October Term 2014 · Decided June 26, 2015

Obergefell v.
Hodges

No. 14–556 · 576 U.S. 644 (2015) · Read the full case on Oyez ↗

The Holding

The Supreme Court ruled, 5–4, that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license marriages between same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in other states. Same-sex couples have a fundamental constitutional right to marry.

In plain terms

Jim Obergefell and John Arthur were together for more than twenty years. When Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, they flew to Maryland on a medical transport plane to marry, because Arthur was too ill to travel any other way. Ohio refused to list Obergefell as Arthur's surviving spouse on the death certificate after Arthur died. Obergefell sued to be recognized as his husband on the official record of his partner's death. His case was consolidated with others from Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee, all challenging state bans on same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court held that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that it applies equally to same-sex couples. All four dissenters wrote separately. The decision has been the subject of ongoing political controversy and some legal uncertainty since the Dobbs decision in 2022.

Section 01

The Question Presented

What was
at stake

By 2015, thirty-six states and the District of Columbia permitted same-sex marriage. Fourteen states maintained bans. The Sixth Circuit had ruled against same-sex couples in cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, creating a split with other federal circuits that had invalidated similar bans. The Supreme Court took the consolidated cases to resolve the question nationwide.

Jim Obergefell's suit was the lead case because of its particular facts. He and John Arthur had been together for more than twenty years. After Arthur received a terminal ALS diagnosis, the couple traveled by medical transport aircraft to Maryland, a state where same-sex marriage was then legal, to marry. Arthur was too ill to be moved any other way. They married on the tarmac. Three months later Arthur died. Ohio refused to list Obergefell as the surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. Obergefell challenged that refusal in federal court.

The consolidated cases raised two questions. First, must a state license a marriage between two people of the same sex? Second, must a state recognize a same-sex marriage lawfully licensed and performed in another state? The Court answered yes to both.

The deeper question was about constitutional framework. The Court had long held that marriage is a . The question was whether that fundamental right necessarily extends to same-sex couples, or whether states could continue to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The answer required the Court to examine what marriage is, why it has constitutional protection, and whether those reasons apply equally regardless of the sex of the parties.

Section 02

The Bench

Who joined
which side

Justice Kennedy wrote for a five-Justice majority. Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. All four dissenters wrote separately: Roberts (joined by Scalia and Thomas on his dissent), Scalia (joined by Thomas), Thomas (joined by Scalia), and Alito (joined by Scalia and Thomas). The result was four separate dissenting opinions with varying but overlapping arguments.

Kennedy is worth noting specifically. He was nominated by President Reagan in 1988 and wrote all four of the Supreme Court's major LGBTQ+ rights decisions: Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), United States v. Windsor (2013), and this case. Three of those four were decided on June 26. For all the disagreements about his opinion's style, Kennedy's sustained authorship of this line of cases is notable.

The Roberts Court · Vote 5–4 (all four dissenters wrote separately)

Roberts
Dissented
Kennedy
Author
Thomas
Dissented
Ginsburg
Joined
Breyer
Joined
Alito
Dissented
Sotomayor
Joined
Kagan
Joined
Scalia
Dissented
Majority (5)
Dissent (4)
✦ Opinion author    All four dissenters wrote separately

They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.

Justice Kennedy, for the Court

Section 03

The Reasoning

Majority
and four
dissents

Kennedy's majority rests on the proposition that the fundamental right to marry, long recognized by the Court, cannot be defined by reference to the historical practice of opposite-sex marriage. The Constitution protects the reasons marriage matters, and those reasons apply equally to same-sex couples. The four dissenters each pressed a version of the same core objection: that this was a decision for the democratic process, not for courts.

The Majority

The right to marry is fundamental. Its reasons apply equally to same-sex couples.

  1. The Court does not define fundamental rights solely by historical practice. Kennedy rejected the argument that the right to marry had always meant opposite-sex marriage and therefore couldn't include same-sex couples. Historical limitations on who could exercise a right do not define the right itself. The Court struck down bans on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967) over the same objection that marriage had "always" excluded such couples. What matters is the nature of the right and why it is protected.
  2. The right to marry rests on four principles, all of which apply equally. Kennedy identified four reasons marriage is constitutionally protected and argued that each applies with equal force to same-sex couples. These are spelled out in detail in Section 04. The core reasoning is that same-sex couples do not seek a different right or a new right. They seek the same right to marry that opposite-sex couples have, for the same reasons.
  3. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses reinforce each other. Kennedy grounded the holding in both substantive due process (the right to marry as a fundamental liberty) and equal protection (denying this right to same-sex couples while extending it to opposite-sex couples is unequal treatment). He treated the two clauses as interconnected rather than alternative bases.
  4. Loving v. Virginia is the controlling precedent. Kennedy repeatedly cited Loving, which held that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man." If states cannot define marriage to exclude interracial couples despite long historical practice, they cannot define it to exclude same-sex couples: the Constitution protects the fundamental right, not the historically limited version of it.
  5. The democratic process cannot be the only avenue when fundamental rights are at stake. Kennedy acknowledged the importance of democratic engagement and noted that many states had already recognized same-sex marriage through legislation and ballot initiatives. But when fundamental rights are at stake, individuals need not wait for legislative majorities to recognize them.
The Four Dissents

The Court substituted its judgment for the democratic process without constitutional authority.

  1. Roberts: the Court is not a legislature. Roberts made what he called the purely institutional argument. Courts exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment." The majority substituted five lawyers' vision of marriage for democratic deliberation underway across the country. He was careful to say his dissent was not about whether same-sex marriage is good policy.
  2. Scalia: the majority opinion is a threat to American democracy. Scalia argued the majority's substantive due process methodology allowed the Court to invent constitutional rights based on the values of unelected lawyers. He made the democratic accountability argument most sharply: the decision removed an important question from the people and handed it to what he called a Committee of Nine Philosopher-Kings.
  3. Thomas: government cannot confer or take away human dignity. Thomas focused on Kennedy's use of "dignity" as a constitutional value. Liberty in the Due Process Clause means freedom from government restraint, not entitlement to government benefits or recognition. And crucially, dignity is inherent in personhood and cannot be taken away by government action or conferred by a court.
  4. Alito: the traditional definition is rational; the majority ignores religious liberty. Alito argued the traditional definition of marriage is rational, tied to the specific purposes of regulating the biological production of children. He raised concern that the majority's holding would stigmatize those who hold traditional religious views of marriage and expressed concern about what the decision would mean for religious institutions.
Section 04

Kennedy's Four Principles

Why marriage
is fundamental

Kennedy's analytical framework is built around four reasons the Court has recognized marriage as constitutionally protected, each of which he argued applies equally to same-sex couples. This four-principle structure is the heart of the opinion's reasoning.

Principle 01

Individual Autonomy

The right to personal choice about marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. The Court has protected intimate decisions, including choices about contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing. Decisions about whom to marry are among the most personal a person makes.

Kennedy drew a direct line from earlier privacy cases: "The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality."

Same-sex couples are not seeking different autonomy rights. They are seeking the same autonomy that opposite-sex couples have to choose their life partner.

Principle 02

A Union Unique in Importance

Marriage supports a two-person union unlike any other in its depth of commitment and importance to the individuals in it. It answers what Kennedy called "the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there."

Excluding same-sex couples from this institution denies them the opportunity to make this commitment with the person they have chosen and denies them the dignity of that recognition in the eyes of their community and the law.

This principle is among the most contested in the dissents, which argued Kennedy was substituting sentiment for constitutional reasoning.

Principle 03

Safeguarding Children and Families

The Court had long recognized the connection between marriage and the protection of children and families. Many same-sex couples raise children. Denying those couples marriage status harms their children, denies them stability, and imposes stigma on their family structure.

As Kennedy wrote, excluding same-sex couples from marriage humiliates tens of thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples and makes it harder for those children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family.

This principle connects Obergefell to the child welfare cases elsewhere in this series: children's wellbeing is affected by how the law treats their families.

Principle 04

Marriage as Social Order

Marriage is the keystone of the nation's social order. Over a thousand federal laws and countless state laws tie rights, benefits, and responsibilities to marital status: health insurance, inheritance, hospital visitation, tax treatment, parental rights, and immigration benefits, among others.

Kennedy's example is stark: a same-sex spouse cannot make medical decisions for a hospitalized partner, cannot inherit without a will, and cannot be listed on a death certificate as a surviving spouse. These are concrete legal disabilities, not symbolic harms.

Social workers routinely encounter these legal disabilities when helping same-sex couples access services. This principle explains why marriage rights have immediate practical consequences in case work.

Section 05

What the Court Did Not Decide

Read this
carefully

Obergefell created the fundamental right to civil marriage for same-sex couples. It did not resolve every question about LGBTQ+ rights in American law, and subsequent decisions have addressed some of the issues the majority specifically did not settle. The case is also subject to a degree of legal uncertainty following the Dobbs decision in 2022.

Common misreads to avoid

Marriage is settled. Many related questions are not.

  • It did not address religious exemptions from officiating or providing services. The majority explicitly acknowledged First Amendment protections for religious institutions. Later cases, including Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) and 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023), have addressed conflicts between same-sex marriage rights and religious or expressive objections by private businesses. Those questions continue to develop.
  • It did not address LGBTQ+ employment discrimination. That was decided in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which held that Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
  • It did not directly address LGBTQ+ adoption rights. Married same-sex couples gained access to joint adoption in states that tied adoption eligibility to marital status, but state-by-state variation in adoption law persists, and the case did not directly address all aspects of parentage for same-sex couples.
  • It did not address LGBTQ+ issues in healthcare, housing, or public accommodations. Obergefell's constitutional holding is about marriage. Other protections depend on federal and state statutes and separate constitutional arguments.
  • Its constitutional foundation has been questioned. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), Justice Thomas's concurrence specifically called for the Court to reconsider Obergefell along with Griswold and Lawrence. The majority in Dobbs disclaimed any such intention, but Thomas's willingness to name Obergefell as a candidate for reconsideration has created uncertainty practitioners should acknowledge. No court has overturned Obergefell.
  • It did not address marriage-adjacent recognition questions in full. Questions about name changes, birth certificate designations for same-sex parent couples, surrogacy arrangements, and other aspects of family recognition continue to be litigated in state and federal courts.
Section 06

How It Got Here

The path
to SCOTUS

Obergefell was in many ways the culmination of decades of constitutional litigation over same-sex relationships, from Lawrence v. Texas (2003) through Windsor (2013). The direct path to the 2015 decision ran through a circuit split created by the Sixth Circuit's decision to uphold the four states' bans.

1996 · Defense of Marriage Act
Congress defines marriage as opposite-sex for federal purposes
The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as between a man and a woman for all federal purposes and permits states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. This framework creates two tracks of legal consequence for married couples depending on the sex of the spouses.
2003 · Supreme Court
Lawrence v. Texas strikes down sodomy laws
The Supreme Court, with Kennedy writing, holds that the Constitution protects intimate same-sex conduct. Lawrence directly precedes the series of state-level marriage equality litigation that followed.
2004–2013 · States
State marriage equality litigation spreads
Massachusetts becomes the first state to recognize same-sex marriage in 2003. Over the following decade, same-sex marriage is recognized by thirty-six states and the District of Columbia through court decisions, legislative action, and ballot initiatives. Fourteen states maintain bans.
June 26, 2013 · Supreme Court
United States v. Windsor strikes down DOMA
Kennedy writes for the Court in another 5-4 decision, striking down the federal definition-of-marriage provision in DOMA. The federal government must recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal. The decision does not address states' rights to ban same-sex marriage, setting up the Sixth Circuit cases.
November 2014 · Sixth Circuit
Sixth Circuit upholds state bans, creating a circuit split
The Sixth Circuit rules against same-sex couples in consolidated cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, upholding each state's ban. This created a split with the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, which had invalidated similar bans. The circuit split makes Supreme Court review essentially certain.
April 28, 2015 · Supreme Court
Oral argument
Mary Bonauto argues for the petitioners on whether states must license same-sex marriages. Douglas Hallward-Driemeier argues on whether states must recognize same-sex marriages from other states. John Bursch argues for Michigan in defense of the bans.
June 26, 2015 · Supreme Court of the United States
SCOTUS reverses, 5–4
Justice Kennedy writes for the majority. All four dissenters write separately: Roberts (joined by Scalia and Thomas), Scalia (joined by Thomas), Thomas (joined by Scalia), and Alito (joined by Scalia and Thomas). The Sixth Circuit's judgments are reversed. States must license and recognize same-sex marriages. The decision takes effect immediately.
Section 07

For Practice

The social
work bridge

Obergefell has direct practical consequences for social workers in virtually every service area. The rights it created are real, immediate, and still imperfectly exercised in practice. Three lenses help.

LGBTQ+ Client Lens

Marriage rights have immediate practical consequences in every service system.

Workers serving same-sex couples and LGBTQ+ families need to know what marriage rights mean practically: health insurance and spousal benefits, inheritance without a will, hospital visitation and medical decision-making, parental rights and joint adoption, tax treatment, and immigration spousal benefits. Workers can help clients exercise rights they may not know they have, identify situations where formal rights are not being honored in practice, and refer clients to legal resources when rights are being violated.

Dignity Framework Lens

Kennedy's four principles are an advocacy framework, not just constitutional analysis.

The four principles Kennedy articulated, autonomy, the unique importance of intimate partnership, protection of children and families, and participation in the social order, describe why marriage matters in ways that go beyond the legal question of licensure. When a hospital questions whether a same-sex spouse can make medical decisions, when a school questions a same-sex couple's parental status, or when a benefits system creates barriers for recognized spouses, these are the principles that define what is at stake.

Legal Landscape Lens

The right is current and in effect. Its future is uncertain.

Obergefell is controlling law as of 2026. No court has overturned it. The Respect for Marriage Act (2022) provides additional federal statutory protection by requiring the federal government and states to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed, adding a statutory layer below the constitutional holding. But Justice Thomas's Dobbs concurrence calling for reconsideration means practitioners should stay current on legal developments while communicating current rights clearly and completely to LGBTQ+ clients.

Section 08

A Working Vocabulary

Legal
terms

Obergefell uses constitutional vocabulary from the privacy-and-liberty line of cases and from equal protection doctrine. These terms appear across the broader LGBTQ+ rights jurisprudence.

Frequently Used in This Opinion
Substantive due process

The doctrine that the Due Process Clause protects certain fundamental liberties from government interference, regardless of the procedures used. Obergefell rests on substantive due process protection of the fundamental right to marry. All four dissenters criticized the majority's use of this doctrine.

Fundamental right

A right protected by substantive due process that the state cannot infringe without compelling justification. The Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right in a series of cases including Loving v. Virginia (1967), Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Turner v. Safley (1987). Obergefell extended this holding to same-sex couples.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

The Supreme Court decision striking down bans on interracial marriage as violations of both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Kennedy cited Loving repeatedly as precedent for the proposition that historical limitations on who could marry do not define the right to marry itself.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health (2022)

The 2022 Supreme Court decision overruling Roe v. Wade. Justice Thomas's concurrence specifically called for the Court to reconsider Obergefell along with Griswold and Lawrence. The majority disclaimed any intention to do so, but Thomas's argument created legal uncertainty about the long-term stability of Obergefell's holding.

Respect for Marriage Act (2022)

Federal statute signed by President Biden that requires the federal government to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages lawfully performed, and requires states to give full faith and credit to such marriages. It adds a statutory layer of protection below the constitutional holding of Obergefell.

Circuit split

A conflict between federal circuit courts of appeals that have reached different conclusions on the same legal question. The Sixth Circuit's decision to uphold state same-sex marriage bans, against the majority of circuits that had struck them down, created the circuit split that made Supreme Court review in Obergefell essentially certain.