United States · Marriage equality · 2014–2015
One Constitution, conflicting circuit courts
The Fourth and Sixth Circuits reached opposite conclusions about same-sex marriage before Obergefell resolved the conflict.
Public historical research, separate from your private cases. Each collection ends at the dates shown. Summaries describe the judgments at that time; they are not a current-law citator or an eligibility assessment. Editorial notes are in English.
The competing arguments
How could federal appellate courts applying the same amendment reach incompatible answers?
Equal access to a fundamental right
The rights-based opinions treated marriage as an existing fundamental right from which same-sex couples were excluded, with consequences for dignity, family and legal protection.
Democratic choice and the scope of precedent
The opposing opinions emphasized state democratic processes, historical definitions and limits on judicial recognition of constitutional rights.
How the decisions connect
Editorial reading guide. Each connection links to the judgments and explains the kind of disagreement.
Circuit conflict
DeBoer v. Snyderrelates toBostic v. Schaefer
The Sixth Circuit upheld restrictions the Fourth Circuit’s constitutional approach rejected; neither circuit could overrule the other.
Reversed
Obergefell v. Hodgesrelates toDeBoer v. Snyder
The Supreme Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s conclusion.
Consistent result
Obergefell v. Hodgesrelates toBostic v. Schaefer
The national rule reached the same broad licensing and recognition result, through its own reasoning.
The decision timeline
· US Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Bostic v. Schaefer
760 F.3d 352 · 2–1
Did Virginia’s same-sex-marriage and recognition prohibitions violate the Fourteenth Amendment?
- What the court decided
- The majority held the prohibitions unconstitutional, reasoning that they infringed the fundamental right to marry and failed strict scrutiny.
- Where the disagreement sits
- Niemeyer dissented, disputing how the right was defined and the majority’s use of substantive due process. This judgment bound its circuit; it did not itself resolve the issue nationwide.
- Historical treatment and limits
- Part of the pro-marriage-equality side of the circuit conflict later resolved in Obergefell.
Read the source and pinpoint
Judgment · 760 F.3d 352Majority opinion, fundamental-right analysis; Niemeyer dissent
· US Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
DeBoer v. Snyder
772 F.3d 388 · 2–1
Did the Constitution require the states in these consolidated cases to license or recognize same-sex marriages?
- What the court decided
- The majority upheld the state restrictions and reversed the district courts. It emphasized democratic resolution and its reading of precedent.
- Where the disagreement sits
- Daughtrey dissented. The result conflicted with other circuits, including the Fourth Circuit, producing different constitutional outcomes in different jurisdictions.
- Historical treatment and limits
- Reversed by Obergefell in 2015. It is shown as a historical conflicting authority.
· US Supreme Court
Obergefell v. Hodges
576 U.S. 644 · 5–4
Must states license marriages between two people of the same sex and recognize such marriages lawfully performed elsewhere?
- What the court decided
- The Court answered both questions yes under the Fourteenth Amendment, reversing the Sixth Circuit and resolving the conflict.
- Where the disagreement sits
- Kennedy’s majority linked due process and equal protection. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito wrote dissents questioning the majority’s constitutional method and judicial role.
- Historical treatment and limits
- Historical endpoint: the 2015 judgment. The opinions illustrate both resolution of a circuit split and continuing disagreement within the Supreme Court.
Read the source and pinpoint
Judgment · 576 U.S. 644576 U.S. pp. 644–681; separate dissents pp. 686–742
Questions worth investigating
- How does defining the right narrowly or broadly affect the analysis?
- Which court’s decision would bind a trial judge in each circuit before Obergefell?
- Compare the majority’s account of judicial duty with the dissents’ account of democratic decision-making.
Sources reviewed 2026-11-08. Holdings and separate opinions are summarized in our own words.