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.
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.