The United States Supreme Court on Monday declined to revisit its landmark 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, turning down an appeal that had sparked concern among LGBTQ+ advocates about a possible rollback of marriage equality.
The justices rejected an appeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who became widely known for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Davis, who cited religious objections, now faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and legal fees for defying the ruling.
The court offered no explanation for dismissing the case, which had drawn national attention amid speculation that its conservative majority, responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022, might also reconsider the marriage equality precedent.
“Today, love won again,” said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “When public officials take an oath to serve their communities, that promise extends to everyone, including LGBTQ+ people. The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences.”
But Davis’ attorney, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, denounced the outcome, saying she now faces “crippling monetary damages based on nothing more than purported hurt feelings.” He added, “Like the abortion decision in Roe v. Wade, Obergefell was egregiously wrong from the start. We will continue to work to overturn Obergefell. It is not a matter of if, but when the Supreme Court will overturn Obergefell.”
The court that decided Obergefell nearly a decade ago looks very different today. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the pivotal swing vote who wrote the majority opinion, retired in 2018 and was succeeded by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death in 2020 brought another conservative, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, onto the bench. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who dissented in Obergefell, remain.
Kennedy’s opinion in 2015 celebrated marriage as a profound expression of love and commitment.
“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family,” he wrote. “In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were.”
The decision was met with jubilation nationwide, with the White House illuminated in rainbow colors and same-sex couples rushing to wed.
According to UCLA’s Williams Institute, nearly 600,000 same-sex couples have since married.
Yet, for some conservatives, the ruling was a betrayal of religious freedom. Davis, who at the time served as the Rowan County clerk, refused to issue any marriage licenses, citing her faith.
She was later sued by several couples, jailed for defying a court order, and ordered to pay about $360,000 in damages and legal fees.
The late Justice Antonin Scalia sharply criticized the 2015 ruling in his dissent, calling it a “threat to American democracy.”
He wrote, “The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”
Davis had argued that her case provided the justices an opportunity for “a course correction” on Obergefell.
While much attention focused on her challenge to same-sex marriage rights, her appeal also raised technical questions about religious liberty and legal immunity, which the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had previously rejected.
Despite concerns, recent statements from several conservative justices suggested little appetite to revisit Obergefell.
Justice Barrett told The New York Times that there are “very concrete reliance interests” tied to marriage equality, while Justice Alito, despite criticizing the decision, said it remains “a precedent of the court that is entitled to the respect afforded by the doctrine of stare decisis.”
Still, LGBTQ+ advocates remain wary, especially after the court’s recent rulings allowing states to restrict gender-affirming care for transgender youth and other limitations on trans rights.
Mary Bonauto, the civil rights lawyer who argued Obergefell, praised the court’s decision to reject Davis’ appeal. “The only thing that has changed since Obergefell was decided is that people across the country have seen how marriage equality provides protection for families and children, and that protection strengthens communities, the economy and our society,” she said. “Today millions of Americans can breathe a sigh of relief for their families, current or hoped for, because all families deserve equal rights under the law.”
While the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Davis’ case does not set a binding precedent, it preserves, for now, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry, leaving advocates hopeful but vigilant for future challenges.
