See Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2694. Notably, that same year, while the Court declined to reach the merits in Hollingsworth v. Perry because the petitioners lacked standing to pursue the appeal, the Court did not dismiss the case outright for lack of a substantial federal question. See 133 S.Ct. at 2652. Accordingly, the Court finds that these cases present the type of doctrinal developments that render Baker’s, summary dismissal of no precedential value. It is now clear that while state bans on same-sex marriage may have been deemed an “unsubstantial” question in 1972, the issue is now a “substantial” federal question based on doctrinal developments in Supreme Court law. See Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir.2012), aff'd, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 186 L.Ed.2d 808 (2013) (<HOLDING>). Defendants in this case allege that, despite
holding that the question of whether it might have been error for the court to have denied leave to amend is not before us because plaintiffs never requested it holding that baker was not controlling as to the constitutionality of doma reasoning that in the forty years after baker there have been manifold changes to the supreme courts equal protection jurisprudence and that even if baker might have had resonance  in 1971 it does not today holding that the cap does not violate equal protection holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection holding that speculation as to how the evidence might have been beneficial was not enough