![]() ![]() This report provides background on, and analysis of, significant legal issues raised by the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell. In doing so, the Court resolved a circuit split 1 regarding the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans. 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. On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Obergefell v. These include questions regarding, among other things, Obergefell's broader impact on the rights of gay individuals the proper level of judicial scrutiny applicable to classifications based on sexual orientation what the decision might mean for laws prohibiting plural marriages the Court's approach to recognizing fundamental rights moving forward and the proper level of judicial scrutiny applicable to governmental action interfering with fundamental rights. Though the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell resolved the question of whether or not state same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, it raised a number of other questions. Additionally, under the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process guarantees, state action that infringes upon a fundamental right-such as the right to marry-is subject to a high level of judicial scrutiny. Under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, state action that classifies groups of individuals may be subject to heightened levels of judicial scrutiny, depending on the type of classification involved or whether the classification interferes with a fundamental right. The Court's decision relied on the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process guarantees. In doing so, the Court resolved a circuit split regarding the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans and legalized same-sex marriage throughout the country. Hodges requiring states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally formed in other states. These include questions regarding, among other things, Obergefell’s broader impact on the rights of gay individuals the proper level of judicial scrutiny applicable to classifications based on sexual orientation what the decision might mean for laws prohibiting plural marriages the Court’s approach to recognizing fundamental rights moving forward and the proper level of judicial scrutiny applicable to governmental action interfering with fundamental rights. Though the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell resolved the question of whether or not state same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, it raised a number of other questions. The Court thus held that the fundamental right to marry extends to same-sex couples, and that state same-sex marriage bans unconstitutionally interfere with this right. Even so, the Court determined that the reasons why the right to marry is considered fundamental apply equally to same-sex marriages. ![]() The Court acknowledged that its precedents have described the fundamental right to marry in terms of opposite-sex relationships. In striking down state same-sex marriage bans as unconstitutional in Obergefell, the Court rested its decision upon the fundamental right to marry. Additionally, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process guarantees, state action that infringes upon a fundamental right-such as the right to marry-is subject to a high level of judicial scrutiny. Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, state action that classifies groups of individuals may be subject to heightened levels of judicial scrutiny, depending on the type of classification involved or whether the classification interferes with a fundamental right. The Court’s decision relied on the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection and due process guarantees. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |