Department of the Treasury

The petitioners were fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners were deceased. They lived in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. Those states defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman under their constitutions and statutes. The petitioners filed suits in federal district courts in their home states. They sought marriage licenses or recognition of marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. James Obergefell and John Arthur traveled from Ohio to Maryland to marry aboard a medical transport plane because Arthur suffered from ALS; Obergefell later sought to be listed as surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, Michigan nurses, adopted three children but could not both serve as legal parents under state adoption rules. Army Reserve Sergeant Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura married in New York before DeKoe's deployment to Afghanistan and later settled in Tennessee. Each district court ruled in the petitioners' favor. The respondents appealed. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed the district court judgments. The petitioners sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted. Same-sex couples had begun establishing families after substantial cultural and political developments in the late twentieth century. Earlier litigation had addressed the legal status of gays and lesbians, including challenges that reached the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas.

These cases involve challenges to the constitutionality of the Act of November 23, 1921, c. 135, 42 Stat. 224, commonly called the Maternity Act. The statute provides for an initial appropriation and thereafter annual appropriations for a period of five years. These appropriations are to be apportioned among such of the several States as shall accept and comply with its provisions. The purpose is to cooperate with the states to reduce maternal and infant mortality and protect the health of mothers and infants. It creates a bureau to administer the act in cooperation with state agencies. State agencies are required to make reports concerning their operations and expenditures as prescribed by the federal bureau. Payments may be withheld if the bureau determines that funds have not been properly expended in respect of any State. The State of Massachusetts brought an original suit in the Supreme Court. It is asserted that these appropriations are for purposes not national but local to the States. Together with numerous similar appropriations, they constitute an effective means of inducing the States to yield a portion of their sovereign rights. It is further alleged that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States and rests largely upon the industrial States such as Massachusetts. In the Massachusetts case it is alleged that the plaintiff’s rights and powers as a sovereign State and the rights of its citizens have been invaded and usurped by these expenditures and acts. Although the State has not accepted the act, its constitutional rights are infringed by the passage thereof and the imposition upon the State of an illegal and unconstitutional option either to yield to the Federal Government a part of its reserved rights or lose the share which it would otherwise be entitled to receive of the moneys appropriated. Harriet Frothingham brought suit in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. That court dismissed the bill and its decree was affirmed by the District Court of Appeals. The case was brought here by appeal. In the Frothingham case plaintiff alleges that the effect of the statute will be to take her property under the guise of taxation without due process of law. The two cases were argued and considered together. The defendants are proceeding to carry the act into operation.