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 lawfully performed elsewhere. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. The lead plaintiff, James Obergefell, had sued after Ohio refused to list him as the surviving spouse on his husband’s death certificate, and his case was consolidated with others from Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
The Couples and the Two Questions
The consolidated cases involved same-sex couples who had either been denied marriage licenses by their home states or whose valid out-of-state marriages went unrecognized. The defendants were state officials enforcing laws that limited marriage to one man and one woman. Federal appellate courts had split on whether those laws were constitutional, meaning a couple could be married in one state and treated as legal strangers in another.
The Supreme Court agreed to decide two questions under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. First, must a state issue a marriage license to two people of the same sex? Second, must a state recognize a same-sex marriage that was lawfully performed in another state?1Supreme Court of the United States. Obergefell v. Hodges The Michigan and Kentucky cases raised the licensing question; Ohio and Tennessee raised recognition.
What the Ruling Requires of States
The majority answered both questions yes. State laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage were declared invalid, and every state became obligated to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the same terms as opposite-sex couples.1Supreme Court of the United States. Obergefell v. Hodges No state may impose additional requirements, separate procedures, or different fees. Every state constitutional amendment and local ordinance restricting marriage to a man and a woman became unenforceable the moment the opinion issued.
On recognition, the Court held that no state has a lawful basis to refuse recognition of a valid same-sex marriage performed elsewhere.1Supreme Court of the United States. Obergefell v. Hodges That ruling rested on the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Full Faith and Credit Clause. A couple married in Massachusetts remains married for every legal purpose when they move to Texas, so inheritance, joint tax filing, parental rights, hospital visitation, and survivor benefits travel with the marriage.
Kennedy’s Four Principles
Kennedy grounded the majority opinion in four principles drawn from earlier marriage cases.
The first is individual autonomy. Kennedy wrote that personal choice about marriage is “inherent in the concept of individual autonomy,” alongside decisions about contraception, family relationships, and childrearing.2Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US 644 (2015)
The second is that marriage supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the people in it. Kennedy described marriage as answering “the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there.”2Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US 644 (2015)
The third is that marriage safeguards children and families. Denying same-sex parents the right to marry harms their children by suggesting their families are less worthy of recognition and by withholding the legal structure that gives children stability.2Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US 644 (2015)
The fourth is that marriage is a keystone of the nation’s social order. Hundreds of federal and state provisions tie rights and responsibilities to marital status. Locking same-sex couples out of that system denies them a vast web of legal protections and marks them as unequal.2Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US 644 (2015)
The Dissents
Four justices dissented, each writing separately: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.2Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US 644 (2015)
Roberts wrote the lead dissent and argued that the Constitution does not define marriage and that the majority was making a policy choice disguised as legal interpretation. He called the decision “an act of will, not legal judgment” and said the definition of marriage should be left to voters and state legislatures. Scalia challenged the majority’s reasoning as lacking grounding in constitutional text or history. Thomas argued that the Due Process Clause protects only against government restraint, not a right to government recognition. Alito focused on the traditional definition of marriage and the risks of sidelining democratic deliberation. All four warned that the ruling would create tension with religious liberty.
Is Obergefell Still Good Law After Dobbs?
Yes. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022, it also relied on the doctrine of substantive due process that underpins Obergefell, which raised questions about whether marriage equality could be next. The Dobbs majority addressed the concern directly. Justice Alito wrote that the decision “concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right” and that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” The majority distinguished abortion because it involves the destruction of what the opinion called an “unborn human being,” a factor absent from cases like Obergefell.3Supreme Court of the United States. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Justice Thomas filed a concurrence urging the Court to reconsider “all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents,” naming Obergefell along with Griswold v. Connecticut and Lawrence v. Texas. He called substantive due process a “legal fiction.”3Supreme Court of the United States. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization No other justice joined that portion of his opinion.
The Respect for Marriage Act as a Backstop
In 2022, Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act, translating key parts of Obergefell‘s holding into federal statute. If the Supreme Court were ever to reverse the decision, the statute would still require interstate recognition of same-sex marriages and preserve their federal recognition.
The Act repealed the Defense of Marriage Act. Federal law now provides that any marriage between two individuals that is valid where it was performed must be recognized for all federal purposes.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 1 US Code 7 – Marriage It also bars anyone acting under state authority from denying full faith and credit to a marriage from another state on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.6Congress.gov. HR 8404 – Respect for Marriage Act
The statute has a boundary worth noting. Because family law is traditionally a state matter, Congress did not require states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It only requires recognition of marriages validly performed elsewhere. Licensing itself still depends on Obergefell. The Act also includes religious liberty protections: nonprofit religious organizations and their employees cannot be compelled to participate in the celebration of any marriage, and refusing to do so creates no legal liability.5Congress.gov. Public Law 117-228 – Respect for Marriage Act
Religious Objections and 303 Creative
The dissenters’ prediction that marriage equality would collide with religious liberty has played out in later litigation. The most significant case is 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, decided in 2023.
Lorie Smith, a Colorado web designer, wanted to offer custom wedding websites but objected to creating them for same-sex weddings on religious grounds. Colorado’s antidiscrimination law would have required her to serve all customers equally. The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the First Amendment bars the government from compelling a person to create expressive content that contradicts her beliefs. The majority treated custom wedding websites as “pure speech” and held that Colorado could not force Smith to produce messages she disagreed with.7Supreme Court of the United States. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
The decision drew a narrow line. The Court acknowledged that public accommodations laws play a “vital role” in eliminating discrimination but held that no such law is “immune from the demands of the Constitution” when it collides with protected speech. Smith had stipulated she would work with clients of any sexual orientation; her objection was to the message, not the person. The ruling applies to businesses producing custom expressive work and does not authorize refusal of service to same-sex couples in ordinary commercial settings like restaurants, hotels, or retail stores.7Supreme Court of the United States. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis Questions about for-profit businesses, government employees, and adoption agencies continue to generate litigation working through the distinction between status-based discrimination and compelled expression that 303 Creative drew.