Master U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry and requiring states to license and recognize such marriages. with this comprehensive case brief.
Obergefell v. Hodges is the landmark Supreme Court case that constitutionalized marriage equality in the United States. Decided in 2015, the case held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry and obligates states to both license such marriages and recognize those performed elsewhere. Coming after a decade of rapid legal and cultural change—bookended by Lawrence v. Texas (2003) decriminalizing same-sex intimacy and United States v. Windsor (2013) striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act—the Court confronted whether state-level bans on same-sex marriage could stand against evolving understandings of liberty and equality.
The decision is doctrinally significant for its synthesis of substantive due process and equal protection—what the majority described as a “synergy” between liberty and equality—and for its articulation of why the right to marry, long recognized as fundamental, cannot be withheld based on the sex of the partners. It also resolved a circuit split created by the Sixth Circuit and transformed the legal landscape for LGBTQ+ families, affecting parentage, benefits, and dignity interests across federal and state law.
576 U.S. 644 (2015)
The case consolidated four challenges from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, all within the Sixth Circuit. The plaintiffs were same-sex couples who either sought marriage licenses in their home states or sought recognition of marriages lawfully performed in other jurisdictions. One lead plaintiff, James Obergefell, had married his terminally ill partner, John Arthur, in Maryland and sought to have Ohio recognize their marriage so that Obergefell would be listed as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate. Other plaintiffs included couples challenging state constitutional and statutory bans that prevented them from marrying or from jointly adopting and securing the incidents of marriage for themselves and their children. Federal district courts ruled for the plaintiffs, but the Sixth Circuit reversed, upholding the bans based on tradition, deference to democratic processes, and reliance on Baker v. Nelson (1972), a summary dismissal the Sixth Circuit viewed as controlling. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages.
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require states to (1) license marriages between two people of the same sex and (2) recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully performed out of state?
The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry. States must (1) license marriages between two people of the same sex and (2) recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in other jurisdictions. The fundamental right to marry may not be denied to same-sex couples, as the liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment extend to choices central to individual dignity and autonomy and must be afforded on equal terms.
Yes. The Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license marriages between two people of the same sex and to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed out of state. The Sixth Circuit’s judgment upholding state bans was reversed.
Writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy grounded the decision in the substantive liberty interest in marriage and the equality guarantee, emphasizing their “synergy.” The Court reaffirmed that marriage is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person (citing Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley). It identified four interlocking principles demonstrating why this right applies equally to same-sex couples: (1) the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in individual autonomy; (2) marriage supports a unique two-person union of profound importance; (3) marriage safeguards children and families, conferring stability, legal protections, and dignity on the children of same-sex couples; and (4) marriage is a keystone of social order, conferring material and symbolic benefits that government attaches to the marital status. The Court rejected the argument that historical limits on marriage foreclose recognition, noting that history is a guide but not a jailer; constitutional principles can demand extension of rights as understanding deepens. Responding to Washington v. Glucksberg’s “deeply rooted” formulation, the majority explained that the right at stake is the fundamental right to marry, not a novel right to same-sex marriage; fundamental rights are defined by their essence and purposes, not by limiting historical applications. The procreation-based rationale for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples was deemed underinclusive and inconsistent with precedent, given that the right to marry has never turned on the capacity or intent to procreate (see Turner). On equal protection, the Court held that excluding same-sex couples from marriage demeans their dignity and imposes material burdens without constitutionally adequate justification, stigmatizing their families and children. The majority stressed that laws withholding the constellation of benefits tied to marriage inflict concrete injuries. The Court declined to specify a tier of scrutiny, instead relying on the combined force of fundamental-rights analysis and equality principles to conclude the bans could not stand. The Court found Baker v. Nelson no longer controlling due to doctrinal developments in due process and equal protection, including Lawrence and Windsor. Addressing federalism and democratic-process arguments, the majority acknowledged states’ traditional control over domestic relations but underscored that state marriage laws remain subject to constitutional limits. Fundamental rights do not hinge on popular vote. Finally, the Court emphasized that the First Amendment protects religious organizations’ and persons’ right to teach and advocate their beliefs about marriage, while civil marriage must be available on equal terms. The remedy required states to both license same-sex marriages and recognize those lawfully performed elsewhere.
Obergefell is a capstone of modern Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. For law students, it is essential for understanding: (1) how the Court identifies and applies fundamental rights under substantive due process; (2) the interplay—“synergy”—between due process and equal protection in expanding access to a preexisting fundamental right; (3) the limits of tradition and democratic processes when they conflict with constitutional guarantees; and (4) the practical reach of constitutional rights into family law, parentage, and benefits. The case also illustrates how the Court treats summary dispositions like Baker v. Nelson once doctrinal developments render them obsolete. Post-Obergefell litigation (e.g., Pavan v. Smith) shows how its rationale requires equal access to all incidents of marriage, while later debates over religious liberty and public accommodations highlight unresolved tensions left for future cases.
The Court did not expressly label a tier of scrutiny. Instead, it recognized marriage as a fundamental right and held that excluding same-sex couples violates both substantive due process and equal protection. Functionally, the analysis resembles the rigorous review applied to infringements of fundamental rights, but the majority grounded its decision in the combined force of liberty and equality rather than a specified doctrinal tier.
Both. The majority emphasized the “synergy” between Due Process (protecting fundamental liberties like the right to marry) and Equal Protection (ensuring the right is afforded on equal terms). The liberty interest identifies the right to marry; equal protection prohibits drawing lines that deny it to same-sex couples.
Baker v. Nelson, a 1972 summary dismissal of a same-sex marriage claim, had been cited by some courts to foreclose merits review. Obergefell held that doctrinal developments in due process and equal protection had removed Baker’s precedential force. In effect, Baker is no longer controlling and cannot bar consideration of constitutional claims regarding marriage equality.
By requiring equal access to the marital status, Obergefell obligates states to extend all incidents of marriage to same-sex spouses on the same terms as opposite-sex spouses. This includes spousal benefits, inheritance, hospital visitation, and parentage presumptions tied to marriage. The Court confirmed this logic in Pavan v. Smith (2017), holding states must apply marital birth-certificate rules equally to same-sex spouses.
Dobbs (2022) overruled Roe but stated that its reasoning did not call into question precedents unrelated to abortion, including marriage rights; a concurrence suggested reconsidering substantive due process precedents, but Obergefell remains binding. In 2022, Congress enacted the Respect for Marriage Act, requiring federal recognition of valid marriages and mandating interstate recognition of marriages regardless of sex, thereby providing statutory backstop even if state laws revert, though the Constitution independently protects the right under Obergefell.
Obergefell v. Hodges constitutionalized the right of same-sex couples to marry, ensuring equal access to a core civil institution and the full constellation of legal protections and dignitary interests it carries. It confirms that the Fourteenth Amendment’s promises of liberty and equality are dynamic and extend to protect individuals against exclusion from fundamental rights based on outdated or discriminatory rationales.
For law students, the case is a vital study in how the Court frames fundamental rights, integrates equal protection into substantive due process analysis, and balances tradition and federalism with constitutional supremacy. Its reasoning continues to influence debates over family law, LGBTQ+ rights, and the scope of constitutional protections in an evolving society.