Hodges, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) on June 26, 2015, that state bans on same-sex marriage and on recognizing same-sex marriages duly performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Mar 28, 2022
First, "the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." Second, "the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals," a principle applying equally to same-sex couples.
Obergefell v. HodgesOn June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the 14th Amendment requires all U.S. state laws to recognize same-sex marriages. This left Section 2 of DOMA as superseded and unenforceable.
Obergefell had sued the state of Ohio in 2013, due to that state's lack of legal recognition of Obergefell's marriage to his husband, John Arthur.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. The Court overruled its prior decision in Baker v. Nelson, which the Sixth Circuit had invoked as precedent.
The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality did not satisfy the Equal Protection Clause.
The Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), P.L. 104-199, is unconstitutional because it violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause by denying equal protection to same-sex couples who are lawfully married in their states (Windsor, No.Jul 31, 2013
The opinions of Roberts and Scalia offered different interpretations of the majority ruling. Roberts said the majority opinion was based on federalism, finding DOMA unconstitutional because the federal government was interfering with state control of marriage.
In a landmark decision issued on June 27, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and that the federal government cannot discriminate against married lesbian and gay couples for the purposes of determining federal benefits and protections.
October 22, 2013John Arthur / Date of death
In 2003, she was the lead counsel in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which made Massachusetts the first state where same-sex couples could legally marry.
Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who has represented same-sex couples, said the combination of the two lawyers will provide a good mix for the justices. “With Mary, they are getting someone who represents not just the history, but the conscience, of this issue,” he said.
A Rhodes scholar who attended Harvard Law, Hallward-Driemeier, 48, said he was inspired in law school by Justice Thurgood Marshall, who as a young lawyer changed the civil rights landscape and “helped to make our country a better place and helped it to live up to its stated ideals.”.
A partner at Ropes & Gray LLP in Washington, Hallward-Driemeier, has been married to his wife, Mary, for 19 years. He said that in the end, he sees the case as about family.