Obergefell v. Hodges: Ruling, Reasoning, and Dissents

Obergefell v. Hodges is the 2015 Supreme Court decision that made same-sex marriage legal in every state. By a 5–4 vote, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states both to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. The ruling struck down bans in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, and invalidated similar laws across the country.¹

The Couple Behind the Case

Jim Obergefell and John Arthur had been together for more than two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS in 2011. They flew from Ohio to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal, and were married aboard a medical transport plane on the tarmac in Baltimore. Arthur died three months later. Ohio refused to list Obergefell as the surviving spouse on the death certificate, a designation that carries consequences for inheritance, benefits, and property rights.¹

Obergefell’s suit was one of several filed by same-sex couples in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. Federal district courts ruled for the couples in every case. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the appeals, reversed, and upheld the bans. The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the consolidated case.²

The Two Questions the Court Answered

The Court framed the case around two questions. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to issue a marriage license to two people of the same sex? And does it require a state to recognize a same-sex marriage lawfully performed in another state?³ The majority answered yes to both.

The Majority’s Reasoning

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The opinion rested on two provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment working together: the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.¹

Kennedy identified marriage as a fundamental liberty protected by due process and gave four reasons. The choice to marry is a matter of individual autonomy central to personal identity and dignity. Marriage supports a two-person union unlike any other in its depth. It provides legal structure that benefits children and families, and excluding same-sex couples stigmatized their children. And states have built marriage into the center of hundreds of legal rights and responsibilities, so denying same-sex couples the institution shut them out of that whole framework.

The Equal Protection Clause reinforced the result. Bans on same-sex marriage treated similarly situated couples differently based on the sex of their partners, and the majority found no lawful justification for that unequal treatment. Together, the two clauses compelled the conclusion that every state must license same-sex marriages and recognize those from other states.²

The Precedents It Built On

Kennedy traced a line through four earlier decisions that had expanded protections around intimate relationships and marriage.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) struck down a ban on contraception for married couples and established constitutional protection for intimate decisions within marriage.
Loving v. Virginia (1967) invalidated bans on interracial marriage under the Due Process Clause, treating the right to marry as fundamental regardless of the identity of the partners.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) overturned laws criminalizing same-sex intimacy.
United States v. Windsor (2013) struck down the core provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that had barred federal recognition of same-sex marriages valid under state law.

Kennedy read these cases as reflecting a single principle: the Constitution’s guarantees of liberty and equality gain content as understanding deepens.¹

The Dissents

All four dissenting justices wrote separately. They shared a core objection: that the majority had taken a political question away from voters and state legislatures and resolved it by judicial decree.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the lead dissent, arguing that the Constitution does not address same-sex marriage and that earlier cases like Loving struck down restrictions on marriage as traditionally defined rather than redefining marriage itself. Justice Scalia called the ruling a “judicial Putsch” and objected to nine unelected lawyers setting policy for the country. Justice Thomas argued that “liberty” in the Due Process Clause historically meant only freedom from physical restraint, not access to government-issued benefits. Justice Alito focused on the traditional link between marriage and procreation and argued that the majority had swapped that understanding for a modern one built on emotional fulfillment.²

What the Ruling Required States to Do

Two concrete requirements followed from the decision. Every state has to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the same terms as opposite-sex couples. And every state has to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in other states.¹

The licensing requirement rendered any state constitutional amendment or statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman unenforceable. Clerks had to update forms and procedures, and same-sex couples became entitled to the same application process, fee structures, and waiting periods as everyone else. A handful of county clerks initially refused to comply on religious grounds, and federal courts consistently held that government officials cannot deny a constitutional right based on personal beliefs.

The recognition requirement solved the border problem. Before Obergefell, a couple legally married in one state could lose their legal status by relocating, which created chaos for property ownership, insurance, hospital visitation, and medical decision-making. Under the ruling, a marriage license issued anywhere in the country must be treated as valid everywhere.²

Federal Benefits and Everyday Consequences

Marriage status is a factor in over a thousand provisions of federal law, from income taxes to veterans’ benefits to immigration. After the ruling, the IRS confirmed that all legally married same-sex couples must file federal income tax returns using either “married filing jointly” or “married filing separately.”⁴ That single shift changed tax brackets, standard deductions, credit eligibility, and retirement account rollovers.

The Social Security Administration recognized same-sex marriages for spousal, survivor, and death benefits, and created a rule allowing survivor benefits where a couple would have married but for state laws that prevented it. The Department of Health and Human Services issued guidance clarifying that under HIPAA, a lawful same-sex spouse must be recognized as a personal representative with authority to access medical information and make health care decisions.⁵

Family law changed alongside. Same-sex spouses gained access to the same divorce proceedings, property division rules, alimony frameworks, and child custody standards as opposite-sex couples, along with the corresponding obligations.

Where the Law Stands Now

In 2022, when the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence urging the Court to “reconsider” other decisions grounded in substantive due process, naming Obergefell alongside Griswold and Lawrence.⁶ No other justice joined that portion of Thomas’s opinion, and the Dobbs majority stated its ruling should not be read to cast doubt on other precedents. The concurrence still prompted Congress to act.

President Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law on December 13, 2022. It repealed the remaining provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act and prohibits any state official from denying full faith and credit to a marriage from another state based on the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the spouses. The Attorney General can enforce that prohibition in federal court, and individuals harmed by a violation can sue on their own behalf.⁷

The Act also redefined marriage for federal purposes. Under the revised 1 U.S.C. § 7, a person is married under any federal law if the marriage is between two individuals and was valid where it was performed. To secure bipartisan support, the law includes religious liberty protections: religious nonprofits and their employees cannot be required to perform, solemnize, or celebrate any marriage, and the Act cannot be used to alter the tax-exempt status of religious organizations or displace protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It does not require recognition of polygamous marriages.⁸

The practical result is that same-sex marriage rights now rest on two foundations. Obergefell is the constitutional ruling. The Respect for Marriage Act is the federal statutory backstop that would keep interstate recognition and federal benefits in place if the constitutional ruling were ever revisited.

1
Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges
2
Department of Justice. Obergefell v. Hodges Syllabus
3
Oyez. Obergefell v. Hodges
4
Internal Revenue Service. Same-Sex Marriages Now Recognized for Federal Tax Purposes
5
Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance on HIPAA, Same-Sex Marriage, and Sharing Information with Patients’ Loved Ones
6
Supreme Court of the United States. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
7
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. United States Code Title 28 1738C – Certain Acts, Records, and Proceedings and the Effect Thereof
8
Congress.gov. H.R.8404 – Respect for Marriage Act