Updated:

Courts’ Impact on Law and Society Case Study

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda® Made by Human No AI

Chosen Supreme Court Decision

Case Name and Citation: James Obergefell et al., Petitioners v. Richard Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al. (Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 2015)

Societal Issue: LGBTQIA+ rights

Name of Lower Court: District Court, Columbia

Name of Deciding Justice: Anthony Kennedy

Date of Justice’s Decision: 2015 June 26

Reasons to choose this decision to evaluate

The LGBTQIA+ community has faced discrimination in society for a long time. However, modern social conditions make it unacceptable for people to be segregated by any characteristics. Laws not only reflect the attitudes of society but shape them. Nowadays, it is important that the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community become acknowledged and protected. Drabble et al. (2021) note that same-sex marriages lead to a more positive perception of the members of the community, including reduced stigmatization and increased social acceptance.

Another study by Flores et al. (2020) underlines that interaction with members of the LGBTQIA+ community results in a more positive attitude toward the group among older adults and the most conservative communities, such as religious and racial. Therefore, legal protection of the rights of minorities may lead to increased social acceptance and reduced resentment among the most opposing members of society.

Summary of the Decision

The Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry granted by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The majority opinion of Justices stated that a ban on same-sex marriages violates the rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The decision requires all the states to grant same-sex marriages, as well as to recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.

Theory or Approach

The Justices used the cue approach as they referred to specific clauses of the law. In particular, the Justices appeal to the violation of civil liberties and human rights that are present in the case (Gresten, 2015). The opinion of the Court is based on the premises of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Therefore, they have no personal attitudes, and no rational choice is involved in the decision-making. Small-group analysis theory is irrelevant as well, as there is no evidence of Supreme Court members influencing one another’s decisions.

Additionally, the Court listed four fundamental reasons for same-sex marriages to be legal. All of them refer to the previous related case, United States v. Windsor (2013), which decided that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional and violated civil rights. The deciding Justice in the case was Anthony Kennedy, which may add some influence of attitude to the decision. However, as in the previous case, the current decision was held on the basis of legal clauses.

Impact of the Decision on Society

The decision faced both widespread support and opposition in society. Many companies in the U.S. reacted positively to the decision to change their logos to the colors of the community (Kim & Valiente, 2015). There were several pride parades held in New York and other cities of the country (Sarkar, 2015). The support could be expressed by people who had already been positive about LGBTQIA+ community rights before the decision. However, the outcomes of the case made the problems of members of the community more visible. As a result, people, notwithstanding their attitude, have more awareness about the civil rights of minorities.

Not all the people were supportive of the Court’s decision. Some of them, especially members of religious communities, expressed their resentment toward the changes. Specifically, they noted that the decision ignores the liberties and freedom of speech of millions of Americans (Barnes, 2015). This may raise the question of the rights of different groups within society.

The decision highlighted the problems of civil liberties not only for the LGBTQIA+ community but also for other minorities. People now have more awareness of various groups existing in society, which may lead to conflicts of interest. Further development is required in order to determine how separate communities can live together without constraining each other’s liberties.

Impact of the Decision on the Rule of Law and Politics

The decision also had an influence on politics and laws. For example, in 2017, the Republican Governor of Tennessee, Bill Haslam, signed the bill HB 1111/SB 1085 (O’Hara, 2017). The bill requires all undefined words to have their ordinary and natural meaning. Therefore, people with different gender identities may not be specifically defined. This bill may lead to legal chaos when discriminatory terms and actions can be applied to people.

Additionally, the bill may lead to minimization of the impact of the decision due to controversy that may arise in definitions and wording. The bill may result in ignoring different members of the LGBTQIA+ community as they would be defined according to their identity. Potentially, this would be the reason for discrimination and bias in the society. Additionally, some counties refused to comply with the Court’s decision, which led to legal uncertainty of the status of same-sex marriage in these territories.

The case also became the basis for decision-making in several subsequent cases. For example, in Pavan v. Smith, the Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples have the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples (Pavan v. Smith, 2017). However, the decision made in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) claims that the Constitution does not confer the right to abortion. This case was also based on the clauses of due process, which raised questions on the legitimacy of previous cases, including Obergefell v. Hodges (2013). Therefore, the case changed the opinion on similar cases referring to the problems of same-sex marriages. However, it did not impact other cases on human rights and civil liberties. In relation to laws and politics, the cases present the question of the interpretation of legal clauses and the Constitution.

Sources

Barnes, R. (2015). . The Washington Post. Web.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022). Web.

Drabble, L. A., Wootton, A. R, Veldhuis, C. B., Riggle, E. D., Rostosky, S. S., Lannutti, P. J., Balsam, K. F., & Hughes, T. L. (2021). . PLoS ONE. Web.

Flores, A. R., Mallory, C., & Condor, K. J. (2020). . Research & Politics. Web.

Gersten, S. (2015). Supreme Court decision-making: An empirical analysis of 2013 certiorari-granting. Philosophy, Politics, and Economics Undergraduate Journal, 10, 67-98. Web.

Kim, S., & Valiente, A. (2015).. ABC News. Web.

(2015). Web.

O’Hara, M. E. (2017). . NBC News. Web.

Pavan v. Smith, 285 U.S.(2017). Web.

Sarkar, M. (2015). . CNN. Web.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013). Web.

More related papers Related Essay Examples
Cite This paper
You're welcome to use this sample in your assignment. Be sure to cite it correctly

Reference

IvyPanda. (2024, March 5). Courts' Impact on Law and Society. https://ivypanda.com/essays/courts-impact-on-law-and-society/

Work Cited

"Courts' Impact on Law and Society." IvyPanda, 5 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/courts-impact-on-law-and-society/.

References

IvyPanda. (2024) 'Courts' Impact on Law and Society'. 5 March.

References

IvyPanda. 2024. "Courts' Impact on Law and Society." March 5, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/courts-impact-on-law-and-society/.

1. IvyPanda. "Courts' Impact on Law and Society." March 5, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/courts-impact-on-law-and-society/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Courts' Impact on Law and Society." March 5, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/courts-impact-on-law-and-society/.

If, for any reason, you believe that this content should not be published on our website, please request its removal.
Updated:
This academic paper example has been carefully picked, checked and refined by our editorial team.
No AI was involved: only quilified experts contributed.
You are free to use it for the following purposes:
  • To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
  • As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
  • As a template for you assignment
Privacy Settings

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

  • Basic site functions
  • Ensuring secure, safe transactions
  • Secure account login
  • Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
  • Remembering privacy and security settings
  • Analyzing site traffic and usage
  • Personalized search, content, and recommendations
  • Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Required Cookies & Technologies
Always active

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Site Customization

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

  • Remembering general and regional preferences
  • Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy.

Personalized Advertising

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy.

1 / 1