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.1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The decision ended a patchwork of conflicting state laws overnight, and Congress later reinforced it by statute through the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022.
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, which defined marriage for all federal purposes as between one man and one woman. The Court held that the provision violated the Fifth Amendment by denying federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples.2Justia. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) Windsor opened federal tax, immigration, and other protections to those couples, but it left states free to ban same-sex marriage.
The next round of litigation came from fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose partners had died, challenging bans in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. Federal district courts ruled for the couples in every case. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the appeals and reversed, upholding the state bans and creating a split with other federal appellate courts that had struck similar laws down.3Legal Information Institute. Obergefell v. Hodges The Supreme Court granted review in January 2015 and heard argument that April.
The Two Questions the Court Answered
The Court framed its review around two distinct issues. First, does the Constitution require a state to issue a marriage license to two people of the same sex? Second, must a state recognize a same-sex marriage lawfully performed in another state?1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) The majority answered yes to both.
Marriage as a Fundamental Right
The heart of Kennedy’s opinion rests on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which shields fundamental liberties from state interference. The majority identified four principles explaining why the right to marry is fundamental and why each applies with equal force to same-sex couples.3Legal Information Institute. Obergefell v. Hodges
The first is individual autonomy. Choosing whom to marry is among the most personal decisions a person can make, central to self-definition. The second is the unique nature of a two-person union. Marriage offers a form of committed partnership that no other legal arrangement replicates, and excluding same-sex couples denied them something the state could not substitute.
The third principle is the protection of children and families. Without legal recognition of their parents’ marriage, children raised by same-sex couples bear the stigma of a family treated as lesser. The fourth is that marriage is a keystone of social order, carrying a web of government benefits and legal responsibilities. Denying same-sex couples that institution meant denying them the financial protections, inheritance rights, and legal standing that stabilize family life.1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
Equal Protection and Equal Dignity
The majority also grounded its holding in the Equal Protection Clause. Restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, the Court found, created a system of unequal treatment that harmed same-sex couples’ standing in society by treating their relationships as unworthy of formal recognition.4Legal Information Institute. Obergefell v. Hodges
Kennedy treated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses as interconnected rather than independent, writing that they “are connected in a profound way” and that rights protected by one may inform the meaning of the other.1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) This framework, sometimes called the “equal dignity” theory, means the liberty interest in marriage and the equality interest in nondiscrimination reinforce each other. Some legal scholars view this dual-clause approach as harder to apply in later cases because it does not rest on a single, clearly defined standard of review.
What States Must Do
Issue Licenses on Equal Terms
Every state must make marriage licenses available to same-sex couples on the same terms as opposite-sex couples. If applicants meet their jurisdiction’s standard eligibility requirements, they cannot be turned away based on the sex of either partner. County clerks and licensing offices must apply the same procedures, timelines, and fees used for any other couple.1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) Officials who refuse risk legal action for violating federal constitutional rights.
Some county clerks have sought religious exemptions from issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Federal courts have consistently held that government employees acting in their official capacity have no constitutional right to deny public services based on personal religious beliefs. Public employers may offer reasonable accommodations, such as reassigning the task to another employee, but only if doing so causes no meaningful delay or burden to the couple.
Recognize Marriages Performed Elsewhere
A same-sex marriage lawfully performed in one state must be treated as valid in every other. A couple’s legal status cannot dissolve when they cross state lines.3Legal Information Institute. Obergefell v. Hodges Recognition extends to all state-level benefits tied to marriage, including joint tax filings, inheritance rights, and medical decision-making authority. No state may treat a valid out-of-state same-sex marriage as void or reclassify it as a lesser legal arrangement such as a civil union or domestic partnership. The holding addresses marriages performed in other U.S. states; its language focuses on interstate recognition within the American federal system rather than foreign marriages.
Birth Certificates and Parentage
Two years later, the Court made clear that Obergefell extends beyond the license itself. In Pavan v. Smith (2017), the Court struck down an Arkansas law that listed only biological fathers on birth certificates, excluding the female spouse of a woman who gave birth. Because Arkansas used birth certificates to give married parents legal recognition unavailable to unmarried parents, it could not deny that recognition to married same-sex couples.5Justia. Pavan v. Smith, 582 U.S. ___ (2017)
States must provide same-sex spouses equal access to the entire “constellation of benefits” linked to marriage, including the legal presumption that the spouse of a birth parent is also a legal parent. That presumption establishes parental rights, child support obligations, and custody standing without a separate adoption proceeding.
Federal Benefits and Tax Treatment
Windsor and Obergefell together opened access to more than a thousand federal benefits and protections tied to marital status. For tax purposes, the IRS requires legally married same-sex couples to file federal returns as either married filing jointly or married filing separately, regardless of where they now live.6Internal Revenue Service. Same-Sex Marriages Now Recognized for Federal Tax Purposes
The Social Security Administration recognizes same-sex marriages for spousal benefits, survivor benefits, and Medicare eligibility.7Social Security Administration. What Same-Sex Couples Need to Know Individuals previously denied survivor benefits because unconstitutional state laws prevented them from marrying can ask the agency to reopen their claims, even without an earlier appeal.8Social Security Administration. Survivors Benefits for Same-Sex Partners and Spouses When reviewing those reopened claims, the agency looks at evidence such as joint property ownership, shared living arrangements, beneficiary designations, and commitment ceremonies to determine whether a couple would have married sooner had the law allowed it.
The Dissents
All four dissenting justices wrote separately. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, argued the decision was judicial overreach and that the question belonged to voters and state legislatures. He wrote that the Court “is not a legislature” and that judges say what the law is, not what it should be.1Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) Justice Scalia, joined by Thomas, called the ruling the furthest extension of the Court’s power to create liberties not mentioned in the Constitution. Justice Thomas wrote separately to argue the majority distorted the concept of dignity by treating it as something government confers rather than something inherent in the individual. Justice Alito, joined by Scalia and Thomas, argued the Constitution’s text and history left marriage policy to the states.
The Respect for Marriage Act
In December 2022, Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act, creating a statutory backstop that does not depend on the Court’s continued adherence to Obergefell. The Act prohibits any person acting under state authority from denying full faith and credit to an out-of-state marriage based on the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the spouses.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S.C. 1738C – Certain Acts, Records, and Proceedings and the Effect Thereof It also repealed what remained of DOMA and created both a federal enforcement mechanism through the Attorney General and a private right of action for individuals harmed by violations.
The legislative push gained urgency after Justice Thomas wrote in his 2022 concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the Court should reconsider its substantive due process precedents, naming Obergefell among them. No other justice joined that suggestion, but Congress moved to ensure that even a narrowed constitutional holding would leave federal law independently requiring recognition of valid marriages. The statute includes religious liberty protections for nonprofit religious organizations and their employees, and it does not require any state to issue marriage licenses; it addresses only recognition of marriages already performed.
Where Things Stand Now
Obergefell remains binding law, and the Respect for Marriage Act supplies an independent statutory guarantee of interstate recognition. Same-sex couples lawfully married in any U.S. jurisdiction have their marriages recognized nationwide for state and federal purposes, with access to the full range of benefits, rights, and obligations that marriage carries. Occasional disputes still surface, most often over religious accommodation requests from government employees or slow updates to state parentage forms, but the constitutional holding and the federal statute now protect marriage equality from two directions.