On Monday, Nov. 9, the Supreme Court declined to consider a petition from former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis seeking to overturn the landmark 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Davis, a Municipal clerk and former Rowan County Clerk, was already known in the legal world for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This resulted in her being jailed and ordered to pay $360,000 in damages to all the couples she had refused licenses.
Earlier this year, Davis filed the petition with several requests, chief among them re-assessing and overturning Obergefell v. Hodges, which established a constitutional right to same-sex marriages.
The petition earned attention, many looking to the overturning of Roe V. Wade, which had previously established women’s constitutional right to abortion, as an example of the more conservative-themed decisions courts had been making in recent years.
In fact, according to NBC News, this year, nine states have attempted measures to negatively impact same-sex marriage rights without directly attacking Obergfell v. Hodges. These states include Montana, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Idaho
However, despite public concern, legal experts had a very different view of Davis’s partition. Analysts widely agreed that the petition was highly unlikely to succeed. Outlets from ABC News noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly treated same-sex marriage as a settled law, with very little interest in reopening Obergfell v. Hodges. The petition in itself was looked at as a more symbolic challenge than a realistic bid to overturn the 2015 ruling.
Legal professionals also note that the Court’s refusal to take up the case was unsurprising given the lack of clear legal conflict. Lower courts had unanimously ruled against Davis, reaffirming that government officials must comply with established constitutional rights, even if they personally disagree.
Groups on both sides of the issue responded quickly to Monday’s decision. LGBTQ+ rights organizations praised the Court for reaffirming marriage equality. In contrast, conservative legal groups argued that Davis’s petition highlighted tensions between religious freedom and civil obligations for public officials, despite organizations emphasizing that religious belief does not exempt public officials from performing their duties under the law.
While the Court’s denial effectively closes Davis’s legal battle, it arrives in the midst of a time of tension and debate over individual rights. With several states proposing measures challenging marriage equality, many fear the political turmoil surrounding gay marriage will continue, even as the legal foundation of Obergfell remains firm. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that despite shifting debates, the 2015 ruling remains the law of the land.
