Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is an important decision by the United States Supreme Court. The Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry, as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 decision requires all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other places. Before this case, same-sex marriage was already allowed by law, court decisions, or voter actions in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.
From 2012 to 2014, people in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee filed lawsuits in federal courts. These cases eventually led to Obergefell v. Hodges. After lower courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the cases were reviewed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2014, the Sixth Circuit decided that state bans on same-sex marriage were allowed based on a previous court decision called Baker v. Nelson. This created disagreements among different federal courts, leading to a review by the Supreme Court. On June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker v. Nelson and required states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. This decision made same-sex marriage legal in all U.S. states and territories. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, explaining how the Constitution protects fundamental rights, the harm of delaying these rights, and how views on discrimination have changed since Baker v. Nelson.
Lawsuits in the district courts
The U.S. Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges is not the result of one lawsuit. Instead, it combines six lower-court cases. These cases originally involved sixteen same-sex couples, seven children, a widower, an adoption agency, and a funeral director. The cases came from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. All six court decisions in these cases ruled in favor of the same-sex couples and other people involved.
One case was from Michigan. It involved a female couple and their three children. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse had a commitment ceremony in February 2007. They were foster parents. A son was born on January 25, 2009, and adopted by Rowse in November. A daughter was born on February 1, 2010, and adopted by DeBoer in April 2011. A second son was born on November 9, 2009, and adopted by Rowse in October 2011. Michigan law allowed adoption only by single people or married couples. Because of this, DeBoer and Rowse filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division, Detroit) on January 23, 2012. The case was called DeBoer v. Snyder. Richard Snyder, then governor of Michigan, was the main defendant.
During a court hearing on August 29, 2012, Judge Bernard A. Friedman said he had concerns about the plaintiffs’ legal claim. He suggested they change their lawsuit to challenge Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage. The plaintiffs did this on September 7. During a hearing on March 7, 2013, Friedman decided to delay the case until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, hoping for guidance. On October 16, Friedman set a trial date for February 25, 2014. The trial ended on March 7. On March 21, Friedman ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. He wrote that, “without some overriding legitimate interest, the state cannot use its domestic relations authority to legislate families out of existence. Having failed to establish such an interest in the context of same-sex marriage, the [state marriage ban] cannot stand.”
Two cases came from Ohio. The first involved a male couple, a widower, and a funeral director. In June 2013, after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, James “Jim” Obergefell and John Arthur decided to marry to legally recognize their relationship. They married in Maryland on July 11. When they learned Ohio would not recognize their marriage, they filed a lawsuit, Obergefell v. Kasich, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Western Division, Cincinnati) on July 19, 2013. They claimed Ohio discriminated against same-sex couples who married legally in other states. The main defendant was Ohio Governor John Kasich. Because John Arthur had a terminal illness and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), the couple wanted Ohio’s Registrar to list Obergefell as Arthur’s surviving spouse on his death certificate. The local Registrar agreed that the law was unconstitutional, but Ohio’s attorney general planned to defend the state’s same-sex marriage ban.
On July 22, District Judge Timothy S. Black granted the couple’s request to temporarily stop the Ohio Registrar from accepting death certificates unless they listed the deceased’s status as “married” and the partner as “surviving spouse.” Black wrote that, “throughout Ohio’s history, Ohio law has been clear: a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized.” He also noted that some marriages, like those between cousins or minors, are recognized by Ohio if they are legal in other states. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said he would not appeal the court’s order. On August 13, Black extended the temporary order until December and scheduled a hearing on permanent relief for December 18.
On July 22, 2013, David Michener and William Herbert Ives married in Delaware. They had three adopted children. On August 27, William Ives died in Cincinnati, Ohio. His remains were held at a funeral home until a death certificate was issued. Because Ohio law did not allow Michener’s name to appear on the certificate, he joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff on September 3.
As the case continued, Judge Black allowed the plaintiffs to remove the governor and attorney general as defendants and added funeral director Robert Grunn to the lawsuit. Grunn wanted legal clarity about his obligations under Ohio law when serving clients with same-sex spouses, like Obergefell. Ohio Health Department Director Theodore Wymyslo became the main defendant, and the case was renamed Obergefell v. Wymyslo. On October 22, plaintiff John Arthur died. The state defendants asked the court to dismiss the case, saying it was no longer relevant. Judge Black denied the motion on November 1. On December 23, Black ruled that Ohio’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other states was discriminatory. He ordered Ohio to recognize such marriages on death certificates. He wrote, “When a state effectively terminates the marriage of a same-sex couple married in another jurisdiction, it intrudes into the realm of private marital, family, and intimate relations specifically protected by the Supreme Court.”
The second Ohio case involved four couples, a child, and an adoption agency. Georgia Nicole Yorksmith and Pamela Yorksmith married in California on October 14, 2008. They had a son in 2010 and were expecting another child. In 2011, Kelly Noe and Kelly McCraken married in Massachusetts. Joseph J. Vitale and Robert Talmas married in New York on September 20, 2011. In 2013, they sought help from Adoption S.T.A.R., an adoption agency. They adopted a son on January 17, 2014, the same day Brittani Henry and Brittni Rogers married in New York. They, too, were expecting a child. The three female couples lived in Ohio, each expecting a child in 2014. Vitale and Talmas lived in New York with their adopted son, Child Doe, born in Ohio in 2013 and also a plaintiff through his parents. On February 10,
Reversal by the Sixth Circuit
Six decisions from four federal district courts were appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Ohio's director of health appealed Obergefell v. Wymyslo on January 16, 2014. The governor of Tennessee appealed Tanco v. Haslam on March 18. On March 21, the governor of Michigan appealed DeBoer v. Snyder. The governor of Kentucky appealed Bourke v. Beshear and Love v. Beshear on March 18 and July 8, respectively. On May 9, Ohio's director of health appealed Henry v. Himes.
Later, on May 20, the Sixth Circuit combined Obergefell v. Himes with Henry v. Himes for the purpose of preparing legal documents and holding oral arguments. (On April 15, after Ohio's governor, John Kasich, appointed Lance Himes as interim health director on February 21, Obergefell was renamed Obergefell v. Himes.) Based on a prior request from the involved parties, the Sixth Circuit also combined Bourke v. Beshear and Love v. Beshear on July 16. On August 6, a three-judge panel consisting of Judges Jeffrey Sutton, Deborah L. Cook, and Martha Craig Daughtrey heard oral arguments in all four cases. On August 11, Richard Hodges, appointed by Ohio governor John Kasich, became Ohio's health director, and Obergefell was renamed again, this time as its final version, Obergefell v. Hodges.
On November 6, 2014, in a case titled DeBoer v. Snyder, the Sixth Circuit ruled 2–1 that Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage did not violate the U.S. Constitution. The court stated it was required to follow the U.S. Supreme Court's 1972 decision in a similar case, Baker v. Nelson, which dismissed a same-sex couple's marriage claim "for want of a substantial federal question." Judge Sutton, writing for the majority, rejected the arguments made on behalf of same-sex couples in this case: "Not one of the plaintiffs' theories, however, makes the case for constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters."
Before the Supreme Court
People involved in six different court cases asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review their cases. On November 14, 2014, same-sex couples, widowers, a child plaintiff, and a funeral director in the cases DeBoer v. Snyder, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Tanco v. Haslam submitted requests for the Supreme Court to take their cases. The adoption agency Adoption S.T.A.R. did not submit a request. In the case Bourke v. Beshear, same-sex couples filed their request on November 18.
The DeBoer case asked the Court whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Obergefell case asked whether Ohio’s refusal to recognize marriages from other states violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s rights to fair treatment and equal protection, and whether Ohio’s refusal to recognize an adoption judgment from another state broke the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Tanco case asked three questions: whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry, including recognition of marriages from other states, violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s rights to fair treatment or equal protection; whether refusing to recognize out-of-state marriages violated same-sex couples’ right to travel between states; and whether the 1972 court decision Baker v. Nelson, which dismissed same-sex marriage claims, still applied. The Bourke case asked whether states breaking the Fourteenth Amendment’s rights to fair treatment or equal protection by banning same-sex marriage, and whether states breaking the same rights by refusing to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
On January 16, 2015, the Supreme Court combined the four same-sex marriage cases—DeBoer v. Snyder (Michigan), Obergefell v. Hodges (Ohio), Bourke v. Beshear (Kentucky), and Tanco v. Haslam (Tennessee)—and agreed to review the cases. The Court set a schedule for written arguments to be completed by April 17. The Court asked the parties in each case to address only the questions specific to their case. For example, the Obergefell case focused only on whether states must recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
The case received 148 letters from groups not directly involved in the case, more than any other Supreme Court case. One letter, written by Susan Baker Manning of Morgan Lewis, was signed by 379 business groups and argued that legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide would benefit businesses.
Oral arguments were held on April 28, 2015. The plaintiffs were represented by civil rights lawyer Mary Bonauto, former U.S. Solicitor Ted Olsen, and lawyer Douglas Hallward-Driemeier. The U.S. government, represented by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., also supported the same-sex couples. The states were represented by John J. Bursch, a former Michigan lawyer, and Joseph R. Whalen, a Tennessee lawyer. Of the nine justices, all except Clarence Thomas made comments or asked questions, showing their views on the case. While these questions do not guarantee final decisions, the justices appeared divided, often along political beliefs, with Justice Anthony Kennedy playing a key role. Chief Justice John Roberts, despite past disagreements, suggested during the hearing that same-sex marriage bans might be unfair based on sex, though he believed the bans were legal.
Supreme Court decision
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5–4 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to allow same-sex marriages and to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The Court overturned its earlier decision in Baker v. Nelson, which the Sixth Circuit had used as a reference.
The Obergefell v. Hodges decision occurred on the second anniversary of the United States v. Windsor ruling, which canceled Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law that denied federal recognition to same-sex marriages. It also took place on the twelfth anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas, a case that canceled sodomy laws in 13 states. The Obergefell decision was the second-to-last ruling of the Court’s term.
The justices’ opinions in Obergefell align with their views in Windsor, which rejected DOMA’s rule that only opposite-sex marriages could be recognized for certain federal purposes. In both cases, Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinions and was considered the "swing vote."
Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each wrote separate dissenting opinions. Chief Justice Roberts read part of his dissent from the bench, the first time he had done so since joining the Court in 2005.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, which was supported by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The majority ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
The Court stated, “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach,” including the right to define and express personal identity. It cited Griswold v. Connecticut to explain that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, such as the right to marry. The Court also referenced earlier cases like Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, which affirmed marriage as a fundamental right.
The Court rejected the idea that the issue was about whether same-sex couples have a “right to marry,” instead focusing on whether excluding them from marriage had a valid reason. It criticized the idea that fundamental rights must be “deeply rooted” in history, explaining that this approach contradicted earlier rulings. The Court cited Loving and Lawrence v. Texas to support its view that marriage is a fundamental right for all.
The Court gave four reasons why same-sex couples have the right to marry:
1. Marriage is a basic part of individual freedom.
2. Marriage supports a union important to the people involved, regardless of gender.
3. Marriage protects children and families, and same-sex couples can have children and families.
4. Marriage is central to society, and banning it for same-sex couples causes harm and instability.
The Court said that same-sex marriage bans violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. It ruled that same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states on the same terms as opposite-sex couples.
The Court also said that states must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states because differences in state laws caused harm and uncertainty.
The Court addressed the argument that same-sex marriage bans are decided by the public through elections. It said that fundamental rights cannot depend on public opinion or elections. It also rejected the claim that allowing same-sex marriage harms the institution of marriage, stating that married same-sex couples pose no risk to others. The Court emphasized that the First Amendment protects people who disagree with same-sex marriage.
In closing, Justice Kennedy wrote for the Court:
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Roberts agreed that the Due Process Clause protects fundamental rights but warned that it has been misused in the past. He argued that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause because marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Roberts also said that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because they were related to a government interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage.
Roberts stated that marriage, which he described as a union between a man and a woman, ensures successful childrearing. He criticized the majority for relying on moral beliefs rather than a legal basis and for expanding rights without caution.
Effects
James Obergefell, who was the main person in the Obergefell case and wanted his name on his husband's Ohio death certificate as the surviving spouse, said, "Today's ruling from the Supreme Court supports what many people across the country already know to be true: that our love is equal." He hoped that the term "gay marriage" would eventually be replaced by the word "marriage." President Barack Obama praised the decision and called it an "important win for the country."
Many companies showed support for the Supreme Court's decision by changing their logos on social media to include rainbows or other messages that support the legalization of same-sex marriage. Supporters celebrated the ruling on social media, at public rallies, and at Pride parades. Media commentators highlighted a key sentence from Justice Kennedy's decision, which countered arguments against same-sex marriage. This sentence was similar to language in two earlier court decisions: Loving v. Virginia, which ended bans on interracial marriage, and Griswold v. Connecticut, which protected the right to privacy in marriage. This sentence was shared widely on social media after the ruling.
In 2015, Justice Anthony Kennedy and the other Supreme Court justices were named The Advocate's People of the Year because of the ruling.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the Court's decision a "lawless ruling" and promised to help state workers who refuse to marry couples for religious reasons. Former Governor of Arkansas and 2016 Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee wrote on social media that the decision was "flawed" and "unconstitutional judicial tyranny." Austin R. Nimocks, a lawyer for a group that opposes same-sex marriage, said the Court's decision took away the voices of millions of Americans who want to debate marriage. Some religious groups, like the National Catholic Register and Christianity Today, raised concerns that the ruling might conflict with religious freedom, as the dissenting justices had argued.
On May 4, 2017, Republican Governor of Tennessee Bill Haslam signed a law called HB 1111/SB 1085. This law was seen as an attempt to challenge the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in June 2015, some counties in Alabama, Texas, and Kentucky refused to issue marriage licenses to eligible same-sex couples. The situation in American Samoa remains unclear because people born there are U.S. nationals, not citizens like in other U.S. territories.
After the Obergefell ruling, by September 4, 2015, officials in 11 Alabama counties stopped issuing marriage licenses: Autauga, Bibb, Chambers, Choctaw, Clarke, Cleburne, Covington, Elmore, Geneva, Pike, and Washington.
On January 6, 2016, Alabama's Chief Justice, Roy Moore, ordered state officials not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He faced ethics charges and was suspended from his position in September 2016. After Moore's ruling, the listed counties continued refusing licenses, and Elmore and Marengo Counties joined them.
Chambers County started issuing licenses again in June 2016. By June 26, 2016, 12 counties were refusing licenses: Autauga, Bibb, Choctaw, Clarke, Cleburne, Coosa, Covington, Elmore, Geneva, Marengo, Pike, and Washington. By October 2016, Bibb, Coosa, and Marengo Counties began issuing licenses, and by June 2017, Choctaw County did so as well. Until June 2019, eight counties still refused licenses: Autauga, Clarke, Cleburne, Covington, Elmore, Geneva, Pike, and Washington.
In 2019, Alabama passed a law changing marriage licenses to marriage certificates, which are given to couples who complete notarized forms. The law was signed by Governor Kay Ivey in May 2019 and took effect in August 2019. All eight remaining counties were required to issue marriage certificates, and now every county in Alabama issues marriage certificates to all couples, including same-sex couples.
After the Obergefell ruling, six Texas counties initially refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses: Hood, Irion, Loving, Mills, Swisher, and Throckmorton. Swisher and Throckmorton Counties began issuing licenses by August 2015, and Loving and Mills Counties did so by September 2015. Irion County was the only one refusing licenses until November 2020, when the newly elected county clerk agreed to issue licenses to same-sex couples.
In Kentucky, three counties—Whitley, Casey, and Rowan—refused to issue marriage licenses to avoid issuing them to same-sex couples. Kim Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, cited religious exemptions based on the First Amendment and the Kentucky Constitution. In 2016, Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin signed a law replacing separate marriage license forms with one form that includes gender-neutral language. By June 2016, all counties in Kentucky were issuing marriage licenses to all couples.
Guam had already allowed same-sex marriage before the Obergefell ruling. The governor of Puerto Rico announced in June 2015 that same-sex marriage would begin there within 15 days. Same-sex couples started marrying in Puerto Rico on July 17, 2015, but legal challenges continued until April 2016.
On June 29 and 30, 2015, the governors of the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands announced their territories would follow the Obergefell ruling.
It is unclear how the Obergefell ruling applies to American Samoa because residents there are U.S. nationals, not citizens. In 2015, the attorney general of American Samoa said his office was still reviewing the ruling. A judge in American Samoa also said he would not perform weddings for same-sex couples unless local laws changed. Because no legal cases have been filed about this, the legal status of same-sex marriage in American Samoa remains uncertain. In 2022, the Respect for Marriage Act was passed to address these issues.
Subsequent cases
In Pavan v. Smith (2017), the Supreme Court voted 6–3 to support the Obergefell decision and ruled that states cannot treat married same-sex couples differently from married opposite-sex couples when issuing birth certificates. In Obergefell, birth certificates were described as part of the "governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities" that come with marriage. The Court repeated that the Constitution gives same-sex couples the right to marry "on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples."
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the majority decision overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and said the right to privacy does not include the right to abortion, based on the idea from Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) that a right must be "deeply rooted in the Nation's history." Abortion was treated as a crime, though some historians argued this view was incomplete. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said the ruling would not affect other cases about rights. Justice Clarence Thomas, who disagreed with Obergefell, suggested the Court should reconsider Obergefell because Dobbs changed the understanding of privacy rights. The dissenting opinion criticized the majority for ignoring past decisions, like Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), and warned that rights without long histories might no longer be protected.
In Department of State v. Muñoz (2024), the Supreme Court said a citizen does not have a basic right to ensure their noncitizen spouse is allowed into the country. Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, criticized the majority for using the "history and tradition" test from Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), noting that Obergefell had rejected applying this test to marriage and intimacy rights.
In Ermold v. Davis (2025), the case involved Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She was held personally responsible for her refusal and ordered to pay $100,000 to the affected couple. Davis appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals but lost. She asked the Supreme Court to review the case and overturn Obergefell, citing Dobbs and Justice Thomas's opinion. Experts saw this as the first major test of Obergefell after Dobbs. The Supreme Court did not accept her request and did not explain its decision.
Subsequent legislation
In July 2022, the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) was brought back to Congress with changes that added protections for marriages between people of different races. This happened because of concerns about a legal opinion by Justice Thomas in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The RFMA requires all U.S. states and territories to legally recognize same-sex and interracial marriages if they are legally performed in another state or territory. This includes recognizing same-sex marriages in American Samoa. The RFMA officially ended the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and requires the federal government to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages. It includes parts of the 2013 court decision in United States v. Windsor and the 1967 court decision in Loving v. Virginia. The House passed the bill in a bipartisan vote on July 19, 2022. Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin announced on November 14, 2022, that a bipartisan agreement had been reached, and that the bill was expected to get enough votes to end the filibuster. A vote to end debate passed 62–37 in the Senate on November 16. On November 29, the Senate passed the bill by a 61–36 vote, with most of the opposing votes coming from Republican Senators in the Southern United States. On December 8, the House approved the Senate's version of the bill by a 258–169 vote, with one member voting present (abstaining). Thirty-nine Republicans voted in favor. President Biden signed the bill into law on December 13, 2022.
After the law was passed, all state-level bans on same-sex marriage, including those written into state constitutions, became invalid and could no longer be enforced. However, some states still have language in their laws that bans same-sex marriage.
Since the 2013 Obergefell decision, four states—California, Colorado, Hawaii, and Nevada—have removed language from their state constitutions that previously banned same-sex marriage. Nevada was the first to do this in 2020.
Some states have introduced laws that express disagreement with the Obergefell decision.