clo; I expect that a couple such as you mention will sue and in a couple of years win. This ruling did not ask that question per se, it asked whether a legally married person in the state where they were legally married can be singled out for exclusion by the Federal government after the state had decided they were legally married. Doma states that other states do not have have to honor marriages from other states ... but this was not what was sued. Section 3 was sued, Section 2 will be sued next (when somebody moves, loses benefits, and thus has standing). Obviously the FedGov is not going to be pulling benefits from those that move. The loss of state benefits in such a case would be a matter handled likely in state court, at least initially, but perhaps go straight to fed court leveraging equal protection once again. I am not particularly familiar with much about state specific benefits afforded by marriage, but I expect that federal treatment will now recognize a legal gay marriage regardless of where they move to. The suit was about the behavior of the federal government. Secton 2 is doomed, it is simply a matter of somebody with standing taking suit and the time it takes to get there (somebody needs to demonstrate harm).
D&O, I'm not saying it is 'just about state's rights' I'm just saying that underpins how these rulings stand. In each case the federal authority was being told to back off. On the issues you mention ... they already seem to be heading that way on abortion, allowing states more latitude under RvW.
On immigration the courts are consistent: it is a federal matter, on this the court tells the states to p.o.,
On pot (drugs in general)? including alcohol ... well, that is and will be a curious can of worms. Access to highway matching funds was the leverage to move all states to 21yr for booze e.g. and similarly for speed limits (all as I understand it).
It is well held that the FDA can regulate drugs - commerce clause, compelling state interest, and so on. That banning can be a part of regulation of drugs seems largely unthwartable. Change in drugs will be legislative I imagine. How the fed responds to cases where supremacy is violated will be case-by-case on merits for some time I expect. One could imagine at some point a federal law or rule allowing state authority over certain drugs (a class A, class B etc type of system) where they still enforce a certain max for individuals ... or not.
In short: abortion they are walking to the states, immigration and drugs are clearly and completely the domain of the fed and I don't expect that to change much.
| 