Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) is the Supreme Court case that ruled state bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, replacing differing state marriage requirements with one national standard. In AP Gov, it's the CED's go-to example for ideology shaping social policy (Topic 4.10).
Obergefell v. Hodges is the 2015 Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Before the ruling, marriage requirements were set state by state, so a couple could be legally married in one state and legal strangers in another. The Court held that state bans on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment, relying on both the Due Process Clause (marriage as a fundamental liberty) and the Equal Protection Clause (states can't deny that liberty to same-sex couples).
In the AP Gov CED, Obergefell appears in Topic 4.10 as an illustrative example of how ideology drives social policy. Liberals generally wanted a national guarantee of marriage equality, while many conservatives argued marriage rules should stay with the states. The ruling settled that ideological fight by moving marriage policy from fifty different state answers to one constitutional answer.
Obergefell lives in Unit 4 (American Political Ideologies and Beliefs), Topic 4.10 (Ideology and Social Policy). It directly supports learning objective AP Gov 4.10.B, which asks you to explain how different ideologies affect policy on social issues. The CED names it alongside Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris as a case where ideological battles got litigated. It's the cleanest example of the liberal-conservative split over which level of government should handle social issues (the core of AP Gov 4.10.A). It also doubles as a federalism example, since it shows national constitutional standards overriding state policy diversity. That makes it useful far beyond Unit 4.
Keep studying AP Gov Unit 4
14th Amendment (Unit 3)
Obergefell is built on the same constitutional engine as the civil rights cases you study in Unit 3. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are how the Court turned marriage equality from a state-by-state policy debate into a nationwide constitutional right.
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Unit 4)
DOMA (1996) defined marriage as one man and one woman for federal purposes. United States v. Windsor (2013) struck down part of DOMA, and Obergefell finished the job two years later by requiring every state to license and recognize same-sex marriages.
Federalism (Unit 1)
Before 2015, marriage was the textbook example of state policy diversity. After Obergefell, it's the textbook example of a national standard displacing state control, which is exactly the federalism trend AP Gov questions love to ask about.
Liberal and Conservative Ideologies (Unit 4)
The case maps neatly onto the 4.10.A pattern. Liberals generally favored national government action to guarantee marriage equality, while conservatives generally wanted the issue left to state governments. Obergefell shows what it looks like when one side wins in court instead of in a legislature.
Heads up: Obergefell is an illustrative example in the CED, not one of the 15 required Supreme Court cases, so you won't be required to analyze its full opinion on an FRQ. But it shows up constantly in multiple-choice questions. Expect stems asking you to identify (1) the constitutional basis for the ruling (the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses), (2) what federalism trend it illustrates (a shift from state-determined policy to a national standard), and (3) how it reflects ideological differences over government's role in social policy. It's also a strong example to drop into an Argument Essay or SCOTUS Comparison FRQ when you need evidence about the 14th Amendment, selective application of rights, or ideology shaping policy.
Windsor struck down the part of DOMA that denied federal recognition to same-sex marriages performed legally in states, but it left state bans intact. Obergefell went further two years later and required all states to license and recognize same-sex marriages. Shortcut: Windsor was about federal recognition, Obergefell was about a nationwide right.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
The decision replaced differing state marriage requirements with a single national standard, a classic example of national power expanding over state policy.
In the CED, Obergefell is an illustrative example for Topic 4.10, showing how liberal and conservative ideologies clash over which level of government should handle social issues.
It is not one of the 15 required Supreme Court cases, so it appears as supporting evidence and in multiple-choice questions rather than as a mandatory FRQ case.
Obergefell built on United States v. Windsor (2013), which struck down DOMA's federal definition of marriage but did not touch state bans.
In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, requiring all states to license and recognize same-sex marriages.
No. It's an illustrative example in Topic 4.10 of the CED, not one of the 15 required cases. You should still know its 14th Amendment basis because it appears in multiple-choice questions and works as FRQ evidence.
The 14th Amendment. The Court relied on both the Due Process Clause (marriage as a fundamental liberty) and the Equal Protection Clause (states can't deny that liberty to same-sex couples).
Windsor (2013) struck down DOMA's federal-level refusal to recognize same-sex marriages but left state bans in place. Obergefell (2015) went further and made same-sex marriage a nationwide constitutional right binding on every state.
Before 2015, marriage requirements were set by individual states. Obergefell replaced that state-by-state system with one national constitutional standard, which AP questions frame as national authority expanding over an area traditionally controlled by states.