← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Obergefell v. Hodges

No. 14-556 SCOTUS · Decided Teaching/Historical SCOTUS
Argued: Apr 28, 2015 Decided: Jun 26, 2015


The Law · How the Case Works

Overview

Overview

The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a fundamental right to same-sex marriage on equal protection and due process grounds.

The Facts

Facts

Fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners had died sought recognition of their marriages or the right to marry in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee. These states refused to recognize or allow same-sex marriage. After losing in lower courts, the cases were consolidated and appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to resolve the constitutional question.

The Issue

Issue

Does the Fourteenth Amendment require states to license marriages between same-sex couples? Does the Fourteenth Amendment require states to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in another state?

The Rules

Rule

The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects the fundamental right to marry, which applies equally to same-sex couples; states may not deny this right to same-sex couples any more than they can deny it to interracial couples. The Equal Protection Clause requires that states that choose to license marriage must do so equally without regard to sexual orientation.

The Application

Analysis

The four states' categorical refusal to license or recognize same-sex marriages violated the fundamental right to marry protected by the Due Process Clause, as that right cannot constitutionally be confined to heterosexual couples. When states grant marriage licenses to different-sex couples while denying them to same-sex couples, the classification based on sexual orientation triggers Equal Protection scrutiny and cannot survive without a compelling governmental interest that the states failed to articulate. The petitioners' inability to obtain the same legal recognition, dignity, and statutory benefits of marriage, hospital visitation, inheritance, custody, and countless others, that were freely available to similarly situated heterosexual couples demonstrated that the exclusion imposed a substantial and unjustified burden on a liberty interest ranked among the most fundamental. The Court concluded that the due process right to marry and the equal protection guarantee against sexual-orientation discrimination converge to require states both to license same-sex marriages and to recognize validly performed same-sex marriages from other states.

The Conclusion

Conclusion

The Court held 5-4 that same-sex couples have a fundamental constitutional right to marry under the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Kennedy wrote that the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause together protect this liberty interest and prohibit state discrimination. Marriage is fundamental to liberty, dignity, and autonomy; excluding same-sex couples violates equal protection principles.

CourtSupreme Court of the United States
FiledApr 7, 2014
CL Statusterminated
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

Cert Granted -
Statusterminated
Filed (CL)Apr 7, 2014
View on CourtListener →
SCOTUS TMR-56fed972 Aug 8, 2026

Cited By (29)

  • United States v. Vaello-Madero SCOTUS

    United States v. Vaello-Madero addresses whether certain federal benefits programs can constitutionally exclude Puert…

  • 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis SCOTUS

    303 Creative LLC v. Elenis concerns whether a web designer can refuse service to same-sex couples based on religious …

  • Department of State v. Munoz SCOTUS

    A U.S. citizen challenges the government's decision to exclude her Salvadoran husband from re-entering the country ba…

  • Gutierrez v. Saenz SCOTUS

    Gutierrez v. Saenz is a case involving a constitutional challenge to government action that restricts fundamental rig…

  • Mahmoud v. Taylor SCOTUS

    This case concerns parents' objections to storybooks depicting same-sex marriages and diverse gender identities being…

  • United States v. Vaello-Madero SCOTUS

    United States v. Vaello-Madero addresses whether certain federal benefits programs can constitutionally exclude Puert…

  • 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis SCOTUS

    303 Creative LLC v. Elenis concerns whether a web designer can refuse service to same-sex couples based on religious …

  • Department of State v. Munoz SCOTUS

    A U.S. citizen challenges the government's decision to exclude her Salvadoran husband from re-entering the country ba…

  • Gutierrez v. Saenz SCOTUS

    Gutierrez v. Saenz is a case involving a constitutional challenge to government action that restricts fundamental rig…

  • Mahmoud v. Taylor SCOTUS

    This case concerns parents' objections to storybooks depicting same-sex marriages and diverse gender identities being…

  • Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo SCOTUS

    Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (20A87)

  • Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management SCOTUS

    Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management (18-540)

  • United States v. Briggs SCOTUS

    United States v. Briggs (19-108)

  • Carney v. Adams SCOTUS

    Carney v. Adams (19-309)

  • Tanzin v. Tanvir SCOTUS

    Tanzin v. Tanvir (19-71)

  • Shinn v. Kayer SCOTUS

    Shinn v. Kayer (19-1302)

  • Trump v. New York SCOTUS

    Trump v. New York (20-366)

  • City of Chicago v. Fulton SCOTUS

    City of Chicago v. Fulton (19-357)

  • Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. SCOTUS

    Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. (19-963)

  • Republic of Hungary v. Simon SCOTUS

    Republic of Hungary v. Simon (18-1447)

  • Salinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board SCOTUS

    Salinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board (19-199)

  • Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp SCOTUS

    Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp (19-351)

  • United States v. Vaello-Madero SCOTUS

    United States v. Vaello-Madero (20-303)

  • 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis SCOTUS

    303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (21-476)

  • Department of State v. Munoz SCOTUS

    Department of State v. Munoz (23-334)

  • Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo SCOTUS

    Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (22-451)

  • Gutierrez v. Saenz SCOTUS

    Gutierrez v. Saenz (23-7809)

  • Mahmoud v. Taylor SCOTUS

    Mahmoud v. Taylor (24-297)

  • L.R. v. Trump SCOTUS

    L.R. v. Trump (24-1287)

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support