1. @division = JUSTICIABILITY
@head = Standing
@subhead =
@casename = Obergefell v. Hodges
@case info = — U.S. —, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4250
(June 26, 2015)
@summary = The Supreme Court holds that the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses guarantee the right of same-sex couples to marry.
@body text = Explicitly overruling Baker v. Nelson [409 U.S. 810, 93 S. Ct. 37, 34 L.
Ed. 2d 810 (1972)], by implication overruling Washington v. Glucksberg
[521 U.S. 702, 117 S. Ct. 2302, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1997)], and limiting
United States v. Windsor [— U.S. —, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 186 L. Ed. 2d 808
(2013), discussed in Aug. 2013 <B>MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE
UPDATE<D>, p. 323], the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex
marriage is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and
thus prohibiting it is violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
@body text = Unless limited by subsequent rulings, the Court’s decision effectively
federalizes what has long been considered to be a purely state law issue,
thus providing standing arguments to many possible litigants. The
majority held that the exclusion of same-sex couples from recognition that
they are married presented a substantial federal question. It then held state
prohibitions of same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.
@body text = In federalizing same-sex marriage, the majority of the Court held, “The
Nation’s courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to
vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An
individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is
harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature
refuses to act.”
@body text = As recently as 2013, the Court had held in United States v. Windsor, that
subject only to constitutional guarantees, the states held exclusive
jurisdiction over marriage [United States v. Windsor, — U.S. —, 133 S.
Ct. 2675, 186 L. Ed. 2d 808, 825 (2013)]. In the present case, the Court
elucidated that the constitutional guarantees taking a case away from
exclusive state jurisdiction include the right of same-sex couples to be
married. The majority found a constitutional right to autonomy, to intimate
association, to safeguard children and families, and to maintain the social
order.
@body text = The majority found a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment in the states’ burdening marriage, because

2. marriage is a right “of fundamental importance,” citing Zablocki v.
Redhail [434 U.S. 374, 98 S. Ct. 673, 54 L. Ed. 2d 618 (1978)], which
struck down a prohibition on marriage for non-custodial fathers who were
behind on child support.
@body text = By focusing on the “grave and continuing harm” suffered by same-sex
couples as a result of the stigma that “disrespect[s] and subordinate[s]
them,” the Court appeared to open the door for similar arguments affecting
other disrespected groups. In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by
Justices Scalia and Thomas, argued that the issue was political rather than
legal, and a purely state matter, and opined that this decision will mandate
recognition of plural marriage.
@body text = Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, warned of the dangers of treating
the Due Process Clause as a font of substantive rights. Justice Alito, joined
by Justices Scalia and Thomas, noted that the Due Process Clause had
previously been held to protect only deeply rooted rights; by expanding its
protection to that of previously unrecognized liberty interests and usurping
the political process, the Court was creating a new orthodoxy.
@REFERENCES = <F129M><196><F255D><|>References. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice (3d
ed.) § 17.10; 15 Moore’s Federal Practice (3d ed.) § 101.