Obergefell v. Hodges is the June 26, 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding, 5–4, that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry and requires every state to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in other states.1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) The ruling consolidated cases from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and it ended the patchwork under which a couple’s marriage could be valid in one state and void the moment they crossed a state line.
Who Brought the Case
The lead plaintiff, Jim Obergefell, married John Arthur in Maryland in 2013. Arthur was terminally ill with ALS, and the couple wanted Ohio to list Obergefell as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate. Ohio refused. A federal district court ordered the state to recognize the marriage on the certificate in July 2013, but Arthur died that October and the recognition fight continued.2Supreme Court of the United States. Obergefell v. Hodges Opinion
In Michigan, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse wanted to jointly adopt their children. State law permitted only married couples or single individuals to adopt, and because Michigan barred same-sex marriage, neither partner could legally become a parent to the children the other had adopted.3Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. DeBoer v. Snyder Plaintiffs in Kentucky and Tennessee faced parallel problems: marriages that were legal in the states where they were performed but treated as void back home, and marriage license applications their home states refused. Altogether the consolidated case involved 14 same-sex couples and two men whose partners had died.1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) The range of injuries showed how far state marriage bans reached: adoption, death certificates, taxes, healthcare decisions, and inheritance.
What the Court Was Asked to Decide
The Supreme Court framed two questions, both grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment. First, does the amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? Second, does it require a state to recognize a same-sex marriage lawfully performed in another state?4Cornell Law School. Obergefell v. Hodges
Two clauses did the work. The Due Process Clause prohibits states from depriving any person of liberty without due process of law, and the petitioners argued that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty protected by that clause.5Congress.gov. Amdt14.S1.3 Due Process Generally The Equal Protection Clause forbids states from denying any person equal protection of the laws, and the petitioners argued that issuing licenses to opposite-sex couples while refusing them to same-sex couples was a classification with no legitimate justification.6Congress.gov. U.S. Constitution – Fourteenth Amendment The state respondents countered that marriage had always been defined as between a man and a woman, that any change belonged to voters and legislatures, and that states had legitimate interests in linking marriage to procreation. Oral argument took place on April 28, 2015.
The Court’s Reasoning
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The Court answered both questions yes, and it grounded the holding in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses together rather than treating them as independent bases.1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
Kennedy identified four reasons the right to marry is fundamental and applies equally to same-sex couples:
- The right to choose whom to marry is inherent in personal autonomy. Kennedy tied this principle to Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 decision striking down bans on interracial marriage.
- Marriage supports a two-person union unlike any other in its significance, responding to a basic human need for companionship and mutual care.
- Marriage safeguards children and families by providing legal structure and stability; excluding same-sex couples imposed both stigma and material costs on their children.
- Marriage is a keystone of the country’s legal order, touching taxation, property, healthcare, and inheritance, and exclusion from it meant instability across all of those systems.
The opinion rejected the argument that the question should be left to the democratic process, reasoning that fundamental rights cannot be put to a popular vote. Kennedy closed with the line most often quoted from the case: the petitioners “ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”4Cornell Law School. Obergefell v. Hodges
The Dissents
Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each wrote separately.
Roberts argued that the Constitution does not address same-sex marriage and that the definition of marriage belongs to state legislatures. He said the Court had no precedent for ordering states to change their definition of marriage, only for striking down restrictions on marriage as traditionally defined.
Scalia wrote the sharpest dissent, describing the ruling as a threat to democratic self-governance and calling the majority’s language more suited to “inspirational pop-philosophy” than legal analysis, accusing the Court of descending into “the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”4Cornell Law School. Obergefell v. Hodges
Thomas challenged the majority’s conception of liberty. In his reading, the Due Process Clause protects freedom from government restraint, not entitlement to government-provided benefits such as a marriage license.4Cornell Law School. Obergefell v. Hodges
Alito predicted consequences for religious liberty, warning that people and institutions holding traditional views of marriage would face legal and social pressure after the ruling.
What Changed for Married Couples
The practical effects of the ruling were immediate. Every state was required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize marriages performed elsewhere, and the full body of federal and state benefits tied to marital status followed.
For federal taxes, the IRS had already moved after United States v. Windsor, the 2013 decision striking down the federal definition of marriage in Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.7Justia. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) Under Revenue Ruling 2013-17, the IRS treats a same-sex marriage as valid for federal tax purposes if it was performed in a jurisdiction that authorized it, regardless of where the couple lives.8Internal Revenue Service. Fact Sheet: Preparing Same-Sex Tax Returns After Obergefell, the state-side barrier fell as well.
Social Security survivor benefits, the concern that drove Jim Obergefell’s original lawsuit, became available to surviving same-sex spouses. The Social Security Administration recognizes same-sex marriages from all states and encourages people previously denied benefits because of a state ban to reapply.9Social Security Administration. What Same-Sex Couples Need to Know The ruling also cleared the way for immigration sponsorship, veterans’ benefits, FMLA leave, hospital visitation, and estate planning on the same terms other married couples had long used.
The Respect for Marriage Act
Because Obergefell was decided 5–4, advocates worried a future Court could revisit it. Those concerns sharpened in 2022 when Justice Thomas, in a concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, suggested the Court should reconsider substantive due process precedents including Obergefell.
Congress responded with the Respect for Marriage Act, signed into law on December 13, 2022. The Act repealed the Defense of Marriage Act and replaced its definitions. Federal law now defines a married individual as a person whose marriage is between two people and is valid in the state where it was performed.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 1 USC 7 – Marriage The Act also bars any state from denying full faith and credit to an out-of-state marriage on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the spouses, and it creates a government enforcement mechanism together with a private right of action.11Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1738C – Certain Acts, Records, and Proceedings and the Effect Thereof
The Act does not require religious organizations to provide services for or celebrate any marriage, and it preserves religious liberty and conscience protections available under the Constitution and existing federal law.12Congress.gov. H.R.8404 – Respect for Marriage Act If the Supreme Court ever revisited Obergefell, the federal statutory protections would remain in place unless Congress itself repealed them, though the constitutional right to have a state issue a marriage license would depend on what any new ruling said.