She cited Justice Scalia's prediction that the reasoning of the majority in "Windsor" with respect to federal law motivated by a "bare ... desire to harm" would produce the same conclusion with respect to state laws. In "De Leon v. Perry", Orlando Garcia on February 26, 2014, framed the lawsuit in terms of "Windsor": "Now, the lower courts must apply the Supreme Court's decision in "Windsor" and decide whether a state can do what the federal government cannot -– discriminate against same-sex couples." He then made the same point Judge Wright Allen had made, citing "Windsor": "While Texas has the 'unquestioned authority' to regulate and define marriage, the State must nevertheless do so in a way that does not infringe on an individual's constitutional rights." (references omitted)  Some courts have agreed with Scalia that the "Windsor" decision lacked clarity and proceeded to interpret it with little reference to federalism, just as Scalia had predicted. When ruling Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on January 14, 2014, in "Bishop v. Oklahoma", U.S. District Judge Terence C. Kern described the decision as the culmination of a process: "There is no precise legal label for what has occurred in Supreme Court jurisprudence beginning with "Romer" in 1996 and culminating in "Windsor" in 2013, but this Court knows a rhetorical shift when it sees one". When U.S. District Judge Jone E. Jones ruled on May 20, 2014, that Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional, he read "Windsor" as an equal protection decision. He cited Justice Scalia's critique of the lack of clarity in the "Windsor" decision, writing: "As Justice Scalia cogently remarked in his dissent, 'if ["Windsor"] is meant to be an equal-protection opinion, it is a confusing one. ... Windsor found DOMA unconstitutional because 'no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure.'" Conversely, U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, upholding Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriage on September 3, 2014, reviewed the arguments before him and wrote: "Both sides invoke the Supreme Court's decision in "United States v. Windsor". ... But "Windsor" does little more than give both sides in this case something to hope for." In a footnote, he explained his reading of the case:  He quoted Chief Justice Roberts' dissent as a reason not to read "Windsor" as a guide for deciding the constitutionality of restrictions on same-sex marriage: "The Court does not have before it", wrote Roberts, "and the logic of its opinion does not decide the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their 'historic and essential authority to define the marital relation', ... may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage".