In Obergefell v. Hodges, the US Supreme Court held that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry in all states and that states may not refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another state based on the marriage's same-sex character.
In a 5-4 ruling with four separate dissenting opinions, the US Supreme Court ruled that:
Same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry in all states.
A state may not refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another state based on its same-sex character.
The petitioners in this consolidated case, 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, claimed that state officials in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution by denying the individuals the right to:
Marry.
Have their marriages, which were lawfully performed in another state, given full recognition.
When the Sixth Circuit ruled on this case in November 2014, it concluded that states were not required to license same-sex marriage or to recognize same-sex marriages performed out of state (DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (2014)). The Sixth Circuit's ruling conflicted with same-sex marriage decisions from the other circuit courts of appeals (see Article, Expert Q&A: Same-Sex Marriage and the US Supreme Court). As a result, the Supreme Court agreed in early 2015 to consider whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to:
License a marriage between two people of the same sex.
Recognize a marriage between two same-sex individuals that was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state.
Outcome
Reversing the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court held that:
Same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry in all states.
A state may not refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another state based on its same-sex character.
The Court's decision overruled a 1972 summary decision in Baker v. Nelson, which held that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question (409 U.S. 810 (1972)).
The majority opinion in Obergefell characterized marriage as an ancient institution that has changed over time, citing as examples:
The decline of arranged marriages.
Abandonment of the coverture doctrine, under which a married couple was treated as one, male-dominated legal entity.
The Court also reviewed its prior decisions involving homosexuals and same-sex benefits, including:
Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court ruled that states could not criminalize sexual acts between consenting persons of the same sex (539 U.S. 558 (2003)).
Due Process and Equal Protection Grounds for Same-Sex Marriage
The Court's ruling, based largely on the Due Process Clause, identified four "principles and traditions" that in its view give same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry under the Constitution. Specifically, according to the five-member majority:
The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent to individual autonomy.
The right to marry supports a two-person union that is uniquely important to committed individuals.
The right to marry protects children and families and is informed by the related rights of child-rearing, procreation and education.
The Court's prior decisions and the nation's traditions clearly demonstrate that marriage is the foundation of our social order.
Regarding the last of these four principles, the majority noted that the states have conferred significant governmental rights, benefits and responsibilities on married couples (including adoption rights and health insurance).
In addition, the Court reasoned that the right of same-sex couples to marry is derived from the Equal Protection Clause. In this regard, the majority concluded that the marriage laws in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee were essentially unequal in that same-sex couples were denied the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and were barred from exercising a fundamental right.
Based on its Due Process and Equal Protection Clause analysis, the Court:
Held that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.
Invalidated the challenged state laws to the extent those laws excluded same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.
Other Considerations
The Court rejected the states' argument that approval or denial of same-sex marriage should be left to the democratic process within each state. According to the majority, individuals whose fundamental rights under the Constitution have been injured need not wait for legislative redress of their harm.
Addressing First Amendment concerns, the Court noted that religions and individuals who follow religious doctrines may still advocate the view that same-sex marriage should not be condoned. In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts predicted that questions related to the possible conflict between the exercise of religion and the right of same-sex couples to marry (for example, the tax exemption for religious institutions that oppose same-sex marriage) would likely be litigated and presented to the Court in the near future.
Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages Performed in Other States
Addressing the second question before it, the Court noted that requiring states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples undercuts the justifications for not recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. As a result, the Court held that states may not refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another state on the basis of its same-sex character.
Practical Impact
The Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling may have important implications for employer-sponsored health plans.
Plan Eligibility and Same-Sex Spouses
The Court in Obergefell did not directly address the decision's implications for employer-sponsored group health plans. A year ago, however, a district court ruled on whether ERISA prohibits the private plan sponsor of a self-funded health plan from excluding same-sex spouses from the plan's definition of "spouse" (Roe v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, (S.D.N.Y. 2014)). That case was brought by same-sex spouses who asserted that an exclusion for same-sex spouses violated ERISA Section 510 (29 U.S.C. § 1140); see Practice Note, ERISA Litigation: Interference with Protected Rights (ERISA Section 510)). In rejecting this challenge, the district court reasoned that:
ERISA generally does not require employers to provide any particular benefits.
The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause does not bar discriminatory conduct in the private sector.
Although the full implications of the Obergefell decision remains to be seen, employer/plan sponsors of ERISA self-insured health plans may still retain the discretion to impose an exclusion for same-sex spouses. However, employers may be vulnerable to discrimination claims under Title VII and state or local anti-discrimination laws if they treat same-sex married couples differently than opposite-sex married couples.
For more information on discrimination claims, see:
The Obergefell decision also may impact the prevalence of employer-sponsored domestic partner arrangements (both same-sex and opposite-sex), many of which were adopted to provide coverage at a time when same-sex marriage was not yet recognized (see Practice Notes, Domestic Partner Health Benefits and Providing Health Benefits to Domestic Partners). It is possible that some employers may decide to eliminate domestic partner coverage in response to this decision.
Leave Laws and Same-Sex Spouses
The US Department of Labor (DOL) issued a Final Rule revising the Family and Medical Leave Act's (FMLA) definition of spouse to ensure that legally married couples, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, will have consistent federal family leave rights regardless of where they live (see Legal Update, DOL Issues Final Rule Redefining Spouse Under the FMLA). In March 2015, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction sought by the states of Texas, Nebraska, Arkansas and Louisiana staying the enforcement of the DOL's Final Rule because same-sex marriage was not recognized in those states but the injunction was dissolved in light of the Obergefell decision (see Legal Update, Court Enjoins DOL's Enforcement of FMLA Rule Redefining Spouse).
The Obergefell decision effectively ends the distinction between the "place of celebration" and "place of residence" rules that defined a spouse's eligibility for federal family leave rights. Employers in states that previously did not recognize same-sex marriage will be required to follow the DOL's revised Final Rule. Employees with same-sex spouses may also be newly eligible for leave under state leave laws. For more information on leave laws, see: