OBERGEFELL VS HODGES : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry. The Court further held that a State must both license a marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize a same-sex marriage that was lawfully performed in another State.

The judgment represented a major development in the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the liberty and equality guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five-member majority, held that marriage is fundamental to individual autonomy, personal dignity, family life and social order, and that these constitutional principles apply equally to same-sex couples.

FACTS OF THE CASE

At the time the litigation reached the Supreme Court, several States continued to define marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman. Same-sex couples in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee challenged these laws before federal courts, arguing that the refusal to license or recognize their marriages violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The cases involved different circumstances. Some petitioners sought the right to marry in their home States, while others had lawfully married in a State that permitted same-sex marriage and sought recognition of their marriages in a State that did not recognize them.

Among the petitioners was James Obergefell, who had married his partner, John Arthur, in Maryland. Arthur was suffering from terminal illness and was approaching the end of his life. Because Ohio did not recognize their marriage, Obergefell sought to be recognized as Arthur’s surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate. The case therefore raised not merely an abstract question concerning marriage but also issues of dignity, family status and the legal recognition of a committed relationship at the end of life.

Other petitioners included same-sex couples who sought recognition of their marriages or sought to have both spouses recognized as parents on their children’s birth certificates. The various cases were decided in favor of the petitioners by federal district courts.

The States appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit consolidated the appeals and reversed the decisions of the District Courts. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment did not require States either to license marriages between same-sex couples or to recognize such marriages performed in other States.

The petitioners thereafter approached the Supreme Court. The Court consolidated four cases and granted certiorari to decide two central questions: whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and whether it requires a State to recognize a same-sex marriage lawfully performed in another State.

ISSUES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court was required to determine:

(i) Whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex; and

(ii) Whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to recognize a same-sex marriage that was lawfully licensed and performed in another State.

The constitutional controversy principally involved the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissented.

The Court approached the question by examining the constitutional significance of marriage, the historical development of the institution, the fundamental liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and the relationship between liberty and equality.

Historical Importance of Marriage

The Court began by recognizing the extraordinary importance of marriage throughout human history. Marriage has existed across civilizations and has traditionally played a central role in family and social organization.

The Court observed that marriage has historically been regarded as an institution connecting individuals, families and society. The institution has also changed considerably over time. The history of marriage, according to the Court, is therefore a history of both continuity and change.

The Court noted that marriage was once substantially influenced by considerations such as family arrangements, property, political alliances and social status. Over time, marriage increasingly came to be understood as a voluntary relationship between individuals based upon personal choice and mutual commitment.

The Court also referred to the abandonment of the doctrine of coverture, under which a married woman’s independent legal identity was substantially subordinated to that of her husband. The development of marriage law thus demonstrated that an institution may retain its central social importance while its legal understanding evolves.

The Court similarly referred to the constitutional recognition of individual autonomy in other areas of family life, including contraception and interracial marriage. It relied upon Griswold v. Connecticut and Loving v. Virginia as important precedents in understanding marriage as an aspect of personal liberty.

The Fourteenth Amendment and Personal Liberty

The Court then turned to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

The Court explained that the concept of liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment extends beyond freedom from physical restraint. It includes certain personal choices that are central to an individual’s dignity and autonomy.

Marriage was regarded as one of those fundamental personal choices.

The Court observed that individuals have a constitutionally protected interest in making decisions concerning their intimate relationships and personal identity. Decisions concerning marriage have profound consequences for an individual’s personal life, family relationships and social identity.

The Court therefore rejected the proposition that the constitutional meaning of liberty must remain permanently confined to the precise understanding of liberty prevailing at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

Constitutional Liberty and Changing Understanding

One of the most important passages in Justice Kennedy’s opinion concerned the relationship between constitutional principles and changing social understanding.

The Court stated that the nature of injustice is that it is not always immediately visible to those living at a particular time. The generations that drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment could not have anticipated every dimension of liberty that would become significant in later generations.

The Constitution, according to the Court, establishes principles of liberty that may acquire greater meaning as society’s understanding develops. When experience and new insight reveal a conflict between fundamental constitutional protections and an existing legal structure, courts must consider whether the existing structure remains compatible with constitutional liberty.

This reasoning became an important feature of the Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence.

Four Principles

The Supreme Court identified four principles and traditions demonstrating why the fundamental right to marry applies equally to same-sex couples.

1. Individual Autonomy

First, the Court held that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.

Marriage involves one of the most significant personal choices an individual can make. Through marriage, individuals establish a legally and socially recognized relationship that shapes their personal identity and their future.

The Court emphasized that the liberty to make such a choice cannot depend upon a person’s sexual orientation. If marriage is constitutionally protected because of its importance to individual autonomy, that principle must apply to same-sex couples as well.

Marriage may provide a context in which individuals experience companionship, intimacy, expression, spirituality and personal fulfillment. The Constitution, in the Court’s view, protects the individual’s freedom to make such fundamental choices.

2. Marriage as a Two-Person Union

Second, the Court observed that marriage protects a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.

Marriage represents a commitment between two persons and provides legal and social recognition of their relationship. The Court rejected the argument that same-sex couples could be denied marriage simply because historical definitions of marriage had traditionally been limited to opposite-sex couples.

The constitutional importance of marriage derives from the nature of the relationship and its significance to the individuals involved, rather than merely from the sex of the persons entering the relationship.

3. Protection of Family and Children

Third, the Court emphasized the relationship between marriage and family life and the upbringing of children.

Marriage provides legal stability and recognition to families. The Court noted that many same-sex couples raise children and provide them with loving and nurturing homes.

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage could therefore impose disadvantages not only upon the couples themselves but also upon their children. The legal recognition of marriage may provide children with greater stability, security and recognition of their family relationships.

The Court rejected the argument that recognition of same-sex marriage would undermine families. Instead, it observed that same-sex couples seek marriage precisely because they wish to establish stable families and assume the responsibilities associated with marriage.

4. Marriage as a Foundation of Social Order

Fourth, the Court held that marriage is a keystone of social order.

Marriage creates a legal and social framework through which individuals organize their family lives and assume responsibilities toward one another. The institution therefore has consequences extending beyond the two individuals who marry.

Because marriage is so deeply integrated into the legal and social structure of the States, denying same-sex couples access to marriage results in the denial of numerous rights and responsibilities associated with marital status.

Dignity and Equality

The Court’s reasoning was not limited to individual liberty. It also emphasized the connection between liberty and equality.

The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage denied them a legal status that carried substantial social and legal significance. The Court observed that the marriage bans imposed a stigma upon same-sex couples and treated their relationships as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.

The denial of marriage also affected numerous legal rights and responsibilities associated with marital status.

Thus, the Court concluded that the States’ marriage restrictions violated both the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause and the equality principles embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Equal Protection and Due Process

An important feature of Obergefell is that the Court did not treat Due Process and Equal Protection as completely separate constitutional principles.

The Court explained that the two guarantees may converge in certain circumstances. Rights involving personal liberty may have an equality dimension when a State denies a particular group the ability to exercise those rights.

The Court therefore considered the deprivation of marriage both as a denial of fundamental liberty and as an inequality imposed upon same-sex couples.

This approach allowed the Court to recognize that the Constitution protects both the individual’s freedom to make fundamental personal choices and the equal dignity of persons seeking to exercise those freedoms.

Recognition of Same Sex Marriage

The Court also addressed the second question concerning marriages performed outside a State.

Once the Court concluded that same-sex couples possess a fundamental right to marry, it followed that a State could not lawfully refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage that had been validly performed in another State merely because the couple was of the same sex.

The Court therefore held that States must recognize lawful same-sex marriages performed in other States.

Holding of the Court

The Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires every State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.

The Court further held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires every State to recognize a same-sex marriage that was lawfully licensed and performed in another State.

The judgment therefore invalidated state laws that excluded same-sex couples from civil marriage and laws that refused to recognize otherwise lawful same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

DISSENTING OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas in the relevant portions, argued that the Constitution does not answer the question of whether marriage must include same-sex couples.

He contended that the issue should be resolved through the democratic process rather than through constitutional adjudication.

According to Chief Justice Roberts, the Court had effectively transformed a contested question of social policy into a constitutional requirement. He maintained that judges possess the authority to interpret the Constitution but not to substitute their policy preferences for the decisions of legislatures and voters.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE SCALIA

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, strongly criticized the majority’s reasoning and accused the Court of exercising judicial power beyond its constitutional limits.

Scalia argued that the Constitution does not contain an express right to same-sex marriage and that the historical understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment did not establish such a right.

He was particularly concerned that the decision removed the issue from democratic debate and placed it within the control of the judiciary.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE THOMAS

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, rejected the majority’s understanding of the concept of liberty under the Due Process Clause.

Thomas argued that constitutional liberty traditionally meant freedom from governmental interference rather than an entitlement to governmental recognition or benefits.

He therefore disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the denial of state recognition of same-sex marriage constituted a deprivation of constitutionally protected liberty.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE ALITO

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, similarly argued that the Constitution did not require States to redefine marriage.

He maintained that the question should remain within the democratic process and criticized the majority for constitutionalizing a matter that had historically been determined by the States.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGMENT

Obergefell v. Hodges represents a landmark development in the constitutional law of privacy, liberty, equality, family and individual autonomy.

The decision completed an important constitutional trajectory concerning the rights of gay and lesbian persons. Earlier decisions such as Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and United States v. Windsor (2013) had progressively addressed discrimination based on sexual orientation, intimate conduct and federal recognition of marriage. Obergefell extended these constitutional principles to the right to marry.

The judgment also reaffirmed the proposition that fundamental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment cannot necessarily be confined to the historical circumstances prevailing when the Amendment was adopted.

IMPACT OF THE JUDGMENT

The immediate effect of Obergefell was to establish a nationwide constitutional right to same-sex marriage. States could no longer refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or refuse to recognize lawful same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

The decision had significant consequences for family law, inheritance, taxation, adoption, healthcare decision-making, property rights, governmental benefits and numerous other areas in which legal rights and responsibilities depend upon marital status.

The judgment also had profound social and cultural consequences. Same-sex couples received equal legal access to one of the central institutions of American family life.

At the same time, the decision generated an important constitutional debate concerning judicial review, substantive due process, democratic decision-making and the proper role of courts in resolving controversial social questions. The dissenting Justices argued that the question should have remained with state legislatures and voters, while the majority held that fundamental constitutional rights cannot depend upon whether a political majority is prepared to recognize them.

__________________________________________________