Could the landmark ruling that guaranteed same-sex marriage nationwide be at risk nearly a decade later?
A case brought by former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who became famous for going to jail rather than issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has reignited debate. While some frame it as a test of religious freedom,
others warn it could threaten nearly ten years of legal protections for LGBTQ+ couples across the United States. Beneath the headlines, a legal battle is unfolding with the potential to reshape the social and cultural landscape once again.
The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to review a petition filed by Kim Davis, who seeks to overturn the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Davis’s attorney, Matthew Staver, has expressed optimism about the Court taking up the case, according to Newsweek. Meanwhile, William Powell, who represented the couple suing Davis, expressed confidence that the Supreme Court will reject her claims.
Davis, who spent six days in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on her religious convictions, could challenge federal protections for same-sex marriage nearly a decade after Obergefell.
Some justices, including Clarence Thomas, have in recent years suggested they might be open to revisiting the issue, especially amid the Court’s shift toward a more conservative majority—a shift reflected in the 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. If Obergefell were overturned, individual states would regain authority to regulate marriage, many of which currently do not recognize same-sex unions.
In the petition, Staver contends that Obergefell was “egregiously wrong,” “deeply damaging,” and “far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation” of the Constitution.
He argues the ruling set the Court on “a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided,” creating “catastrophic outcomes” that make it difficult for people like Davis to comply with the law without violating their religious beliefs. The petition suggests that, if overturned, states would define marriage independently, while existing same-sex marriages would remain valid under a grandfather clause. Staver told Newsweek that he believes the Court’s original decision lacks constitutional grounding, which led to Davis’s imprisonment and financial liabilities.
Legal scholars remain skeptical that the Court will fully reverse Obergefell. Daniel Urman, a law professor at Northeastern University, told Newsweek that while a conservative majority might expand protections for religious objectors, this is unlikely to dismantle the right to same-sex marriage, which is culturally entrenched and broadly accepted. Similarly, Paul Collins, a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, noted that while Davis hopes to challenge the precedent, the case is unlikely to undo established protections for same-sex couples.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s review of Kim Davis’s petition underscores the ongoing tension between claims of religious liberty and established civil rights protections. While the case presents an opportunity to revisit the Obergefell ruling, most experts believe that the widespread cultural and societal acceptance of same-sex marriage makes a full reversal improbable. The case serves as a reminder that legal battles over social issues continue to reach the nation’s highest courts, even years after landmark decisions.