Obergefell v. Hodges Decision: Reasoning, Dissents, and Aftermath

In Obergefell v. Hodges, decided June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry in every state and requires every state to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and the decision remains the constitutional foundation for marriage equality in the United States.¹

How the Case Got to the Court

The ruling resolved consolidated challenges from four states that still banned same-sex marriage: Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. Fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose partners had died sued in federal court, arguing the bans violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The district courts sided with the couples. The Sixth Circuit reversed, creating a split with other federal appellate courts that had already struck down similar bans, and the Supreme Court took the case to settle the question nationwide.²

The lead petitioner, James Obergefell, sued Ohio after the state refused to list him as the surviving spouse on the death certificate of his husband, John Arthur. Arthur had ALS, and the couple had traveled to Maryland to marry legally before returning home.¹ The Court had laid the groundwork two years earlier in United States v. Windsor, striking down the section of the Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as between a man and a woman for federal purposes. Windsor forced the federal government to recognize state-sanctioned same-sex marriages but left open whether states themselves had to allow them.³ That was the question Obergefell answered.

The Constitutional Reasoning

The majority grounded the right in two clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment working together. The Due Process Clause protects personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy. The Equal Protection Clause bars the state from reserving those protected choices for some people while denying them to others. Read together, the Court held, they establish that marriage is a fundamental liberty the government cannot restrict without a compelling reason, and the state bans offered none strong enough to overcome it.²

The Court also rejected the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment should be limited to what its drafters understood in 1868. Its protections, the majority wrote, evolve as society develops a deeper understanding of the freedoms the amendment guarantees.¹

Kennedy identified four principles supporting marriage as a fundamental right, each applying equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The decision to marry is among the most intimate a person makes, tied to identity and self-determination. Marriage supports a two-person union unlike any other legal arrangement. It protects children and families, sparing them the stigma and instability of unrecognized parents. And it functions as a keystone of the country’s legal and social order, anchoring inheritance rights, medical decision-making, tax treatment, and countless other benefits and responsibilities. Denying same-sex couples access to that structure, the Court concluded, relegated them to a lesser status incompatible with the Constitution.¹

What States Must Do

The ruling imposed two concrete mandates. Every state must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the same terms it uses for opposite-sex couples. Fees, waiting periods, and documentation requirements must apply identically to everyone, and clerks cannot add hurdles or refuse valid applications based on the couple’s gender. Ordinary requirements like minimum age and the absence of a close family relationship still apply, but once they are met, the state must issue the license.²

Every state must also recognize a same-sex marriage legally performed in another jurisdiction. A couple who married before 2015 in a state where it was already legal cannot have that marriage treated as void because they later moved or traveled elsewhere. Recognition covers every legal incident of marriage: inheritance, medical decision-making, child custody, insurance, taxation at the state level, and every other benefit or duty tied to marital status.¹

Parental Rights and Birth Certificates

Two years later, in Pavan v. Smith, the Court reinforced the equal-treatment mandate. Arkansas listed the husband of a woman who gave birth on the child’s birth certificate regardless of biological connection, but refused to do the same for a female spouse. The Court struck the practice down, holding that Obergefell entitles same-sex couples to the same access to state-issued documents that opposite-sex couples receive.⁴ Birth certificates matter for enrolling a child in school, authorizing medical care, and establishing parentage, so the ruling closed a real gap for same-sex parents.

Federal Benefits After the Ruling

Combined with Windsor, Obergefell reshaped how federal agencies treat married same-sex couples. The IRS recognizes any same-sex marriage validly entered into in a state or country that authorizes it. That “place of celebration” rule makes the couple’s current state of residence irrelevant for federal tax purposes. Married same-sex couples must file federal income tax returns as either married filing jointly or married filing separately. The IRS does not extend this treatment to registered domestic partnerships or civil unions that are not classified as marriages under state law.⁵

The Department of Labor updated the Family and Medical Leave Act so that “spouse” includes a same-sex husband or wife, with eligibility tied to where the marriage was performed rather than where the employee lives. An eligible worker can take unpaid, job-protected leave to care for a same-sex spouse with a serious health condition on the same basis as any other married employee.⁶

Social Security survivor benefits are available to same-sex spouses on the ordinary terms. A surviving spouse generally must have been married to the deceased worker for at least nine months before death; a divorced spouse may qualify if the marriage lasted at least ten years. Exceptions apply in situations such as caring for a minor child of the deceased.⁷

The Dissents

All four dissenters wrote separately. Chief Justice John Roberts argued that the Constitution does not speak to the definition of marriage and that the question belonged to voters and state legislatures. He called the majority’s approach “deeply disheartening” and predicted that removing the issue from democratic debate would harden opposition rather than dissolve it. Roberts read his dissent from the bench, an unusual step that signaled the depth of his disagreement.²

Justice Scalia accused the majority of imposing its own social vision under the guise of constitutional interpretation, framing his objection as one about judicial power rather than the merits of same-sex marriage. Justice Thomas argued the Due Process Clause protects only against government restraint, not the failure to grant a benefit. Justice Alito warned the decision could be used to marginalize people who hold traditional views of marriage, predicting future conflict with religious liberty.¹ None of the dissents argued that same-sex marriage was bad policy; their objection was that even good policy does not belong in a court opinion if the Constitution does not require it.

Religious Liberty After Obergefell

The majority opinion acknowledged that religious organizations and individuals could continue to advocate that same-sex marriage should not be condoned, calling traditional beliefs about it “decent and honorable.” It did not, however, spell out where the line falls between the constitutional right to marry and a religious objection to facilitating that marriage. Two later decisions have shaped that line.

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021), a unanimous Court held that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment when it refused to contract with a Catholic foster care agency that would not certify same-sex couples as foster parents. The opinion echoed Obergefell‘s assurance that religious adherents may continue to live by their convictions, and held that the city’s policy could not survive strict scrutiny because it allowed discretionary exemptions in other contexts.⁸

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), a 6–3 majority held that Colorado could not compel a website designer to create wedding websites for same-sex couples if doing so required her to express a message she disagreed with. The ruling turned on the difference between refusing to create a particular message and refusing to serve a particular customer. The majority stressed it was not authorizing blanket discrimination based on identity; the dissent argued that was the practical effect.⁹ For same-sex couples, the case leaves real uncertainty about which wedding-related businesses can decline their patronage, and the answer hinges on whether the service counts as expressive speech. Lower courts are still working that out.

Is Obergefell Still Good Law?

Yes. It remains binding precedent. Concern about its durability rose in 2022 when Justice Thomas, concurring in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, wrote that the Court should reconsider all of its substantive due process precedents and named Obergefell explicitly. No other justice joined that part of the concurrence, but the statement pushed Congress to act.¹⁰

The Respect for Marriage Act, signed in December 2022, formally repeals the Defense of Marriage Act and requires every state and territory to recognize any marriage legally performed in another state, regardless of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the spouses. It guarantees married same-sex couples the full range of federal benefits and recognition. The Department of Justice can bring enforcement actions, and individuals have a private right to sue. The Act also includes religious liberty protections: it does not require any religious organization to provide goods, services, or facilities for the celebration of a marriage, and it does not create grounds for penalizing religious groups that decline.¹¹

The statute has one meaningful limit. It requires states to recognize marriages performed elsewhere, but it does not independently require states to issue marriage licenses. If Obergefell were ever overturned, a state could in theory stop issuing licenses to same-sex couples while still being obligated to recognize out-of-state marriages. The Respect for Marriage Act works as a statutory backstop, not a full replacement for the constitutional right the 2015 decision established.¹¹

1
Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges
2
Legal Information Institute. Obergefell v. Hodges
3
Justia. United States v. Windsor
4
Justia. Pavan v. Smith
5
Internal Revenue Service. Same-Sex Marriages Now Recognized for Federal Tax Purposes
6
U.S. Department of Labor. Federal Job-Protected Family and Medical Leave Rights Extended to Eligible Workers in Same-Sex Marriages
7
Social Security Administration. Who Can Get Survivor Benefits
8
Supreme Court of the United States. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
9
Justia. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
10
Supreme Court of the United States. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – Thomas Concurrence
11
Congress.gov. 117th Congress – Respect for Marriage Act