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 across the country. The court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, dismissed an appeal by Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who faced a lawsuit from a gay couple for refusing to issue marriage licenses following the 2015 ruling recognizing the right to same-sex marriage. Davis, an Apostolic Christian, cited religious beliefs as the reason behind her actions.
After lower courts dismissed Davis’s argument that her First Amendment right to religious freedom shielded her from liability, she was directed to pay over $360,000 in damages and legal costs for obstructing a same-sex couple’s marriage rights. The 2015 case, Obergefell v. Hodges, marked a significant win for LGBTQ rights in the U.S., establishing that states cannot prohibit same-sex marriages based on the Constitution’s due process and equal protection guarantees.
The 5-4 ruling, with now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy and four liberal justices in favor, emphasized the right of gay individuals to seek equal treatment under the law. Reversing Obergefell would enable states to enforce laws against same-sex marriage once again. Dissenting were four conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito, who are still on the bench, along with three justices appointed by former President Donald Trump.
The court’s ideological shift in recent years, leaning more conservative on various issues, was highlighted by the 2022 overturning of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. This move raised hopes among conservatives and Republicans opposed to Obergefell that the same-sex marriage ruling could be reconsidered.
Davis, who defied issuing marriage licenses post-Obergefell, spent time in jail for contempt of court. The appeal by Davis was in response to a civil rights lawsuit by David Ermold and David Moore, who accused her of violating their marriage rights. U.S. District Judge David Bunning rejected Davis’s claim that her religious beliefs justified her actions, leading to financial penalties against her.
The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision, emphasizing that government officials like Davis do not have First Amendment protection for actions carried out in their official capacity. Davis’s argument to overturn Obergefell was waived early in the case, according to the 6th Circuit.
In her plea to the Supreme Court, Davis’s lawyers argued that the right to same-sex marriage, similar to the now-overturned abortion right, was based on the concept of “substantive due process.” The Supreme Court had previously rejected a 2020 appeal by Davis at an earlier stage of the legal process. Justice Thomas, in a related opinion, cautioned that the same-sex marriage ruling posed threats to religious freedom.
This development underscores the ongoing legal battles and debates surrounding LGBTQ rights and religious liberties in the U.S.