Obergefell v. Hodges is the 5–4 Supreme Court decision, issued June 26, 2015, that legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires every state to license marriages between two people of the same sex and to recognize those marriages when they were lawfully performed elsewhere.1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges The ruling struck down the same-sex marriage bans that remained in roughly a dozen states and ended the patchwork under which a couple’s marriage could disappear as a legal matter when they crossed a state line.
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
Two years earlier, in United States v. Windsor (2013), the Court had struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the provision that defined marriage under federal law as only between a man and a woman. Windsor opened federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples but left state marriage bans in place.2Justia. United States v. Windsor
In the two years that followed, same-sex couples filed lawsuits across the country, and nearly every federal appeals court to hear the question ruled that state bans were unconstitutional. The Sixth Circuit, covering Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee, was the exception. In November 2014, a three-judge panel held that the Fourteenth Amendment “permits, though it does not require” states to define marriage as between a man and a woman.3United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. DeBoer v. Snyder That split forced the Supreme Court to take the question up, and in January 2015 it agreed to hear the consolidated cases from all four states.
The Plaintiffs and Their Cases
The lead plaintiff, James Obergefell, and his partner John Arthur flew from Ohio to Maryland to marry after Arthur was diagnosed with ALS. When Arthur died, Ohio refused to list Obergefell as the surviving spouse on the death certificate.1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges
In Michigan, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse wanted to jointly adopt the children they were raising, but the state restricted second-parent adoption to married couples and barred them from marrying. A federal judge invited them to challenge the marriage ban itself.4Constitutional Accountability Center. De Boer v. Snyder Kentucky couples, including Gregory Bourke and Michael DeLeon, had married in Canada but found Kentucky treated their marriages as void. In Tennessee, Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura had married in New York before DeKoe deployed; when they settled in Tennessee, their marriage no longer legally existed.1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges
Consolidating these cases let the Court answer two questions at once: whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, and whether it requires a state to recognize a same-sex marriage lawfully performed elsewhere.5Supreme Court of the United States. Docket for 14-556 The Court answered yes to both.6Supreme Court of the United States. Obergefell v. Hodges
The Court’s Reasoning
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The opinion rested on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which protects personal choices “central to individual dignity and autonomy,” and its Equal Protection Clause, which forbids states from treating similarly situated people differently without adequate justification.7Oyez. Obergefell v. Hodges
Kennedy set out four reasons marriage qualifies as a fundamental right. The choice of whom to marry is inherent in personal autonomy. Marriage supports a committed two-person union in a way no other institution does. It safeguards children and families by giving legal recognition to the people raising them. And it is a keystone of the social order, linking couples to a wide network of legal rights and responsibilities. Denying all of this to same-sex couples burdened their liberty and imposed an inequality the Constitution does not allow.1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges
The majority drew its framework from Loving v. Virginia (1967), where the Court had struck down state bans on interracial marriage. Loving described the freedom to marry as “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness” and held that racial classifications could not justify restricting it. Obergefell applied the same reasoning to sex-based classifications: the right to marry belongs to the individual, not to the state’s preferred definition of who may exercise it.
The Dissents
Each of the four dissenting justices wrote separately. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, argued the majority had no basis in the Constitution’s text or history for creating a new fundamental right and that the question should have been left to voters and state legislatures. Justice Scalia, joined by Thomas, called the majority’s reasoning a “threat to American democracy.” Justice Thomas, joined by Scalia, argued that the Due Process Clause protects only against government restraint, not a right to government benefits like a marriage license. Justice Alito, joined by Scalia and Thomas, warned the decision would be used to marginalize people who hold traditional views of marriage.1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges
What Changed for Couples
Every state had to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the same terms as opposite-sex couples. State constitutional amendments and statutes banning same-sex marriage could no longer be enforced. Clerks updated forms and systems, sometimes within days, to use gender-neutral language.
The recognition piece was just as significant. Couples who had traveled to marry elsewhere suddenly held marriages valid at home, and that recognition carried through every area of state law that turns on marital status: joint tax filing, inheritance, spousal privilege, hospital visitation, and the authority to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse.
Birth Certificates and Parental Rights
Two years later, the Court reinforced Obergefell in Pavan v. Smith (2017). Arkansas listed the husband of a birth mother on a child’s birth certificate automatically, regardless of biological connection, but refused to do the same for the wife of a birth mother in a same-sex marriage. The Court, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that the distinction violated Obergefell: benefits tied to marriage must be extended to same-sex couples on identical terms.8Oyez. Pavan v. Smith Being listed on a child’s birth certificate affects school enrollment, medical consent, and proof of legal parentage in an emergency.
Federal Benefits
Because the federal government had already begun recognizing same-sex marriages after Windsor in 2013, many federal benefits were in place before Obergefell. The 2015 ruling eliminated the problem of couples losing federal recognition when they moved to a non-recognition state.
Taxes
The IRS treats legally married same-sex couples the same as any other married couple for all federal tax purposes, including income tax, gift tax, and estate tax. Married same-sex couples must file federal returns as “married filing jointly” or “married filing separately,” regardless of the state they live in.9Internal Revenue Service. Same-Sex Marriages Now Recognized for Federal Tax Purposes This recognition does not extend to domestic partnerships or civil unions that are not marriages.
Social Security
Same-sex spouses are eligible for Social Security spousal and survivor benefits on the same terms as opposite-sex spouses. The Social Security Administration also considers couples who would have married earlier if state law had allowed it. A surviving partner blocked from marrying by a state ban may still qualify for survivor benefits by showing they would have been married at the time of their partner’s death but for the unconstitutional state law.10Social Security Administration. What Same-Sex Couples Need to Know
Family and Medical Leave
The Department of Labor uses a “place of celebration” rule to define “spouse” under the Family and Medical Leave Act. If a marriage was valid where it was performed, the federal government recognizes it for FMLA purposes no matter where the employee lives. A same-sex spouse can take up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave to care for a seriously ill partner, and the same protections extend to stepchildren and stepparents in same-sex marriages.11U.S. Department of Labor. Fact Sheet – Final Rule to Amend the Definition of Spouse in the Family and Medical Leave Act Regulations
The Respect for Marriage Act
In 2022, Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act as a statutory backstop for same-sex and interracial marriages should the Supreme Court ever revisit its earlier rulings. The law repealed what remained of the Defense of Marriage Act and requires that no person acting under state authority may deny full faith and credit to a marriage between two people on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.12Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1738C – Certain Acts, Records, and Proceedings and the Effect Thereof
For purposes of any federal law, rule, or regulation, an individual is considered married if their marriage is between two people and was valid where it took place.13Congress.gov. H.R.8404 – Respect for Marriage Act If Obergefell were ever overturned and a state re-banned same-sex marriage, that state would still have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they remain legal. It would not, however, be forced to issue new licenses. The law also includes religious liberty protections and does not require religious organizations to provide services for or formally recognize any marriage.
Religious Objections and Free Speech
Obergefell established a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, but later cases have addressed how anti-discrimination protections apply to certain businesses.
In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), the Court ruled 7–2 for a baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The decision was narrow. The Court found the Colorado commission had displayed open hostility toward the baker’s religious beliefs during its proceedings, failing the constitutional requirement of religious neutrality. It did not establish a broad right to refuse service.14Oyez. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), a 6–3 majority held that the First Amendment prevents Colorado from compelling a website designer to create “expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.” The Court drew a line between selling a commercial product, which anti-discrimination laws can regulate, and creating custom expressive work, which the government cannot compel.15Supreme Court of the United States. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis Both sides agreed the designer was willing to serve gay clients on other projects; the objection was to the specific message.
Neither case weakened Obergefell’s core holding that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. They carved out space for certain businesses whose work qualifies as expressive speech to decline wedding-related projects that conflict with their beliefs, and the line between protected expression and ordinary commercial services remains contested.
Where Things Stand
More than a decade after the decision, Obergefell remains binding law, with the Respect for Marriage Act layered on top as federal statutory protection. Challenges have not disappeared: in late 2025, the Supreme Court considered a petition from Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015, asking that Obergefell be overruled. The core right the case established, that same-sex couples may marry and have their marriages recognized everywhere in the United States, has held.