflects that ideal.
In the past, a debt collector who discussed a debt with a person's gay spouse would be liable for violating the FDCPA-- after all, DoMA prevented the spouse from actually being considered a "spouse," meaning the debt collector was, technically speaking, sharing debt information with a legal stranger. Overturning DoMA now closes that loophole.
If nothing else, overturning DoMA simplifies thousands of federal statutes by eliminating little quirks like this. Congress estimates that it will take about a year to adjust the federal code.
Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone put out an excellent piece yesterday on the backwards incentive structure navigated by investment-rating agencies that contributed to the 2008 market crash and subsequent (some might even say ongoing) recession. Apparently the industry is up to it's neck in the same issues that brought it down before. Says one senior executive at Standard & Poor:
Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of card[s] falters.
One can only wish.
While the multi-trillion dollar banking enterprises deemed "too-big-to-fail" have been earning non-stop, decade-spanning criticism for their deliberately subversive and dangerous investment strategies, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released a report today detailing how the same institutions also rob and betray their customers at the retail level.
"[Overdraft fees] generated about $32 billion in revenue in the U.S. last year, according to research firm Moebs Services Inc.
The larger the bank the more onerous the fee.
Those considering taking their deposits out of big banks had better hurry! The number of banks nationwide has decreased by almost 50% over the last 20 years. Meanwhile the assets controlled by the finance industry writ large has grown to more than half the size of the entire US economy.
The attorneys of Drewes Law have access to post and edit the blogs. Attorney Bios.