Case Summary of Obergefell v.

Hodges:
 Petitioners, a number of same-sex couples, sued four states that denied
marriage licenses to those couples because those states defined marriage
as being a union between one man and one woman.
 Petitioners won in all of the federal district courts in which they sued.
 The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated all of the cases and then
reversed, finding that no state is obliged to license a same-sex marriage, nor
recognize such a marriage performed in another state.
 The United States Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit, holding that
marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to same-sex couples
under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Obergefell v. Hodges Case Brief
Statement of the Facts:
Four states, Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, have laws that define
marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Fourteen same-sex couples
and two men whose same-sex partners were deceased (collectively,
“petitioners”) filed lawsuits against those state laws, claiming that the denial of
petitioners’ ability to marry, or have their marriage in other states recognized,
violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
Procedural History:
 Petitioners filed their lawsuits in the federal district courts in their home
states. Each district court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The four states
appealed.
 The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated all of the cases. It reversed
the judgments of the district courts, holding that a state has no obligation to
license same-sex marriages, or to recognize a same-sex marriage performed
in another state.
 The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues and Holdings:
1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage
between two people of the same sex? Yes.
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a same-sex
marriage licensed and performed in another state that allows same-sex
marriage? Yes.
Judgment:
The judgment of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed.
Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied:

1
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license same-sex marriages, and
to recognize same-sex marriages licensed and performed in other states.
Reasoning:
 History Shows that Same-Sex Marriage Must Be Permitted

The fact that same-sex couples desire to participate in the institution of marriage
shows their deep respect for the institution. Thus, opponents of same-sex
marriage are wrong to claim that allowing same-sex couples to marry demeans
the institution.
Also, though the institution of marriage has been around for centuries, its history
has been characterized by change. Arranged marriages, the law of coverture,
and other antiquated notions of marriage have given way to more modern
conceptions of the institution. Such evolution has not weakened, but rather
strengthened, the institution. In fact, the acceptance of same-sex couples over
the last several decades shows that public attitudes shift over time.
 Same-Sex Marriage is a Right Under the Due Process Clause
Requiring states to license same-sex marriage is grounded in the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process clause. The right to marry, including for same-sex
couples, is fundamental under the Constitution for four reasons: (i) individual
autonomy dictates our personal choice on who to marry; (ii) we have a right to
enjoy intimate association; (iii) it protects children and families, because children
suffer if they are raised by unmarried parents; (iv) marriage is a keystone to our
nation’s social order.
 Same-Sex Marriage is a Right Under Equal Protection

The Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection also requires that all
states license same-sex marriage. Burdening the liberty of same-sex couples,
but not that of opposite-sex couples, shows that current laws are inherently
unequal.
 Waiting for Further Legislative Action is Untenable
The desire to wait for political/legislative action would be unwise in this case
because it would amount to allowing further discrimination against same-sex
couples. The Court sees immediate harm being inflicted upon the petitioners due
to the laws at issue in the case. Therefore, it would be improper to wait any
longer to remedy that harm, particularly when the laws at issue infringe upon the
petitioners’ fundamental right to marry.
Finally, because all states must license same-sex marriage as a fundamental
right, it naturally follows that states must also recognize same-sex marriages
licensed in other states.

2
Dissenting Opinions:
Dissenting Opinion (Roberts):
Even if allowing same-sex marriage is rooted in fairness, it is not addressed by
the Constitution. Accordingly, the decision on whether to allow same-sex
marriage should be left up to the states. Other Court expansions of marriage
laws are not applicable here because they did not change the very definition of
marriage. Further, the majority opinion relies on an overly expansive view of the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Court
should not go too far into judicial policymaking.
Dissenting Opinion (Scalia):
The majority opinion overstepped the Court’s authority by making a legislative
determination. Rather, it is for the states to make a legislative determination
about how marriage is defined, and the Constitution leaves that determination to
the states.
Dissenting Opinion (Thomas):
The legislative history of the due process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments was rooted in retraining government power, not granting
entitlements. The majority decision also infringes on religious rights. The states,
through the legislative process, should be allowed to make that judgment
between competing interests of same-sex couples and religious communities.
Dissenting Opinion (Alito):
Because the Constitution does not address the right to marry, it left that
determination to the states. The majority creates a new right here, which is a
dangerous departure from proper judicial authority under the Constitution.
Significance:
The importance of Obergefell v. Hodges cannot be overstated. It is a landmark
case for LGBTQ rights. It is the Supreme Court opinion that made same-sex
marriage legal throughout the entire United States. This case settled, once and
for all, the decades long debate about whether states could legalize same-sex
marriage, and whether other states needed to recognize same-sex marriages.
Student Resources:
New York Time article with highlights of the landmark Obergefell decision
Washington Post article summarizing the oral argument