The Supreme Court’s decision striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 will result in the fairer treatment of married gay students, financial-aid experts say, giving the government a truer picture of the students’ ability to pay for college.
For some students, the ruling will mean more financial aid; for others, it will mean less.
Under the act, which defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman, students in same-sex marriages were considered unmarried for purposes of awarding federal student aid, said Mark Kantrowitz, senior vice president and publisher of Edvisors Network.
That meant that a gay or lesbian student in a same-sex marriage did not report the income and assets of his or her spouse, and the spouse was not counted in household size unless the spouse lived with the student and the student provided more than half of the spouse’s support. The student had to report any support received from the spouse as untaxed income.
If the couple had children, the children were counted in the household size only if the student was the biological or adoptive parent or if the children lived with the student and he or she provided more than half of their support.
If the student was under the age of 24, he or she might be considered dependent, and his or her parents’ income would be included in the federal need-analysis formula.
Including same-sex spouses’ income in the federal need-analysis formula could reduce some students’ eligibility for aid, but counting spouses and all of a couple’s children in the household could increase it.
The Supreme Court split, 5 to 4, in deciding the case, United States v. Windsor (No. 12-307).
Its ruling, issued on Wednesday, comes two months after the Education Department announced that, starting in 2014, it will begin counting the income and assets of both parents in determining the financial-aid needs of dependent students, “regardless of the parents’ marital status or gender, if those parents live together.”
That change could reduce aid to some dependent children of gay couples because a second parent’s income and assets will be included in the formula.
Still, many gay-rights advocates welcomed the change, hailing it as a step toward equality for same-sex families.
Asked how the court’s decision could affect the department’s recent policy change, a spokesman said that President Obama had directed the attorney general and other members of his cabinet to ensure that the decision, along with its implications for federal benefits and obligations, is “swiftly and smoothly” put into effect.
One potential gray area is civil unions and domestic partnerships, said Justin Draeger, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. Will the department treat them the same as gay marriages? he wondered.
“It’s not clear to us whether the Education Department has any leeway there,” he said.
He added that students married in states that ban same-sex marriage will not benefit from the court’s decision.
