The Question
1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, and to recognize such a marriage licensed in another state?
October Term 2014No. 14-556
Obergefell v.Hodges
The Holdings
1. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize one licensed elsewhere.
The Votes
5 to 4: Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan / Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito
Question and holding: the case-title teaching pack. Votes: syllabus order from that pack. Opinion
IQuestion presented
(1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
(2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state?
Facts
Groups of same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in jurisdictions that provided for such marriages. The plaintiffs in each case argued that the states' statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights Act. In all the cases, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and held that the states' bans on same-sex marriage…
IITimeline
- Cert granted Jan. 16, 2015
- Argued Apr. 28, 2015
- Decided June 26, 2015
- Mandate issued Absent from this file
Recorded dates are Supreme Court Database fields in this file. Docket events, relists, and briefing dates are absent.
IIIParties, court below, and counsel
Petitioner · prevailed
James Obergefell, et al.
Nonprofit, religious or political org. Coded: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual person or organization
Respondent
Richard Hodges, Director of the Ohio Department of Health, et al.
State government. Coded: state department or agency
Court below
U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Lower-court disposition on file: reversed.
Counsel of record
Counsel of record are absent from this file.
IVArgument
| Advocate | For |
|---|---|
| Mary L. Bonauto | for the petitioners on Question 1 |
| Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. | for the petitioners on Question 1 |
| John J. Bursch | for the respondents on Question 1 |
| Douglas Hallward-Driemeier | for the petitioners on Question 2 |
| Joseph F. Whalen | for the respondents on Question 2 |
Audio is not rehosted.
VFilings
This file has no docket log. Filing PDFs on the Court's site cover most filings after Nov. 13, 2017.
VIOpinions and votes
- Decided
- June 26, 2015
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Anthony M. Kennedy
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Prevailing party
- Petitioner
- Direction
- Liberal (Supreme Court Database code)
- U.S. Reports
- 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
Petitioner, before the decision
52%
Before the decision, the party-type model gave the petitioner 52%: only seven prior cases matched this matchup since 1989, so the estimate leans on the overall petitioner rate of 64%. The model, its weights and its backtest sit on the backcast page. That probability is a rolling-origin score, not an in-sample fit.
Who joined each opinion is absent from this file. The table lists the majority, the dissents, and who authored an opinion.
| Justice | Vote | Opinion |
|---|---|---|
| Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority | Majority opinion |
| Elena Kagan | Majority | None in this file |
| Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Majority | None in this file |
| Sonia Sotomayor | Majority | None in this file |
| Stephen G. Breyer | Majority | None in this file |
| Antonin Scalia | Dissent | Authored an opinion |
| Clarence Thomas | Dissent | Authored an opinion |
| John G. Roberts, Jr. | Dissent | Authored an opinion |
| Samuel A. Alito, Jr. | Dissent | Authored an opinion |
Supreme Court Database, release 2015_01, where the row has the field.
VIIFurther reading
- Supreme Court docket supremecourt.gov
- Oyez Oyez
- Justia Justia
- LII LII
Links only. These pages are not rehosted here.
VIIISources
Data as of Supreme Court Database release 2015_01.
| Field | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Case | Obergefell v. Hodges | Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.) |
| Docket | 14-556 | Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.) |
| Term | 2014 | Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.) |
| Decided | June 26, 2015 | Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.) |
| Vote | 5–4 | Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.) |
| Majority author | Anthony M. Kennedy | Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.) |
| Issue area | Due Process | Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.) |
| Disposition | Reversed | Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.) |
| Prevailing party | Petitioner | Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.) |
| Direction | Liberal (Supreme Court Database code) | Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.) |
| U.S. Reports | 576 U.S. 644 (2015) | Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.) Official opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/576bv.pdf#page=689 |
| Court below | U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit | Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.) |
| Question presented | (1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? (2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state? | Oyez |
Cite
First to Five, Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556, https://firstto5.ai/cases/2014/14-556 (accessed Oct. 8, 2026). First to Five. (2026). Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556. https://firstto5.ai/cases/2014/14-556 "Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556." First to Five, Oct. 8, 2026, https://firstto5.ai/cases/2014/14-556. How this is measured
RECORD
A count or a field copied from a source file. On this site that is usually the Supreme Court Database.
On this page the dated fields, the vote split, the majority author, and the issue area come from Supreme Court Database release 2015_01 where the row has them.
PUBLISHED MEASURE
A figure published by its authors and shown with their citation. Martin-Quinn scores are the ideology measure. This site does not estimate them.
Published measures are absent from this page.
FIRST TO FIVE MODEL
An estimate computed by First to Five. The party-type backcast is the model in this build. A case page prints it only when that case has a scored row.
The petitioner figure above is the party-type backcast for this case.