Congress has passed and the President has signed the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA), which will afford continued protections for same-sex and interracial marriages in the US (Pub. L. No. 117-228 (2022)). The RFMA was enacted, in part, in response to statements in the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision calling upon the Court to reconsider its 2015 ruling recognizing same-sex marriage (and other decisions). Among other changes, the RFMA repeals a provision regarding marriage recognition that was enacted in 1996 as part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

In its Dobbs ruling from 2022, as background, the Supreme Court held that there is no right to abortion under the US constitution and that the regulation of abortion must be returned to the states and their elected representatives (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022)). For more information on the Dobbs ruling, see:

In a concurring opinion in the Dobbs ruling, Justice Thomas called for the Court to revisit other prior rulings that (as with abortion) are based on a substantive due process theory under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In this regard, Thomas expressly referenced the Court's 2013 Obergefell ruling that recognized a right to same-sex marriage (see Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)). For more information on the Obergefell ruling, see:

The majority opinion in Dobbs did note, however, that nothing in its ruling should be viewed as casting doubts on precedents that did not concern abortion.

The RFMA repeals a DOMA provision under which the states were not required to recognize a same-sex marriage that was:

(28 U.S.C. § 1738C.)

In place of the repealed provision, the RFMA will prohibit any state from denying full faith and credit to a marriage entered into between two individuals in another state on the basis of the individuals' sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. The RFMA authorizes the Attorney General to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief in federal district court against any individual who violates the RFMA provision establishing full faith and credit for marriage equality. In addition, any individual who is harmed by a violation of the RFMA's marriage equality provisions can bring suit for declaratory or injunctive relief. Under the RFMA, an individual's marriage is valid—for purposes of federal law—if it is between two individuals and valid in the state it was entered into.

The RFMA states that the new law is not intended to "diminish or abrogate" religious liberty or conscience protections that are otherwise available to individuals under the Constitution or federal law (which would presumably include the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), among other laws).

Benefit plan administrators that have fielded questions from same-sex participants about the status of their employee benefits in light of Dobbs will welcome the relative certainty that the RFMA entails. The RFMA's enactment also may be a good opportunity for plan sponsors and administrators to revisit their plans' definitions of spouse in light of the still relatively recent recognition of same-sex marriage.