Obergefell V. Hodges PDF

Obergefell V. Hodges PDF Details
PDF Name	Obergefell V. Hodges PDF
No. of Pages	103
PDF Size	0.42 MB
Language	English
Category	English
Source	supremecourt.gov
Download Link	Available ✔
Downloads	17

If Obergefell V. Hodges is a illigal, abusive or copyright material Report a Violation. We will not be providing its PDF or any source for downloading at any cost.

Obergefell V. Hodges

Dear users, today we are going to offer Obergefell V. Hodges PDF for all of you. On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the country by requiring states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally formed in other states.

In doing so, the Court resolved a circuit split regarding the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans.
This report provides background on, and analysis of, significant legal issues raised by the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell.

It first offers background on the constitutional principles on which the Court relied in Obergefell to invalidate state same-sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. Then, it walks through the Court’s opinion and rationale. Finally, it discusses the potential implications of the Court’s decision.

Obergefell V. Hodges PDF: General Constitutional Principles

Equal Protection

• Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, “[n]o State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
• Though there is no parallel constitutional provision expressly prohibiting the federal government from denying equal protection of the law, the Supreme Court has held that equal protection principles similarly apply to the federal government.
• Under the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees, when courts review governmental action that stinguishes between classes of people, they apply different levels of scrutiny depending on the classification involved. The more suspect the government’s classification, or the more likely that the government’s classification was motivated by discrimination, the higher the level of scrutiny that courts will utilize in evaluating the government’s action.
• Increased scrutiny raises the likelihood that a court will find the action unconstitutional. Generally speaking, there are three such levels of scrutiny: (1) strict scrutiny; (2) intermediate scrutiny; and (3) rational basis review.
  Strict scrutiny is the most demanding form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has observed that strict scrutiny applies to governmental classifications that are constitutionally “suspect,” or that interfere with fundamental rights.
• In determining whether a classification is suspect, courts consider whether the classified group (1) has historically been subject to discrimination; (2) is a Previously, the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits had struck down state same-sex marriage bans under equal protection or due process grounds after generally, though not uniformly, subjecting them to heightened levels of judicial scrutiny.

Substantive Due Process

• The U.S. Constitution’s due process guarantees are contained within two separate clauses; one can be found in the Fifth Amendment, and the other resides in the Fourteenth Amendment. Each clause provides that the government shall not deprive a person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
• However, the Fifth Amendment applies to action by the federal government, whereas the Fourteenth Amendment applies to state action.
• The Constitution’s due process language makes clear that the government cannot deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without observing certain procedural requirements. The Supreme Court has interpreted this language to also include substantive guarantees that prohibit the government from taking action that unduly burdens certain liberty interests.
• More specifically, substantive due process protects against undue governmental infringement upon fundamental rights. In determining whether a right is fundamental, Supreme Court precedent looks to whether the right was historically and traditionally recognized, and whether failing to recognize the right would contravene liberty and justice.

Obergefell V. Hodges PDF: The Supreme Court Invalidates

State Same-Sex Marriage Bans in Obergefell

The Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans, finding them unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges. In doing so, the Court relied on the Constitution’s due process and equal protection principles to hold that states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same-sex marriages that were legally formed in other states.

The majority in Obergefell rested its decision upon the fundamental right to marry. The Court observed that it has long found the right to marry to be constitutionally protected, though it acknowledged that its precedent describing the right presumed an opposite-sex relationship. Even so, according to the Court, these cases have identified reasons why the right to marry is fundamental, which apply equally to same-sex couples.

These reasons included (1) personal choice in whom to marry is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy; (2) marriage’s unique support and recognition of a two-person, committed union; (3) the safeguarding of children within a marriage, as both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples have children; and (4) marriage as a keystone of the nation’s social order, with no distinction between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples in states conferring benefits and responsibilities upon marriages.

Accordingly, the Court extended the fundamental right to marry same-sex couples. In holding that the fundamental right to marry includes same-sex couples’ right to marry, the Court appeared to acknowledge its departure from precedent for determining whether a right is fundamental—mentioned earlier in this report—which considers whether it is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

The Court observed that if rights were defined by who could historically use them, old practices could continuously prevent new groups from exercising fundamental rights. As such, the Court found that “rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better-informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”

You can download Obergefell V. Hodges PDF by using the following download button.

Obergefell V. Hodges PDF Download Link

Report This

If the download link of Gujarat Manav Garima Yojana List 2022 PDF is not working or you feel any other problem with it, please Leave a Comment / Feedback. If Obergefell V. Hodges is a illigal, abusive or copyright material Report a Violation. We will not be providing its PDF or any source for downloading at any cost.