InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Obergefell v. Hodges

The Court ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

576 U.S. 644 · No. 14-556 · 2014 term · Roberts Court

Decided Jun 26, 2015 · argued Apr 28, 2015

Due process · Due process: miscellaneous

Landmark · Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identityOverruled precedentStruck down a state law

Majority opinion: Anthony Kennedy

The voteMajorityDissent

5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent

4 dissents (5–4)

Reversed. Obergefell won.

What this ruling means

Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.

Obergefell was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) ( OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas under U.S. sovereignty to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with equal rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

Between January 2012 and February 2014, plaintiffs in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee filed federal district court cases that culminated in Obergefell v. Hodges. After all district courts ruled for the plaintiffs, the rulings were appealed to the Sixth Circuit. In November 2014, following a series of appeals court rulings that year from the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits that state-level bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, the Sixth Circuit ruled that it was bound by Baker v. Nelson and found such bans to be constitutional. This created a split between circuits and led to a Supreme Court review. Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions. This established same-sex marriage throughout the United States and its territories. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court examined the nature of fundamental rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution, the harm done to individuals by delaying the implementation of such rights while the democratic process plays out, and the evolving understanding of discrimination and inequality that has developed greatly since Baker.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2014 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianSotomayorGinsburgKaganBreyerKennedyJ. RobertsScaliaAlitoThomas

Majority(5)

Dissent(4)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
ObergefellLesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual person or organization
Respondent
HodgesState department or agency (Ohio)
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
Struck down
A state law, as unconstitutional
Precedent
The Court overruled one of its own earlier decisions.
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 26, 2015DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed. Obergefell won.
  2. Apr 28, 2015ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit: reversed, with a dissent.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Ohio Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

72 other argued cases since 1946 on due process: miscellaneous, newest first.

  1. Kahler v. KansasLandmark · Competence140 S. Ct. 1021Mar 23, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 1021Due process6–36–3 band

  2. United States v. WindsorLandmark · Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity570 U.S. 744Jun 26, 2013 · 570 U.S. 744Due process5–45–4 band

  3. Federal Communications Commission, et al., Petitioners v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al.567 U.S. 239Jun 21, 2012 · 567 U.S. 239Due process8–0Unanimous band

  4. Eric Michael Clark v. Arizona548 U.S. 735Jun 29, 2006 · 548 U.S. 735Due process5–45–4 band

  5. Keshia Cherie Ashford Dixon v. United States548 U.S. 1Jun 22, 2006 · 548 U.S. 1Due process7–27–2 band
  6. Bobby Lee Holmes v. South Carolina547 U.S. 319May 1, 2006 · 547 U.S. 319Due process9–0Unanimous band

  7. Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, Individually and As Next Friend of Her Deceased Minor Children, Gonzales et al.545 U.S. 748Jun 27, 2005 · 545 U.S. 748Due process7–27–2 band

  8. Carman L. Deck v. Missouri544 U.S. 622May 23, 2005 · 544 U.S. 622Due process7–27–2 band

  9. Kansas v. Michael T. Crane534 U.S. 407Jan 22, 2002 · 534 U.S. 407Due process7–27–2 band

  10. Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, et al.531 U.S. 288Feb 20, 2001 · 531 U.S. 288Due process5–45–4 band

  11. Mark Seling, Superintendent, Special Commitment Center v. Andre Brigham Young531 U.S. 250Jan 17, 2001 · 531 U.S. 250Due process8–18–1 band

  12. William Fiore v. Gregory White, Warden, et al.531 U.S. 225Jan 9, 2001 · 531 U.S. 225Due process9–0Unanimous band
  13. City of Chicago v. Jesus Morales et al.527 U.S. 41Jun 10, 1999 · 527 U.S. 41Due process6–36–3 band

  14. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company, et al. v. Delores Scott Sullivan et al.526 U.S. 40Mar 3, 1999 · 526 U.S. 40Due process8–18–1 band
  15. Kansas v. Leroy Hendricks521 U.S. 346Jun 23, 1997 · 521 U.S. 346Due process5–45–4 band
  16. Montana v. James Allen Egelhoff518 U.S. 37Jun 13, 1996 · 518 U.S. 37Due process5–45–4 band
  17. Byron Keith Cooper v. Oklahoma517 U.S. 348Apr 16, 1996 · 517 U.S. 348Due process9–0Unanimous band

  18. Leonard Heller, Secretary, Kentucky Cabinet for Human Resources v. Samuel Doe, by His Mother and Next Friend, Mary Doe, et al.509 U.S. 312Jun 24, 1993 · 509 U.S. 312Due process5–45–4 band
  19. Teofilo Medina, Jr. v. California505 U.S. 437Jun 22, 1992 · 505 U.S. 437Due process7–27–2 band
  20. Terry Foucha v. Louisiana504 U.S. 71May 18, 1992 · 504 U.S. 71Due process5–45–4 band
  21. Diane Griffin v. United States502 U.S. 46Dec 3, 1991 · 502 U.S. 46Due process8–0Unanimous band
  22. Edward Harold Schad, Jr. v. Arizona501 U.S. 624Jun 21, 1991 · 501 U.S. 624Due process5–45–4 band
  23. Michael H. et al. v. Gerald D.491 U.S. 110Jun 15, 1989 · 491 U.S. 110Due process5–45–4 band

  24. Arizona v. Youngblood, Larry488 U.S. 51Nov 29, 1988 · 488 U.S. 51Due process6–36–3 band
  25. Rivera v. Minnich483 U.S. 574Jun 25, 1987 · 483 U.S. 574Due process8–18–1 band

  26. Martin v. Ohio480 U.S. 228Feb 25, 1987 · 480 U.S. 228Due process5–45–4 band

  27. McMillan et al. v. Pennsylvania477 U.S. 79Jun 19, 1986 · 477 U.S. 79Due process5–45–4 band
  28. Atkins, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare v. Parker et al.472 U.S. 115Jun 4, 1985 · 472 U.S. 115Due process7–27–2 band
  29. Wasman v. United States468 U.S. 559Jul 3, 1984 · 468 U.S. 559Due process9–0Unanimous band
  30. California v. Trombetta et al.467 U.S. 479Jun 11, 1984 · 467 U.S. 479Due process9–0Unanimous band
  31. Board of Education of Paris Union School District No. 95 et al. v. Vail466 U.S. 377Apr 23, 1984 · 466 U.S. 377Due process4–45–4 band
  32. Jones v. United States463 U.S. 354Jun 29, 1983 · 463 U.S. 354Due process5–45–4 band
  33. Kolender, Chief of Police of San Diego, et al. v. Lawson461 U.S. 352May 2, 1983 · 461 U.S. 352Due process7–27–2 band
  34. Landon, District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Plasencia459 U.S. 21Nov 15, 1982 · 459 U.S. 21Due process8–18–1 band

  35. Youngberg, Superintendent, Pennhurst State School and Hospital, et al. v. Romeo, an Incompetent, by His Mother and Next Friend, RomeoLandmark · Restrictions on involuntary commitment457 U.S. 307Jun 18, 1982 · 457 U.S. 307Due process9–0Unanimous band

  36. Hicks v. Oklahoma447 U.S. 343Jun 16, 1980 · 447 U.S. 343Due process8–18–1 band
  37. County Court of Ulster County, New York, et al. v. Allen et al.442 U.S. 140Jun 4, 1979 · 442 U.S. 140Due process5–45–4 band
  38. Addington v. TexasLandmark · Restrictions on involuntary commitment441 U.S. 418Apr 30, 1979 · 441 U.S. 418Due process8–0Unanimous band

  39. United States v. Grayson438 U.S. 41Jun 26, 1978 · 438 U.S. 41Due process6–36–3 band
  40. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division et al. v. Craft et al.436 U.S. 1May 1, 1978 · 436 U.S. 1Due process6–36–3 band
  41. Patterson v. New York432 U.S. 197Jun 17, 1977 · 432 U.S. 197Due process5–36–3 band

  42. Usery, Secretary of Labor, et al. v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co. et al.428 U.S. 1Jul 1, 1976 · 428 U.S. 1Due process6–27–2 band
  43. North v. Russell et al.427 U.S. 328Jun 25, 1976 · 427 U.S. 328Due process6–27–2 band

  44. United States v. Agurs427 U.S. 97Jun 24, 1976 · 427 U.S. 97Due process7–27–2 band
  45. Tennessee et al. v. Dunlap426 U.S. 312Jun 10, 1976 · 426 U.S. 312Due process9–0Unanimous band
  46. United States v. Powell423 U.S. 87Dec 2, 1975 · 423 U.S. 87Due process8–0Unanimous band
  47. O'Connor v. DonaldsonLandmark · Restrictions on involuntary commitment422 U.S. 563Jun 26, 1975 · 422 U.S. 563Due process9–0Unanimous band

  48. Mullaney et al. v. Wilbur421 U.S. 684Jun 9, 1975 · 421 U.S. 684Due process9–0Unanimous band

  49. Drope v. Missouri420 U.S. 162Feb 19, 1975 · 420 U.S. 162Due process9–0Unanimous band

  50. Barnes v. United States412 U.S. 837Jun 18, 1973 · 412 U.S. 837Due process6–36–3 band
  51. Vlandis v. Kline et al.412 U.S. 441Jun 11, 1973 · 412 U.S. 441Due process6–36–3 band
  52. United States v. Fuller et ux.409 U.S. 488Jan 16, 1973 · 409 U.S. 488Due process5–45–4 band
  53. Moore v. Illinois408 U.S. 786Jun 29, 1972 · 408 U.S. 786Due process5–45–4 band
  54. McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution407 U.S. 245Jun 19, 1972 · 407 U.S. 245Due process9–0Unanimous band
  55. Jackson v. IndianaLandmark · Restrictions on involuntary commitment406 U.S. 715Jun 7, 1972 · 406 U.S. 715Due process7–0Unanimous band

  56. Smith et al. v. Florida405 U.S. 172Feb 24, 1972 · 405 U.S. 172Due process7–0Unanimous band
  57. Papachristou et al. v. City of Jacksonville405 U.S. 156Feb 24, 1972 · 405 U.S. 156Due process7–0Unanimous band

  58. Giglio v. United States405 U.S. 150Feb 24, 1972 · 405 U.S. 150Due process7–0Unanimous band

  59. Groppi v. Leslie, Sheriff404 U.S. 496Jan 13, 1972 · 404 U.S. 496Due process7–0Unanimous band
  60. Palmer v. City of Euclid, Ohio402 U.S. 544May 24, 1971 · 402 U.S. 544Due process9–0Unanimous band
  61. Turner v. United States396 U.S. 398Jan 20, 1970 · 396 U.S. 398Due process6–27–2 band

  62. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania382 U.S. 399Jan 19, 1966 · 382 U.S. 399Due process9–0Unanimous band
  63. United States v. Romano et al.382 U.S. 136Nov 22, 1965 · 382 U.S. 136Due process9–0Unanimous band
  64. Holt et al. v. Virginia381 U.S. 131May 17, 1965 · 381 U.S. 131Due process8–18–1 band
  65. Hannah et al. v. Larche et al.363 U.S. 420Jun 20, 1960 · 363 U.S. 420Due process7–27–2 band
  66. Thompson v. City of Louisville et al.Landmark · Other areas362 U.S. 199Mar 21, 1960 · 362 U.S. 199Due process9–0Unanimous band

  67. Chessman v. Teets, Warden354 U.S. 156Jun 10, 1957 · 354 U.S. 156Due process5–36–3 band
  68. United States v. Cardiff344 U.S. 174Dec 8, 1952 · 344 U.S. 174Due process8–18–1 band
  69. Leland v. Oregon343 U.S. 790Jun 9, 1952 · 343 U.S. 790Due process7–27–2 band

  70. Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute et al.333 U.S. 683Apr 26, 1948 · 333 U.S. 683Due process6–18–1 band
  71. Parker v. Illinois333 U.S. 571Apr 5, 1948 · 333 U.S. 571Due process6–36–3 band
  72. Cole et al. v. Arkansas333 U.S. 196Mar 8, 1948 · 333 U.S. 196Due process9–0Unanimous band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.