The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal brought by Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk, to overturn its landmark 2015 decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The Court opted not to revisit the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which granted same-sex couples the right to marry, without providing an explanation or any noted dissents.
Justice Davis’s appeal centered largely on First Amendment issues and questions of religious protection, with her lawyers also requesting the Court consider overturning the 5-4 ruling in Obergefell. While Davis’s appeal was considered a long shot, it sparked fresh speculation about whether the Court’s conservative majority might agree to review the seminal case, especially in light of the Court’s 2022 decision to overturn abortion protections in Roe v. Wade.
Davis was briefly jailed in 2015 after she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples due to her religious beliefs, prompting a federal judge to hold her in contempt. She was also ordered by the court to pay $100,000 in damages to the couple and cover their legal fees.
Her lawyers argued that the case deserved review, stating that ‘if ever a case deserved review, the first individual who was thrown in jail post-Obergefell for seeking accommodation for her religious beliefs should be it.’ Despite this, the Court’s decision to decline the appeal comes at a time when justices have agreed to review a number of politically charged cases in their upcoming term.
Others noted that three of the justices that dissented from the majority in Obergefell — Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts — remain on the court. Davis’s lawyers also hewed closely to language used by Justice Clarence Thomas in their appeal, who used a concurring opinion in 2022 to urge the court to ‘reconsider’ gay marriage and other constitutional protections after the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
Even so, it takes four votes to get a case onto the docket — a somewhat heavy lift for the court. The decision also comes at a time when justices have agreed to review a number of politically charged cases in their upcoming term.
This is a developing story. Check back soon for updates.