HR-8404-117
Became Public Law No: 117-228.
Sponsored by Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
What it does
This law replaces the Defense of Marriage Act's definitions — which limited federal marriage recognition to opposite-sex couples — with a requirement that the federal government recognize any marriage between two individuals that is valid under the law of the state where it was performed. It prohibits states from denying recognition to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. It allows the Department of Justice to sue for violations and creates a private right of action for individuals. It explicitly does not require religious organizations to provide goods or services for marriages, does not affect non-marriage-based rights or benefits, and does not recognize marriages of more than two individuals.
Who benefits
Same-sex married couples, who gain a statutory federal guarantee of marriage recognition independent of any future Supreme Court ruling. Interracial married couples, who receive the same statutory protection. Surviving spouses in same-sex or interracial marriages who rely on federal benefits (Social Security survivor benefits, federal employee spousal benefits, tax filing status, immigration spousal visas). Children of same-sex couples whose family legal status depends on parental marriage recognition. States that have already legalized same-sex marriage, whose residents gain a federal backstop. Religious organizations and faith-based businesses, who receive an explicit statutory exemption from being compelled to recognize or celebrate marriages.
Who is hurt
Individuals and organizations that object on religious or moral grounds to same-sex marriage and had sought a return to the pre-Obergefell legal framework. States that might prefer to set their own marriage definitions, as the law limits their ability to deny recognition to out-of-state marriages. Taxpayers who may bear costs of extended federal spousal benefits to a broader pool of married couples. Advocates for polygamous or multi-partner relationships, who are explicitly excluded from the law's protections.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that codifying marriage equality into statute is necessary to protect millions of legally married couples from legal uncertainty, particularly after the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision (2022) signaled willingness to revisit substantive due process precedents — a concern Justice Thomas raised explicitly in his concurrence. They contend that relying solely on Obergefell leaves same-sex couples' federal benefits, tax status, and immigration rights vulnerable to a future court reversal, and that a statutory guarantee provides a durable, democratically enacted protection. They also argue the law's explicit religious exemptions strike a careful balance, preserving First Amendment protections while securing equal treatment under federal law.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the law effectively federalizes marriage policy — historically a state domain — by compelling states to recognize out-of-state marriages regardless of their own laws, going beyond what the Constitution requires and constraining future democratic deliberation at the state level. They contend that the religious liberty exemptions are narrowly drawn and may not adequately protect individuals, small businesses, or faith-based organizations that object to facilitating same-sex marriages, particularly in light of 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023), which suggests unresolved tension between anti-discrimination mandates and compelled expressive conduct. They further argue that Congress should not preemptively override state marriage laws when the Supreme Court has not reversed Obergefell.
Constitutional context
The law rests on Congress's power to define the terms of federal law and its Section 5 enforcement authority under the 14th Amendment, as well as the Commerce Clause basis established in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) for public accommodations law. The full faith and credit provision engages Article IV, §1. Tension remains between the law's anti-discrimination requirements and First Amendment protections for expressive conduct, an area the Supreme Court left partially unresolved in 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023).
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to define federal marriage recognition, displacing prior statutory definitions; the Department of Justice and private litigants can enforce the law in federal court; courts retain authority to review the law's scope, particularly its religious exemption provisions and full faith and credit mandate.
Historical precedent
The Defense of Marriage Act (1996) previously defined marriage for federal purposes as between a man and a woman; the Supreme Court struck down its federal definition in United States v. Windsor (2013) and its state-law application in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which this law now supersedes with an affirmative statutory guarantee.