In Obergefell v. Hodges, decided on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court held 5–4 that the Fourteenth Amendment requires every state to license marriages between two people of the same sex and to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in other states. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. This case summary of Obergefell v. Hodges walks through what the Court decided, why, what the dissenters objected to, and how the ruling has held up since.1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges
The Plaintiffs and the Two Questions
The case consolidated lawsuits brought by fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose partners had died, from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Each challenged a state law that either refused to license same-sex marriages or refused to recognize those marriages when performed elsewhere. Federal district courts sided with the plaintiffs in every case. The Sixth Circuit reversed and upheld the state bans, creating a split with other federal appellate courts that had gone the other way, and the Supreme Court took the case to resolve it.2Supreme Court of the United States. Obergefell v. Hodges
The Court framed two questions. First: must a state issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple? Second: must a state recognize a same-sex marriage lawfully performed in another state? The second question mattered because, before the ruling, a couple married in one state could lose all legal recognition simply by crossing a state line. The Court answered yes to both.1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges
How the Court Reached Its Answer
The majority grounded the ruling in two clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment working together: Due Process and Equal Protection.
The Due Process Clause bars states from depriving a person of liberty without fair legal process, and the Court had long read “liberty” here to cover more than freedom from physical restraint. It protects deeply personal choices about identity, relationships, and family. Earlier cases had already identified marriage as a fundamental right. The majority concluded that the choice of whom to marry falls within that protected liberty, and that the protection applies equally to same-sex couples.3Constitution Annotated. Amdt14.S1.6.3.5 Marriage and Substantive Due Process
The Equal Protection Clause then did reinforcing work. State bans on same-sex marriage, the Court said, burdened the liberty of same-sex couples and “abridge[d] central precepts of equality.” The opinion called those laws “in essence unequal,” because they denied same-sex couples access to a fundamental right that opposite-sex couples exercised freely.4Legal Information Institute. Obergefell v. Hodges
The Four Principles Behind the Right to Marry
Kennedy’s opinion set out four reasons the right to marry is fundamental, and argued each applies to same-sex couples as fully as it applies to opposite-sex couples.2Supreme Court of the United States. Obergefell v. Hodges
- Individual autonomy. Whom to marry is among the most intimate choices a person makes, and it sits at the core of personal liberty.
- The unique importance of a two-person union. Marriage supports a commitment deeper than what other legal arrangements offer, and the Court found no reason that commitment would mean less between same-sex partners.
- Protection of children and families. Same-sex couples raise children, and without marriage those families lacked automatic legal protections around healthcare, inheritance, and custody. The Court said withholding marriage “harm[ed] and humiliate[d]” the children of same-sex couples.1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges
- Marriage as a keystone of the social order. Governments attach hundreds of legal benefits and responsibilities to marriage, from taxes to hospital visitation to property rights. Excluding same-sex couples meant excluding them from a core civic institution.
What the Dissenters Said
All four dissenters wrote separately. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, argued the Constitution does not speak to who may marry and that the majority was pulling the question away from voters and legislatures. Justice Alito, also joined by Scalia and Thomas, echoed those concerns and warned the decision could be used against those who hold traditional views of marriage. Scalia called the majority opinion a “threat to American democracy.” Thomas made an originalist argument that the Fourteenth Amendment was never understood to cover marriage, and that “liberty” in the Due Process Clause historically meant freedom from government restraint, not an entitlement to government recognition.4Legal Information Institute. Obergefell v. Hodges
The dissenters did not uniformly oppose same-sex marriage as policy. Roberts wrote that as a legislator he might well have voted for it. Their objection was about who gets to decide: courts or voters.
What States Had to Do After the Ruling
The mandate was direct. Every state had to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the same terms it applied to opposite-sex couples, using the same fees, waiting periods, and documentation rules already on the books. Every state also had to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed elsewhere, granting them full legal status and all associated benefits. Most states complied within days or weeks. A handful of county clerks initially refused to issue licenses, which drew additional court orders.1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges
Federal Taxes, Benefits, and Parental Rights
The IRS had already begun recognizing same-sex marriages for federal tax purposes after United States v. Windsor in 2013 struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act. Once Obergefell made marriage available nationwide, legally married same-sex couples had to file federal income tax returns as either “married filing jointly” or “married filing separately,” and the IRS treats those marriages the same as any other for every federal tax provision where marital status matters, including income, gift, and estate taxes. Federal recognition covers legal marriages only. Registered domestic partnerships, civil unions, and similar arrangements do not qualify.5Internal Revenue Service. Same-Sex Marriages Now Recognized for Federal Tax Purposes
Beyond taxes, federal recognition opened access to Social Security survivor benefits, veterans’ spousal benefits, and federal employee health insurance for spouses.
Parental recognition was one of the earliest follow-on fights. In Pavan v. Smith (2017), Arkansas was listing husbands on birth certificates when their wives conceived through artificial insemination but refusing to list female spouses in the same situation. The Supreme Court held that Arkansas could not deny married same-sex couples the same birth-certificate recognition it gave opposite-sex couples, because Obergefell had specifically included birth certificates among the “constellation of benefits” tied to marriage.6Justia. Pavan v. Smith After Pavan, the marital presumption of parentage applies to all married couples regardless of sex, which affects custody, medical decisions, and school enrollment.
Religious Liberty Limits
The Obergefell majority acknowledged that religious believers and organizations “may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction” against same-sex marriage, and said the First Amendment protects that advocacy. How far that protection reaches in commerce has been litigated since.
In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), a bakery owner refused to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple on religious grounds. The Court ruled in his favor, but narrowly, because the state commission that had sanctioned him showed open hostility toward his religious views in its proceedings, violating the Free Exercise Clause. The Court did not decide whether a business owner has a general right to refuse service on religious grounds.7Supreme Court of the United States. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
In 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023), a website designer argued that Colorado’s public accommodations law would compel her to build wedding websites for same-sex couples in conflict with her beliefs. The Court ruled 6–3 that the First Amendment forbids the government from forcing a person to create expressive content carrying a message they disagree with. The decision drew a line between refusing to serve someone because of who they are, which public accommodations laws still prohibit, and refusing to create a specific message, which is protected speech. Where that line falls in practice is still being worked out.8Supreme Court of the United States. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
The Respect for Marriage Act
Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act, signed into law on December 13, 2022, as a statutory response to concerns that the Supreme Court might revisit Obergefell. It repealed the remnants of the Defense of Marriage Act and put federal statutory protections in place for same-sex and interracial marriages.9U.S. Congress. Public Law 117-228 – Respect for Marriage Act
The law does two main things. It requires the federal government to recognize any marriage between two people that was valid where it was performed.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 1 USC 7 – Marriage And it prohibits any state official from denying full faith and credit to an out-of-state marriage based on the sex, race, or ethnicity of the spouses. People harmed by a violation can sue for injunctive relief, and the Attorney General can bring enforcement actions.9U.S. Congress. Public Law 117-228 – Respect for Marriage Act
The act carves out religious liberty. Nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and faith-based agencies, cannot be required to provide services for the celebration of a marriage, and any refusal cannot support a lawsuit. The law also specifies that nothing in it authorizes federal recognition of marriages between more than two people.11U.S. Congress. H.R.8404 – Respect for Marriage Act
Where the Ruling Stands Today
Obergefell remains binding law. Its foundation has drawn scrutiny. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which overturned Roe v. Wade, the majority said it was not calling other precedents into question. Justice Thomas’s concurrence went the other way, writing that “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” because any decision resting on substantive due process is, in his view, “demonstrably erroneous.”12Supreme Court of the United States. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
That concurrence is why the Respect for Marriage Act exists. If a future Court were to overturn Obergefell, the federal statute would still require federal recognition of existing same-sex marriages and prohibit states from refusing to honor marriages performed elsewhere. What the statute would not do is require a state to issue new marriage licenses to same-sex couples if the constitutional right were withdrawn. That gap means the right to marry in your home state still depends, as a practical matter, on Obergefell remaining good law.