Obergefell v. Hodges
The 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
• Does the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause guarantee a fundamental right to marry regardless of sexual orientation? • Does the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibit states from denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples on equal terms with opposite-sex couples?
The Rules
No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Court must identify objectively, deeply rooted traditions of the nation when evaluating whether liberty interests are fundamental under the Due Process Clause.
Laws that deny equal dignity to same-sex couples trigger heightened equal protection review and must serve important governmental objectives by substantially related means.
The Application
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
**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.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a fundamental right to same-sex marriage on equal protection and due process grounds.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Notes
2015 decision establishing constitutional right to same-sex marriage under Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Bryan uses as substantive due process + equal protection teaching case.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support