On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to revisit its landmark 2015 decision that established the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, effectively rejecting a petition from former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis who sought to overturn the ruling. This development marks a significant affirmation of the Court’s earlier ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which held that the 14th Amendment guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry nationwide.
Kim Davis first made headlines shortly after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision when, as the Rowan County clerk in Kentucky, she refused to issue marriage licenses to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Her refusal was based on her religious conviction that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, Davis openly defied the order, claiming that signing marriage licenses for gay couples violated her sincerely held religious beliefs.
In response to the 2015 ruling, then-Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear sent an official letter directing all county clerks across the state to comply immediately with the Supreme Court’s decision and to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples without delay. However, Davis remained steadfast in her refusal. This stand-off attracted national attention and ignited a broader debate about the balance between religious freedom and constitutional rights.
Kentucky later passed a law that removed the names and signatures of county clerks from marriage licenses, a move aimed at resolving the conflict without forcing clerks like Davis to personally endorse marriages they objected to on religious grounds. But before this law came into effect, Davis and her deputies denied marriage licenses to several same-sex couples, including the couple David Moore and David Ermold.
Moore and Ermold first sought a marriage license from the Rowan County Clerk’s Office just ten days after the Supreme Court’s historic ruling. Davis refused to issue the license and told the couple she was acting “under God’s authority,” advising them to seek a license in another county. This refusal led Moore and Ermold to file a lawsuit, alleging that Davis violated their constitutional right to marry. Despite repeated visits to the clerk’s office, the couple was denied a license multiple times.
The legal battle escalated when Davis was jailed for five days for contempt of court after defying a court order to issue marriage licenses. During her incarceration, a deputy clerk issued a marriage license to Moore and Ermold in September 2015, allowing them to marry. Nevertheless, the couple pursued monetary damages resulting from Davis’ actions, and a jury awarded them $50,000 each.
Davis appealed the ruling on the grounds that issuing the marriage license would have violated her constitutionally protected religious beliefs and that she should therefore be immune from liability. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit rejected her argument, ruling that the First Amendment does not protect government officials acting in their official capacity when their actions violate the constitutional rights of citizens.
In a strong opinion written by Judge Helene White, the court emphasized the distinction between officials’ private and official roles. While government employees are free to hold and express personal religious beliefs in their private lives, when they exercise state power, their conscience must give way to the Constitution. The court warned that accepting Davis’ argument would set a dangerous precedent, opening the door for officials to deny services to citizens based on personal religious objections — for example, county clerks refusing marriage licenses to interracial couples or zoning officials denying permits to religious institutions they oppose.
Judge White wrote, “The Bill of Rights would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates,” underscoring the primacy of constitutional protections over individual religious objections within governmental functions.
Following the 6th Circuit ruling, Davis took her case to the Supreme Court. Along with challenging the lower court’s decision, her legal team asked the justices to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges itself. This petition raised concerns about the stability of the 10-year-old precedent, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The reversal of Roe signaled a readiness by the current Court majority to revisit and potentially overturn other landmark rulings grounded in the principle of substantive due process, which has been used to protect rights including contraception and same-sex marriage.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion related to the Roe case, explicitly suggested that the Court should reconsider various substantive due process decisions — including Obergefell. However, no other justices joined Thomas’