No. Obergefell v. Hodges has not been overturned. The 2015 Supreme Court ruling that established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage remains binding law in every state, and as recently as November 10, 2025, the Court declined to hear a case that explicitly asked the justices to overrule it. The question keeps surfacing because the Court’s 2022 decision on abortion rights reopened debate about how secure other constitutional protections are, but as of today the right to marry a same-sex partner exists in all fifty states, and a federal statute now backs it up.
What the Ruling Still Requires
The 5–4 decision issued on June 26, 2015 held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires every state both to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.1Supreme Court of the United States. Obergefell v. Hodges That obligation runs to every county clerk’s office in the country. Federal agencies treat all legal marriages identically, from tax filing status to Social Security survivor benefits, and none of that has changed.
Why People Keep Asking
The concern traces to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the June 2022 ruling that overturned decades of precedent on abortion. The majority opinion tried to limit the fallout: “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”2Supreme Court of the United States. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed with that boundary. In a solo concurrence, he wrote that the Court should “reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” calling each “demonstrably erroneous.”2Supreme Court of the United States. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Substantive due process is the theory that the Fourteenth Amendment protects certain fundamental rights not spelled out in the Constitution’s text, and it is the doctrine Obergefell rests on. No other justice joined that portion of Thomas’s opinion, but a sitting justice publicly calling for the ruling to be reconsidered was enough to keep the question alive.
The 2025 Challenge the Court Refused to Hear
The question moved from theoretical to concrete when former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis asked the Supreme Court to overrule Obergefell directly. Davis had refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the 2015 ruling, citing her religious beliefs. Two of the couples she turned away sued and won. A federal jury awarded $100,000 in damages, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in March 2025.
The Sixth Circuit’s language was direct. After Obergefell, “no reasonable state official could claim to lack notice that it is unconstitutional to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.” People opposed to same-sex marriage keep their First Amendment right to say so, but government officials cannot “transform their personal opposition into enacted law and public policy.” The panel concluded: “When an official wields state power against private citizens, her conscience must yield to the Constitution.”3United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Ermold v. Davis
Davis petitioned the Supreme Court on July 24, 2025. On November 10, 2025, the Court denied the petition without comment. A cert denial does not set precedent or reveal how the justices view the merits, so it does not permanently foreclose future challenges. What it does tell you is that no case currently before the Court threatens Obergefell, and the ruling remains fully in effect.
The Federal Statute That Now Backs It Up
Congress didn’t wait to see what the Court might do. In December 2022, it passed the Respect for Marriage Act, signed into law as Public Law 117-228. The statute does two things. It requires the federal government to treat any marriage as valid for federal-law purposes if the marriage was valid where it was performed. And it requires every state to give full faith and credit to marriages licensed in other states, regardless of the spouses’ sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.4Congress.gov. Public Law 117-228 – Respect for Marriage Act It also repealed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, so federal agencies cannot revert to denying benefits to same-sex spouses even if the constitutional landscape shifts.
Where the Statute Stops
This is the part worth understanding clearly. The Respect for Marriage Act does not require any state to issue new marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It requires states to recognize marriages already performed elsewhere. If the Supreme Court ever overturned Obergefell, a state that wanted to stop issuing licenses to same-sex couples could do so without violating federal law. Couples already married would keep their legal status and cross-state recognition. Couples seeking to marry for the first time would need to travel to a state that still allowed it. The statute is a safety net for existing marriages, not a substitute for the constitutional right Obergefell established.
Religious Liberty Provisions
To secure enough votes to pass, the law includes protections for religious groups. Nonprofit religious organizations cannot be required to provide services, facilities, or goods for the celebration of any marriage. The government cannot revoke an organization’s tax-exempt status, grants, contracts, or accreditation over a religious belief about marriage, as long as the benefit at issue does not arise from the marriage itself. All existing protections under the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act remain intact.4Congress.gov. Public Law 117-228 – Respect for Marriage Act
State Bans Still on the Books
Roughly 30 states still have constitutional amendments or statutes defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.5Congressional Research Service. Survey of State Marriage Laws Related to Same-Sex Marriage These provisions are unenforceable under Obergefell, but they have not been formally repealed. Legal observers sometimes call them zombie laws because they sit dormant until either a legislature removes them or a change in federal law revives them.
If Obergefell were overturned, dormant bans could snap back into effect in states that never repealed them, and licensing authority would return to individual state governments. Some states have cleaned up their constitutions in anticipation. Nevada voters repealed their ban in 2020, and California, Colorado, and Hawaii followed in 2024. Virginia has a repeal amendment on its November 2026 ballot. The majority of these laws remain in place.
What This Means for Couples Right Now
The right to marry a same-sex partner exists today in every state. Federal recognition of an existing marriage is now protected by statute in addition to constitutional precedent, which is a stronger position than the one couples were in immediately after 2015.
Two practical points still deserve attention. Marriage equality resolved who can marry, but it did not fully resolve who counts as a legal parent. In many states, the law presumes both spouses in a married opposite-sex couple are legal parents when a child is born; that presumption does not always extend to same-sex couples in practice, especially for the non-biological parent. Family law attorneys widely recommend that the non-biological parent pursue a second-parent or stepparent adoption. An adoption order is recognized in every state and creates a parent-child relationship that survives a move, a separation, or a death. A smaller number of states allow parentage to be established through a Voluntary Acknowledgment of Parentage, which carries the same legal weight as a court order once past its rescission period, though availability varies.
The second is medical decision-making. Federal regulations already require any hospital participating in Medicare or Medicaid to honor a patient’s chosen visitors and prohibit restrictions based on sexual orientation or gender identity.6eCFR. 42 CFR 482.13 – Condition of Participation: Patient’s Rights Visitation and decision-making authority are not the same thing, though. A healthcare power of attorney or advance directive removes any ambiguity about who speaks for you when you cannot, and it is worth keeping current and accessible, particularly if you live in a state with a dormant ban or travel frequently.
Could the Ruling Still Be Overturned Later?
In theory, yes. A case raising the constitutional question would have to work its way through the lower courts, four justices would need to vote to hear it, and a majority would need to vote to overrule. The Davis petition was the vehicle most recently available, and the Court passed on it. That does not predict what a future Court will do, but it means no active case threatens the right, the Sixth Circuit’s 2025 opinion reinforces it in the lower courts, and the Respect for Marriage Act provides a statutory floor that didn’t exist a decade ago.3United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Ermold v. Davis For anyone married or planning to marry, the sensible move is to act on the protections that exist now: formalize parental rights where they aren’t automatic, keep estate planning documents current, and carry copies of key legal documents when you travel.