Obergefell vs. Hodges

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses guarantee same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry, requiring states to (1) issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and (2) recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in other states.

• Following United States v. Windsor (2013), which struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), same-sex couples in multiple states filed suits challenging state-level marriage bans.
• Petitioners argued these bans violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or have out-of-state marriages recognized.
• The cases arose amid shifting public opinion and a growing number of states legalizing same-sex marriage through legislation or court rulings.

• Filed in U.S. District Courts in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.
• Each District Court ruled in favor of the petitioners.
• The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated the cases and reversed the District Courts’ decisions.
• The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split.

• Petitioners: 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners had died.
• Respondents: State officials responsible for enforcing marriage laws.
• Key Circumstances:
  • James Obergefell married John Arthur in Maryland; Ohio refused to list Obergefell as surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate.
  • April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, a Michigan couple, jointly adopted children but could not both be legal parents due to Michigan’s marriage laws.
  • Army Sergeant Ijpe DeKoe married Thomas Kostura in New York; Tennessee refused to recognize their marriage.

• State marriage bans violate the fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause.
• Excluding same-sex couples from marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause by imposing stigma and material burdens.
• Non-recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages creates instability and harms families.

• Marriage has historically been defined as a union between one man and one woman; altering this definition should be left to democratic processes.
• The Constitution does not explicitly protect a right to same-sex marriage.
• States have a legitimate interest in regulating marriage to promote procreation and child-rearing within opposite-sex unions.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.
  2. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to recognize a same-sex marriage lawfully licensed and performed in another state.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  1. Yes. The fundamental right to marry is inherent in the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, and excluding same-sex couples violates both due process and equal protection.
  2. Yes. Once the right to marry is recognized, states must recognize lawful out-of-state same-sex marriages under the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Fundamental Right to Marry — The right to marry is a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The SC applied this to same-sex couples, emphasizing marriage’s role in individual autonomy, intimate association, child welfare, and social stability.
• Interplay of Due Process and Equal Protection — The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are interconnected; laws infringing fundamental rights also violate equal protection when they impose inequality.
• Four Principles Supporting the Right:
  1. Individual Autonomy — Marriage decisions are central to personal dignity.
  2. Intimate Association — Marriage supports a unique two-person union.
  3. Safeguarding Children and Families — Marriage provides stability and recognition for children of same-sex couples.
  4. Social Order — Marriage is a keystone of societal structure, with numerous legal benefits.

• “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.”
• “The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times.”
• “[Petitioners] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

• Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) — Established marriage as a fundamental right; struck down interracial marriage bans.
• Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) — Overruled Bowers v. Hardwick; recognized liberty interests in intimate conduct.
• United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) — Struck down DOMA; emphasized dignity and recognition of same-sex marriages.
• Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) — Overruled; had dismissed challenge to same-sex marriage for lack of federal question.

• U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, §1 — Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause.

• N/A (No separate concurrences filed).

• Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Scalia and Thomas): Argued the majority overstepped judicial authority by redefining marriage, a matter better left to democratic processes.
• Justice Scalia (joined by Thomas): Criticized the decision as a “judicial Putsch” undermining democracy and states’ rights.
• Justice Thomas (joined by Scalia): Argued “liberty” in the Due Process Clause refers only to freedom from government restraint, not entitlement to benefits.
• Justice Alito (joined by Scalia and Thomas): Warned the decision would marginalize traditional views of marriage and threaten religious liberty.