Obergefell v. Hodges
2015 U.S. LEXIS 4250, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state.
Facts:
- In Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, state laws defined marriage exclusively as a union between one man and one woman.
- Petitioner James Obergefell and his partner John Arthur, an Ohio couple, traveled to Maryland to marry after Arthur was diagnosed with a terminal illness.
- After Arthur's death, Ohio officials refused to list Obergefell as the surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate.
- Petitioners April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, a Michigan couple, sought to jointly adopt the special-needs children they were raising together, but Michigan law restricted joint adoption to married opposite-sex couples.
- Petitioner Ijpe DeKoe, an Army Reserve Sergeant, and his partner Thomas Kostura married in New York before DeKoe's deployment to Afghanistan.
- Upon returning and settling in Tennessee, DeKoe and Kostura found that their marriage was not legally recognized by the state.
- The petitioners in these consolidated cases were 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners were deceased, all residing in states that did not recognize their relationships as marriages.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, including same-sex couples and individuals whose partners were deceased, filed suits against state officials in United States District Courts in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.
- Each Federal District Court ruled in the plaintiffs' favor, finding the state bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
- The defendant state officials appealed these decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed the judgments of the District Courts, upholding the state bans.
- The plaintiffs (now petitioners) sought and were granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a same-sex marriage lawfully licensed and performed in another state?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes. The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize such marriages lawfully performed in other States. The fundamental right to marry is inherent in the liberty of the person, protected by the Due Process Clause, and is also guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause. The Court's analysis rests on four principles: 1) the right to personal choice in marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy; 2) the right supports a unique two-person union unlike any other; 3) it safeguards children and families; and 4) marriage is a keystone of our social order, and denying same-sex couples access to it denies them a constellation of benefits and imposes a stigma. These principles apply with equal force to same-sex couples, making the challenged laws an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty and a denial of equal protection.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Roberts
No. The Constitution does not require states to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment, as the right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent. The fundamental right to marry has always been understood in the context of the traditional definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The decision to redefine marriage should be left to the democratic process in the states, not imposed by five unelected lawyers. By seizing this issue from the people, the Court oversteps its judicial role and damages the legitimacy of the democratic process.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. The Constitution does not address the issue of same-sex marriage, and therefore the decision should be left to the people through their elected representatives. Today's decision is a judicial Putsch that robs the people of their freedom to govern themselves on a fundamental social issue. The majority's opinion is not based on law but on the personal preferences of an unrepresentative committee of nine lawyers, representing a fundamental threat to American democracy. The ruling is an assertion of judicial supremacy that is at odds with the constitutional structure.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No. The majority's decision misconstrues the concept of 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause, which historically meant freedom from physical restraint and government action, not an entitlement to government benefits or recognition. Petitioners have not been deprived of liberty; they have been denied a government entitlement. Furthermore, human dignity is innate and cannot be bestowed or taken away by the government, so the argument that denying marriage licenses diminishes dignity is flawed. The decision inverts the relationship between the individual and the state, ignoring the principles upon which the nation was founded.
Dissenting - Justice Alito
No. The Constitution does not create a right to same-sex marriage, as 'liberty' under the Due Process Clause only protects rights that are 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,' which same-sex marriage is not. For millennia, marriage was inextricably linked to procreation, a purpose that states are entitled to preserve as a rational basis for their laws. The majority's decision usurps the right of the people to decide this issue and will be used to vilify and marginalize Americans who adhere to the traditional definition of marriage based on religious or philosophical conviction, thereby threatening religious liberty.
Analysis:
Obergefell v. Hodges is a landmark civil rights decision that established a new fundamental right under the Constitution. It resolved a circuit split and mandated marriage equality nationwide, invalidating all state bans on same-sex marriage. The decision explicitly overruled Baker v. Nelson and represents a significant expansion of substantive due process and equal protection jurisprudence. It has had a profound impact on family law, benefits administration, and the legal status of LGBTQ+ individuals, while also raising ongoing questions about the intersection of this new right with religious freedom.
Unlock the full brief for Obergefell v. Hodges