Obergefell v. Hodges
135 S. Ct. 2584
| SCOTUS | 2015Background
- Four consolidated cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee challenged State laws or constitutional provisions limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples; plaintiffs were same‑sex couples (and two surviving spouses) seeking licenses or recognition.
- District courts ruled for plaintiffs; the Sixth Circuit reversed, creating a circuit split that the Supreme Court granted to resolve two questions: (1) must a State license same‑sex marriages, and (2) must a State recognize same‑sex marriages validly performed out of State.
- Petitioners argued the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses protect a fundamental right to marry that cannot be denied to same‑sex couples; respondents defended the traditional, historical definition of marriage and urged deference to democratic decisionmaking.
- The Supreme Court (majority opinion by Kennedy) held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires States to license same‑sex marriages and to recognize valid out‑of‑State same‑sex marriages, overruling Baker v. Nelson.
- Separate dissents (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito) argued the Court exceeded its judicial role, rejected the majority’s substantive due process reasoning, emphasized democratic processes and federalism, and warned of consequences for religious liberty and judicial legitimacy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires States to license marriages between two people of the same sex | Obergefell: Right to marry is a fundamental liberty under Due Process and a right to equal protection; excluding same‑sex couples stigmatizes and harms them and their children | States (Hodges/others): Marriage has historically been between a man and a woman; change should occur through democratic processes; no constitutional mandate | Held: Yes. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses protect same‑sex couples’ right to marry; Baker overruled. |
| Whether States must recognize same‑sex marriages validly performed in other States | Obergefell: Recognition is required because same‑sex couples have a constitutional right to marriage and nonrecognition causes real harms and instability | States: Comity and public‑policy grounds allow refusal; recognition is a matter for States’ choice | Held: Yes. No lawful basis exists for a State to refuse recognition to lawful out‑of‑State same‑sex marriages. |
| Proper scope and method for identifying fundamental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment | Petitioners: Liberty evolves; history and tradition inform but do not limit; courts must protect personal choices central to dignity and autonomy | Respondents: Glucksberg framework and history/tradition should constrain substantive due process; courts should respect democratic decisionmaking | Held: Majority adopts a substantive‑due‑process analysis recognizing marriage’s central attributes and extends the right to same‑sex couples; rejects Baker and declines to confine inquiry narrowly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (invalidated racial bans on marriage; affirmed marriage as fundamental right)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (struck down criminalization of same‑sex intimacy; emphasized dignity and liberty in intimate conduct)
- United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (invalidated federal Defense of Marriage Act’s unequal treatment of state‑sanctioned same‑sex marriages)
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (recognized privacy and intimate associations central to marriage)
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) (invalidated law restricting marriage for fathers behind on child support; linked marriage right to equality)
- Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) (upheld criminal sodomy law; later overruled by Lawrence)
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (summary dismissal of Same‑Sex Marriage claim; overruled by Obergefell)