Obergefell v. Hodges, ( ), 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.Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 675–76 (2015) ("The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. ... [T]he State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples."). 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.Obergefell, 576 U.S. at 680–81 . 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,Obergefell, 576 U.S. at 676–78 , 680. and the evolving understanding of discrimination and inequality that has developed greatly since Baker.Obergefell, 576 U.S. at 660–65 , 673–76.
Lawsuits in the district courts The U.S. Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges is not the culmination of one lawsuit. Ultimately, it is the consolidation of six lower-court cases, originally representing sixteen same-sex couples, seven of their children, a widower, an adoption agency, and a funeral director. Those cases came from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. All six federal district court rulings found for the same-sex couples and other claimants.
Michigan case: DeBoer v. Snyder
One case came from Michigan, involving a female couple and their three children. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse held a commitment ceremony in February 2007. They were foster parents. A son was born on January 25, 2009, and adopted by Rowse in November. A daughter was born on February 1, 2010, and adopted by DeBoer in April 2011. A second son was born on November 9, 2009, and adopted by Rowse in October 2011. Michigan law allowed adoption only by single people or married couples. Consequently, on January 23, 2012, DeBoer and Rowse filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division, Detroit), DeBoer v. Snyder, alleging Michigan's adoption law was unconstitutional. Richard Snyder, the lead defendant, was then governor of Michigan.Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief , DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 12-CV-10285 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2014) (complaint filed Jan. 23, 2012); DeBoer, slip op. at 1–4.
During a hearing on August 29, 2012, Judge Bernard A. Friedman expressed reservations regarding plaintiffs' cause of action, suggesting they amend their complaint to challenge the state's ban on same-sex marriage. The plaintiffs amended their complaint accordingly on September 7.Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, DeBoer, No. 12-CV-10285 (amended complaint filed Sept. 7, 2012). During a hearing on March 7, 2013, Friedman decided to delay the case until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, hoping for guidance.See, also, (doc. 50, Jan. 11, 2013). On October 16, Friedman set trial for February 25, 2014.Notice to Appear, DeBoer, No. 12-CV-10285 (notice filed Oct. 16, 2013). The trial ended March 7. On March 21, Friedman ruled for the plaintiffs, concluding that, "without some overriding legitimate interest, the state cannot use its domestic relations authority to legislate families out of existence. Having failed to establish such an interest in the context of same-sex marriage, the [state marriage ban] cannot stand."DeBoer, slip op. at 29.
Ohio cases
Obergefell v. Kasich
Two cases came from Ohio, the first ultimately involving a male couple, a widower, and a funeral director. In June 2013, following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, James "Jim" Obergefell and John Arthur decided to marry to obtain legal recognition of their relationship. They married in Maryland on July 11. After learning that their state of residence, Ohio, would not recognize their marriage, they filed a lawsuit, Obergefell v. Kasich, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Western Division, Cincinnati) on July 19, 2013, alleging that the state discriminates against same-sex couples who have married lawfully out-of-state. The lead defendant was Ohio Governor John Kasich.Verified Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief , Obergefell v. Kasich, No. 13-cv-501 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013) (complaint filed July 19, 2013). See, also, Justia Docket Report . Because one partner, John Arthur, was terminally ill and suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), they wanted the Ohio Registrar to identify the other partner, James Obergefell, as his surviving spouse on his death certificate, based on their marriage in Maryland. The local Ohio Registrar agreed that discriminating against the same-sex married couple was unconstitutional, but the state attorney general's office announced plans to defend Ohio's same-sex marriage ban.
As the case progressed, on July 22, District Judge Timothy S. Black granted the couple's motion, temporarily restraining the Ohio Registrar from accepting any death certificate unless it recorded the deceased's status at death as "married" and his partner as "surviving spouse". Black wrote that "[t]hroughout Ohio's history, Ohio law has been clear: a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized", and noted that certain marriages between cousins or minors, while unlawful if performed in Ohio, are recognized by the state if lawful when solemnized in other jurisdictions.Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order at 1, Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (order filed July 22, 2013). Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine indicated he would not appeal the preliminary order. On August 13, Black extended the temporary restraining order until the end of December and scheduled oral arguments on injunctive relief, which is permanent, for December 18.Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (order extending restraining order ) (order filed Aug. 13, 2013). See, also, Justia Docket Report .
Meanwhile, on July 22, 2013, David Michener and William Herbert Ives married in Delaware. They had three adoptive children.Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Re David Michener , Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (motion filed Sept. 3, 2013); Amended Verified Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 1–5, Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (amended verified complaint filed Sept. 3, 2013). On August 27, William Ives died unexpectedly in Cincinnati, Ohio. His remains were being held at a Cincinnati funeral home pending the issuance of a death certificate, required before cremation, the deceased's desired funeral rite. As surviving spouse David Michener's name could not by Ohio law appear on the death certificate, he sought legal remedy, being added as a plaintiff in the case on September 3.Motion to Amend Complaint , Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (motion filed Sept. 3, 2013); Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Re David Michener , Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (motion filed Sept. 3, 2013); Amended Verified Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 1–5, Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (amended verified complaint filed Sept. 3, 2013); see, also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1) .
As the newly amended case moved forward, on September 25, Black granted a September 19 motion by the plaintiffs to dismiss the governor and the state attorney general as defendants, and to add funeral director Robert Grunn to the lawsuit so that he could obtain clarification of his legal obligations under Ohio law when serving clients with same-sex spouses, such as his client James Obergefell. Ohio Health Department Director Theodore Wymyslo was substituted as the lead defendant, and the case was restyled Obergefell v. Wymyslo.Motion to Amend Complaint , Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (motion filed Sept. 19, 2013); Second Amended Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 1, 3, 9–10, Obergefell v. Wymyslo, No. 13-cv-501 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013) (second amended complaint filed Sept. 26, 2013); Obergefell, slip op. at 8–9; Justia Docket Report (esp. for Sept. 25, 2013); see, also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1) . On October 22, plaintiff John Arthur died. The state defendants moved to dismiss the case as moot. Judge Black, in an order dated November 1, denied the motion to dismiss.Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (order denying motion to dismiss ) (order filed Nov. 1, 2013). On December 23, Judge Black ruled that Ohio's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions was discriminatory and ordered Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions on death certificates.Obergefell v. Wymyslo , No. 1:13-cv-501 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013). He wrote, "When a state effectively terminates the marriage of a same-sex couple married in another jurisdiction, it intrudes into the realm of private marital, family, and intimate relations specifically protected by the Supreme Court."Obergefell, slip op. at 14.
Henry v. Wymyslo