The Atlanta Gleaner.

Legal News

Edited By George Washington

(Testing in progress)

George Washington Statue at Federal Hall

Obergefellv.Hodges

CourtSupreme Court of the United States
Docket No.14-556
DecidedJune 26, 2015
Reporter576 U.S. 644; 135 S. Ct. 2584; 192 L. Ed. 2d 609
JudgesJustice Anthony M. Kennedy authored the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan; Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas; Justice Scalia dissented, joined by Justice Thomas; Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Scalia; Justice Alito dissented, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas
Tags
CivilConstitutional LawCivil RightsFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentLandmark RulingOverruling PrecedentDissent
Case Summary

Fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose partners had died challenged laws in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee that denied same-sex couples marriage licenses or refused to recognize marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. The federal district courts ruled for the petitioners, but the Sixth Circuit reversed after consolidating the appeals. The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses protect the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry. The Court reasoned that marriage is tied to individual autonomy, intimate association, family and childrearing, and the social order, and that excluding same-sex couples denied them equal dignity and legal benefits. The Court also held that States must recognize lawful same-sex marriages performed in other States. It overruled Baker v. Nelson to the extent that decision rejected the constitutional question. The majority noted that the First Amendment protects religious organizations and people who continue to advocate opposition to same-sex marriage. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each dissented, chiefly arguing that the Constitution does not assign the marriage question to the judiciary and that the decision improperly displaced democratic processes.

Opinion

Loading published copy…

The Far Side