The U.S. Supreme Court declined a request on Monday from a former Kentucky county official to reverse its significant 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. The court refrained from revisiting the case more than three years after its conservative majority overturned abortion rights.
Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk, had her appeal dismissed by the court. Davis, an Apostolic Christian, had refused to issue marriage licenses after the 2015 ruling established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, citing religious conflicts. Lower courts had previously dismissed Davis’s argument that her First Amendment right to religious freedom protected her from legal action. Consequently, she was ordered to pay over $360,000 in damages and legal fees for denying a same-sex couple their right to marry.
The 2015 landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges was a significant win for LGBTQ rights in the U.S., affirming that states could not prohibit same-sex marriages based on the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses.
Former Justice Anthony Kennedy, along with four liberal justices, delivered the 5-4 decision in Obergefell, emphasizing the right to marriage equality for gay individuals. Overturning Obergefell would potentially allow states to reenact laws against same-sex marriage.
Notably, the court’s conservative members, including justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito, dissented. The court’s conservative bloc, bolstered by three justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, did not comment on the Davis case during its review.
In a separate development, the court’s ideological shift towards conservatism led to the overturning of the Roe v. Wade ruling in 2022, a decision that legalized abortion nationwide. This move sparked optimism among conservatives and Republicans opposed to Obergefell that the court might reconsider its stance on same-sex marriage rights.
Davis, who faced legal action from a gay couple, David Ermold and David Moore, for impeding their right to marry, was found liable for damages and legal expenses. Despite Davis’s argument invoking her religious beliefs, the court ruled that government officials like her could not claim First Amendment protection for actions taken in their official capacities.
In a final plea to the Supreme Court, Davis’s legal team contended that the right to same-sex marriage, akin to the now-overturned abortion right, was based on a legal concept known as “substantive due process.” However, the court had previously rejected a similar appeal from Davis in 2020.
In a joint statement, justices Thomas and Alito expressed concerns about the impact of the same-sex marriage ruling on religious freedom, stating that it continued to pose challenges in that regard.