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:

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:

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.

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:

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.

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: