The Supreme Court on Monday declined to reconsider its landmark 2015 decision establishing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, rejecting an appeal from a former Kentucky county clerk. The move allayed fears among LGBTQ advocates that the court’s conservative majority was prepared to revisit the decade-old precedent.
The justices denied the appeal from Kim Davis, who faces more than $360,000 in damages and legal fees for refusing to issue marriage licenses in the wake of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. As is customary, the court did not explain its reasoning for turning away the case.
The appeal had drawn significant attention, largely because the court’s 6-3 conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, fueling speculation that Obergefell could be the next long-standing precedent to fall.
The court’s current composition is ideologically different from the one that decided Obergefell. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote who authored the majority opinion, has since been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was succeeded by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Three current members—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—were in dissent in the original case.
The 2015 Obergefell decision was a watershed moment, prompting nationwide celebrations and leading to nearly 600,000 same-sex marriages. However, the ruling also triggered backlash from some conservatives who predicted conflicts with religious freedom. Davis, then the clerk for Rowan County, became a central figure in this conflict, citing her religious beliefs in her refusal to issue marriage licenses to any couple. Her actions led to multiple lawsuits and a brief period in jail for contempt of court.
While Davis’s appeal prominently requested a “course correction” on Obergefell, its primary legal arguments focused on whether the First Amendment’s religious protections shielded her from liability.
Despite the case’s high profile, recent comments from conservative justices suggested little appetite for reopening the marriage debate. Last month, Justice Barrett noted the “very concrete reliance interests” at stake, while Justice Alito, a dissenter in the original case, acknowledged that Obergefell is a precedent entitled to respect.
The decision not to hear the Davis appeal contrasts with other recent Supreme Court actions concerning LGBTQ rights, particularly those affecting transgender Americans. The court has recently allowed state bans on gender-affirming care for minors and permitted restrictions on transgender military service.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal sets no new legal precedent. The court could still choose to review the constitutional right to same-sex marriage if another case challenging Obergefell reaches it in the future.
