Obergefell v. Hodges is the June 26, 2015, Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to marriage for same-sex couples nationwide. Decided 5–4, the ruling struck down every remaining state ban on same-sex marriage and required all states to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.1Oyez. Obergefell v. Hodges
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
James Obergefell and John Arthur had been together for more than two decades when Arthur was diagnosed in 2011 with ALS, a progressive and fatal disease. The couple flew to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal, and were married inside a medical transport plane on the tarmac in Baltimore because Arthur could barely move. He died three months later. Ohio refused to list Obergefell as the surviving spouse on the death certificate. Kennedy later wrote that Ohio law required the two men to “remain strangers even in death.”2Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644
Obergefell’s suit was one of several. Fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose partners had died sued in federal courts across Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. One Michigan case involved two nurses seeking to jointly adopt the children they were raising. A Tennessee case involved a military veteran whose New York marriage was ignored when he returned home. District courts ruled for the couples. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed, holding that states could define marriage as they wished, and the Supreme Court took the case to resolve the split.3Legal Information Institute. Obergefell v. Hodges
The Two Questions Before the Court
The Court agreed to answer two questions. First, does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? Second, does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a same-sex marriage lawfully performed in another state?1Oyez. Obergefell v. Hodges
The Court answered yes to both. State bans on same-sex marriage were declared unconstitutional, and every state became legally required to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. A couple married in Massachusetts remained married in Mississippi, and all government agencies had to extend the same legal benefits and responsibilities to same-sex spouses as to any other married couple.4Legal Information Institute. Obergefell v. Hodges
The Majority’s Reasoning
Kennedy built the opinion around four principles drawn from the Court’s earlier marriage cases, each showing why marriage is treated as fundamental under the Constitution and why that treatment must apply equally to same-sex couples.
The first is individual autonomy. Choosing whom to marry is among the most personal decisions a person makes, and the Court had long treated that choice as “inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.” The second is the unique importance of the two-person marital bond, a form of commitment and mutual support the Court found unlike any other relationship.2Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644
The third is that marriage safeguards children and families. Denying marriage to same-sex couples, Kennedy wrote, harms their children by treating their families as less worthy of legal protection. The fourth identifies marriage as a “keystone of the Nation’s social order,” carrying with it a wide web of legal rights covering taxation, inheritance, healthcare decisions, and many other areas. Excluding same-sex couples from that system, Kennedy concluded, created a second tier of citizenship.2Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644
The majority grounded the ruling in both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, treating liberty and equality as reinforcing protections that together prevent the government from locking a group out of a fundamental institution without justification.
What the Dissenters Argued
Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each wrote separate dissents, sharing one central objection: the Constitution does not define marriage, and the Court had no authority to impose a definition. Roberts’ opinion was the most detailed. He acknowledged that supporters of same-sex marriage “have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view,” then wrote: “That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.” Scalia framed the ruling as a violation of separation of powers. Thomas argued the majority stretched substantive due process beyond recognition. Alito objected that a bare majority should not create a right the Constitution does not mention.3Legal Information Institute. Obergefell v. Hodges
What the Ruling Means in Practice
Obergefell did more than permit same-sex couples to marry. It unlocked federal and state legal protections tied to marital status.
Federal Taxes
Legally married same-sex couples must file federal income taxes as “married filing jointly” or “married filing separately,” regardless of the state they live in. Federal recognition extends to any marriage performed in a domestic or foreign jurisdiction that authorizes same-sex marriage, even if the couple later moves to a jurisdiction that does not. Domestic partnerships and civil unions do not qualify for federal marital tax treatment.5Internal Revenue Service. Fact Sheet: Preparing Same Sex Tax Returns
Social Security and Survivor Benefits
Same-sex spouses became eligible for Social Security spousal and survivor benefits on the same terms as any other married couple. The Social Security Administration also opened a pathway for people whose partners died before Obergefell: if the survivor would have married the deceased partner but for unconstitutional state laws, they may still qualify for benefits based on that partner’s record.6Social Security Administration. What Same-Sex Couples Need to Know
Immigration
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services uses a “place-of-celebration” rule. If a marriage was legal where it was performed, USCIS recognizes it. A U.S. citizen can sponsor a same-sex spouse for a green card on the same terms as an opposite-sex spouse.7U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Marriage and Marital Union for Naturalization
Parental Rights and Birth Certificates
Two years after Obergefell, the Court reinforced its reach in Pavan v. Smith (2017). Arkansas listed a married woman’s husband on a birth certificate regardless of biological parentage but refused to do the same for a same-sex spouse. The Court struck that down: a state that lists a non-biological father because he is married to the mother must extend the same treatment to a same-sex spouse. Being listed on a child’s birth certificate affects school enrollment, medical care, and other routine tasks that require proof of parentage.8Oyez. Pavan v. Smith
Where Religious Objections Have Narrowed the Edges
Obergefell secured access to civil marriage, but it did not resolve every tension with religious objections to same-sex weddings. Two later cases marked the boundaries.
In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), a baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on religious grounds. The Court ruled 7–2 in his favor on narrow grounds: the Colorado commission had shown “clear and impermissible hostility toward his religious beliefs” during its proceedings. The decision did not create a general right for businesses to refuse service; it required that public accommodation laws be applied with religious neutrality.9Oyez. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), a web designer objected to creating wedding websites for same-sex weddings. In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that the First Amendment bars Colorado from forcing a designer to create “expressive designs that convey messages with which the designer disagrees.” The majority drew a line between selling a product to everyone, which a state can require, and compelling someone to create custom expressive content, which it cannot.10Oyez. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
The Respect for Marriage Act as a Statutory Backstop
In December 2022, Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act, creating a statutory guarantee for same-sex marriage rights that stands independently of Obergefell. The law repealed Section 1738C of Title 28, the provision of the Defense of Marriage Act that had allowed states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. It then enacted a new full faith and credit requirement: no person acting under state authority may deny recognition to a marriage between two people, or deny a right arising from it, on the basis of the couple’s sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.11Congress.gov. H.R. 8404 – Respect for Marriage Act
The Act also rewrote the federal definition of marriage in 1 U.S.C. § 7. A person is considered married under federal law if the marriage is between two individuals and was valid where it was performed. Even if a future Supreme Court were to overturn Obergefell, the federal government would remain required by statute to recognize any same-sex marriage that was valid in the place it took place.12Congress.gov. Public Law 117-228 – Respect for Marriage Act
The Act carries religious liberty protections. Nonprofit religious groups cannot be required to provide services, facilities, or goods for the celebration of a marriage. The law specifies that it cannot be used to affect a religious organization’s tax-exempt status or any other benefit unrelated to marriage, and it preserves existing federal religious liberty protections, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.