{"id":354791,"date":"2023-04-06T11:45:22","date_gmt":"2023-04-06T16:45:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-law\/lgbtq-law\/10-supreme-court-cases-that-changed-everything-for-the-lgbtq-co.html"},"modified":"2026-06-09T16:31:00","modified_gmt":"2026-06-09T21:31:00","slug":"10-supreme-court-cases-that-changed-everything-for-the-lgbtq-co","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.findlaw.com\/lgbtq-law\/10-supreme-court-cases-that-changed-everything-for-the-lgbtq-co.html","title":{"rendered":"10 Supreme Court Cases That Changed Everything for LGBTQ+ Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

10 Supreme Court Cases That Changed Everything for LGBTQ+ Rights<\/h1>\n\n
\n
\n By Vaishali Gaur, Esq.<\/a> | Legally reviewed by Bridget Molitor, JD<\/a>\n | Last updated\n
\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n\n\n

\n

The Supreme Court has shaped LGBTQ+ rights<\/span> for more than 70 years, from early free\u2011speech protections to nationwide marriage equality<\/span>. The Court has both restricted and expanded rights, ultimately recognizing that laws targeting LGBTQ+ people often violate constitutional guarantees of liberty and equal protection. As the Court wrote in Bostock v. Clayton County<\/span><\/em>, discrimination against LGBTQ+ people is discrimination \u201cbased on sex,\u201d marking a major shift in federal civil rights protections.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n\n\n\n

Just over a decade ago, the federal constitutional right to marry was extended to same-sex couples. In 2020, LGBTQ+ people gained the federal constitutional right to protection against discrimination on the basis of\u00a0sexual orientation<\/span>\u00a0and\u00a0gender identity<\/span>.<\/p>\n

However, the road to gaining these freedoms has not been without its challenges. LGBTQ+ rights<\/span> have been debated in the U.S. Supreme Court since 1958 and are still being debated today.<\/p>\n

This article will take you through 10 Supreme Court cases that have changed the future for LGBTQ+ people, from setbacks to breakthrough decisions. Know your rights. A civil rights attorney<\/a> near you can help you understand how these rulings apply to you and your family.<\/p>\n

1. SCOTUS\u2019s First LGBTQ+ Rights<\/span> Case:\u00a0One, Inc. v. Olesen<\/span><\/em>\u00a0(1958)<\/h2>\n

Decided in 1958,\u00a0One, Inc. v. Olesen<\/span><\/em><\/a>\u00a0was the first Supreme Court case concerning homosexuality as well as free speech rights<\/span> with regard to homosexuality.<\/p>\n

In 1954, Los Angeles Postmaster Otto Olesen declared an issue of\u00a0ONE: The Homosexual Magazine<\/em>\u00a0\u201cobscene, lewd, lascivious and filthy\u201d and therefore\u00a0couldn\u2019t be mailed.\u00a0After the matter was brought to court by One, Inc., the federal district court, as well as the\u00a0federal appellate court,\u00a0ruled that homosexuals should not be \u201crecognized as a segment of our people and be accorded special privilege.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 1957, the Supreme Court issued a short decision reversing the federal appellate court\u2019s decision without hearing oral arguments. In the short decision, the Supreme Court cited\u00a0Roth v. United States<\/em><\/a>, which created a test to determine what constituted obscene material.\u00a0Roth\u00a0<\/em>determined that Congress could ban material considered \u201cutterly without redeeming social importance,\u201d implying that material concerning homosexuals was of redeeming social importance.<\/p>\n

2. SCOTUS\u2019s First Same-Sex Marriage<\/span> Case:\u00a0Baker v. Nelson<\/span><\/em>\u00a0(1972)<\/h2>\n

In 1970, Jack Baker and Michael McConnell were the first same-sex couple in the U.S. to apply for a marriage license<\/a>. They submitted their application to Gerald R. Nelson, a clerk of Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota, and were denied. The couple took their fight to the courts.<\/p>\n

On October 15, 1971, the\u00a0Minnesota Supreme Court<\/a>\u00a0ruled that a statute restricting marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples was not unconstitutional. The Minnesota Supreme Court focused its decision on the notion that procreation and childrearing are essential for a marriage.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, Baker and McConnell reapplied for a marriage license in Blue Earth County, Minnesota, and were married on September 3, 1971.<\/p>\n

However, this victory proved to be a double-edged sword as it was also the reason the\u00a0U.S. Supreme Court chose to dismiss the case<\/a>. Because the couple had obtained a marriage license in the time it took the case to be heard, Hennepin County argued that the case was moot, and the Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the case due to there being no \u201csubstantial federal question.\u201d<\/p>\n

3. SCOTUS\u2019s First Same-Sex Sex Case:\u00a0Bowers v. Hardwick<\/span><\/em>\u00a0(1986)<\/h2>\n

In 1982, a Georgia police officer entered Michael Hardwick\u2019s home to serve an invalid warrant<\/a> and found Hardwick and another man participating in consensual oral sex. The officer arrested both men under an anti-sodomy law<\/span> that criminalized consensual oral and anal sex conducted in private between same-sex adults.<\/p>\n

Hardwick sued Georgia Attorney General Michael Bowers, arguing that the state\u2019s sodomy law was invalid.<\/p>\n

After the federal district court dismissed the case, Hardwick appealed, and the federal appellate court reversed the lower court ruling and found that the anti-sodomy statute infringed on Hardwick\u2019s constitutional rights.<\/p>\n

In 1986, the\u00a0Supreme Court<\/a>\u00a0upheld Georgia\u2019s anti-sodomy law<\/span> and ruled that the right to privacy<\/span> granted under the Due Process Clause<\/span> of the Fourteenth Amendment<\/span> didn\u2019t extend to private consensual same-sex sex.<\/p>\n

4. SCOTUS\u2019s Landmark LGB Protected Class Case:\u00a0Romer v. Evans<\/span><\/em>\u00a0(1996)<\/h2>\n

In 1992, Colorado voters approved an amendment (via initiative) that tried to prohibit the recognition of homosexuals and bisexuals as a protected class by barring state municipalities from creating anti-discrimination laws<\/a> to protect homosexual and bisexual people.<\/p>\n

Richard G. Evans, a gay man who worked for the Denver mayor, as well as others, filed a suit against Colorado Governor Roy Romer, the Colorado Attorney General, and the State of Colorado to enjoin<\/a>\u00a0the amendment. The State\u2019s argument focused on the idea that the amendment did \u201cno more than deny homosexuals special rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

The trial court issued an\u00a0injunction<\/a>,\u00a0and the\u00a0Colorado Supreme Court\u00a0held that the amendment violated the fundamental right of homosexuals and bisexuals to \u201cparticipate equally in the political process.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 1996, the\u00a0Supreme Court<\/a>\u00a0held that the amendment violated the Fourteenth Amendment<\/span>\u2019s Equal Protection Clause<\/span> because it targeted a specific group of people seemingly based on animosity alone. Justice Kennedy wrote that the amendment went \u201cwell beyond merely depriving [homosexuals and bisexuals] of special rights\u201d and imposed \u201ca broad disability\u201d by prohibiting them from seeking \u201cspecific legal protection from injuries caused by discrimination in a wide range of public and private transactions.\u201d<\/p>\n

5. SCOTUS\u2019s Notable Freedom of Association<\/span> and Same-Sex Discrimination<\/span> Case:\u00a0Boy Scouts of America v. Dale<\/span><\/em>\u00a0(2000)<\/h2>\n

In 1990, the Boy Scouts of America expelled Assistant Scoutmaster and Eagle Scout James Dale after a newspaper published an interview with Dale in which he stated he was gay.<\/p>\n

In 1992, Dale filed suit in New Jersey Superior Court, which found for Dale and held that the Boy Scouts of America violated New Jersey\u2019s anti-discrimination law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation<\/span><\/a> in public spaces. Upon appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the decision.<\/p>\n

However, in 2000, the\u00a0Supreme Court<\/a>\u00a0reversed the holding and ruled that forcing the Boy Scouts of America to accept Dale back would violate their First Amendment<\/span> right to freedom of association<\/span> because Dale\u2019s presence would \u201csignificantly burden the organization\u2019s right to oppose or disfavor homosexual conduct.\u201d<\/p>\n

6. SCOTUS\u2019s Landmark Same-Sex Sex Case:\u00a0Lawrence v. Texas<\/span><\/em>\u00a0(2003)<\/h2>\n

In 1998, Texas police reported to the apartment of John Geddes Lawrence Jr. upon receiving a call about a weapons disturbance in the apartment. Upon arrival, police found Lawrence and Tyron Garner engaging in sexual intercourse and charged both men under Texas\u2019s anti-sodomy law<\/span>. At the time, Texas\u2019s anti-sodomy law<\/span> made consensual same-sex \u201cintimate sexual conduct\u201d a misdemeanor.<\/p>\n

In 2000, the Texas Court of Appeals held that the anti-sodomy law<\/span> was unconstitutional. However, upon an appeal asking the court to rehear the case\u00a0en banc<\/em>, the court reversed and upheld the anti-sodomy law<\/span>. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Lawrence\u2019s request for appeal, Lawrence appealed to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

In 2003, the\u00a0Supreme Court<\/a>\u00a0ruled that anti-sodomy laws<\/span> were unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause<\/span> of the Fourteenth Amendment<\/span>, effectively overruling\u00a0Bowers<\/em><\/a>\u00a0and lifting any ban on sex between people of the same sex.<\/p>\n

Justice Kenney reaffirmed the right to privacy<\/span> by writing that Texas\u2019s anti-sodomy law<\/span> \u201cfurthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual\u2019s personal and private life\u201d and that Texas \u201ccannot demean [homosexuals\u2019] existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.\u201d<\/p>\n

7. SCOTUS\u2019s Landmark Step Toward Federal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage<\/span>:\u00a0United States v. Windsor<\/span><\/em>\u00a0(2013)<\/h2>\n

In 2008, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a same-sex couple, moved from Canada \u2014 where they were legally married \u2014 to New York, a state that recognized their marriage. However, same-sex marriage<\/span><\/a> was not recognized by the federal government at this time.<\/p>\n

After Spyer passed away in 2009 and left her estate to Windsor, Windsor attempted to claim a federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses and was blocked by the\u00a0Defense of Marriage Act<\/span> of 1996<\/a>. Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act<\/span> defined marriage as a \u201clegal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2010, Windsor filed suit in federal district court, where it was ruled that Section 3 was unconstitutional and violated the equal protections provided under the Fifth Amendment<\/span>. The decision was appealed to the federal appellate court<\/a> and was affirmed in 2012.<\/p>\n

However, a petition was filed to have the Supreme Court review the case before the federal appellate court made its decision. The Supreme Court agreed to review.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In 2013, the\u00a0Supreme Court<\/a>\u00a0found Section 3 to be unconstitutional and held that it violated due process and equal protection principles. Justice Kennedy wrote, \u201cDOMA<\/span>\u2019s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency.\u201d The federal government was ordered to refund Windsor\u2019s taxes.<\/p>\n

8. SCOTUS\u2019s Landmark Same-Sex Marriage<\/span> Case:\u00a0Obergefell v. Hodges<\/span><\/em>\u00a0(2015)<\/h2>\n

Obergefell v. Hodges<\/span><\/em><\/a>\u00a0was a product of the consolidation of six lower court cases involving over a dozen same-sex couples, including James Obergefell and John Arthur, and the right to marry. In 2014, the decisions of all six cases in federal district courts were appealed to the federal appellate court. The appeals court ruled that bans on same-sex marriage<\/span> were not unconstitutional. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court the same year.<\/p>\n

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that all states are required to grant marriages to same-sex couples<\/a> as well as recognize marriages of same-sex couples in different states. Effectively overruling\u00a0Baker<\/em>, the Supreme Court held that\u00a0<\/em>same-sex couples have the fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause<\/span> and the Equal Protection Clause<\/span> of the Fourteenth Amendment<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Although the right for same-sex couples to marry has not been codified, the right to federal and state recognition of legally-granted same-sex marriages<\/span> has been codified in the\u00a0Respect for Marriage Act of 2022<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9. SCOTUS\u2019s Notable Free Exercise of Religion and Same-Sex Discrimination<\/span> Case:\u00a0Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission<\/em>\u00a0(2018)<\/h2>\n

In 2012, Colorado baker Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins. Phillips based his refusal on his religious beliefs.<\/p>\n

The couple filed a complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. That Act prohibited public accommodations<\/span> from discriminating against customers on the basis of sexual orientation<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found in favor of the couple, ruling that requiring Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would not violate his right to free speech or free exercise of religion. Masterpiece Cakeshop was ordered to:<\/p>\n