US Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis plea to roll back same-sex marriage rights

The US Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015. This ruling had legalized same-sex marriage across the United States. Davis, who gained nationwide attention for her defiance, had asked the court to overturn a judgment that required her to pay $360,000 in damages and legal fees to two couples she had denied marriage licenses.

The Supreme Court refused to hear Davis’s appeal without providing any explanation, leaving in place the lower court’s ruling against her. The decision is being seen as another strong affirmation of marriage equality in the United States.

The case stemmed from events in Rowan County, Kentucky, in 2015. After the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses in her county, citing her Christian beliefs. Her refusal led to several legal challenges, and she was eventually sued by two same-sex couples, David Ermold and David Moore, whom she turned away three times when they tried to get married.

The couple later won the case in federal court, with a jury awarding them $50,000 each. The court also ordered Davis to pay an additional $260,000 in attorney fees and costs, bringing the total to $360,000.

A long legal battle rooted in personal beliefs and constitutional rights

Davis’s legal team had argued that she acted according to her religious convictions and that forcing her to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated her First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Her appeal also questioned whether the federal government could sue a state official like her, raising claims of “sovereign immunity.”

In her petition to the Supreme Court, Davis argued that the US Constitution “makes no reference to same-sex marriage and no such right is implicitly recognized by any constitutional provision.” Her lawyers urged the justices to revisit Obergefell, the 2015 ruling that first recognized same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.

However, the Supreme Court declined to reopen the issue. This decision comes despite significant changes in the court’s composition since 2015. At that time, the Obergefell decision passed with a narrow 5–4 majority. Since then, three of the justices who supported the ruling have retired or passed away, replaced by more conservative judges appointed by former President Donald Trump.

Because of this shift, some conservative groups believed there might be a chance for the court to reconsider Obergefell, especially after the court overturned Roe v. Wade — the 1973 decision protecting abortion rights — in 2022. Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion in that abortion case, even suggested that the court should revisit other landmark rulings, including those involving same-sex marriage and contraception.

However, the court’s rejection of Davis’s petition shows no immediate intention to reopen the same-sex marriage debate.

Victory for same-sex couples and reaffirmation of equality

For the plaintiffs, David Ermold and David Moore, the decision marks a major victory. The couple, who married after finally obtaining a license from a deputy clerk, said the court’s move shows that marriage equality is firmly established in American law.

In their filing to the Supreme Court, Ermold and Moore’s lawyers said that the 2015 ruling has become deeply integrated into American society. “Those families were built around the right this court recognized,” they argued, referring to nearly 800,000 same-sex couples who are now married in the United States.

They also said that Davis’s appeal was a “poor vehicle” for challenging Obergefell because even if the Supreme Court overturned the earlier ruling, it wasn’t clear that the verdict against Davis would change — her refusal to issue licenses violated established law at the time.

ALSO READ: Tech glitch cripples Delhi airport operations, hundreds of flights face major delays

ALSO READ: BJP still needs Nitish Kumar despite differences in Bihar politics

The couple’s victory represents not just compensation for their personal ordeal but also a broader defense of the constitutional rights of LGBTQ+ Americans.

Davis, who once became a hero to some conservative and religious groups, had spent five days in jail in 2015 after being found in contempt of court for defying federal orders to issue licenses. Her stance led to widespread debate across the US, with some viewing her as a defender of religious liberty and others as an official who disobeyed the law while holding public office.

Following her release, she continued to serve as county clerk but faced strong criticism and several lawsuits. She eventually lost her bid for reelection in 2018.

Broader implications of the court’s refusal

Legal experts say the Supreme Court’s refusal to take up Davis’s case underscores the stability of Obergefell v. Hodges as settled law, even with a conservative majority on the bench. While some conservative justices may personally disagree with the decision, the court’s decision to leave Davis’s appeal unanswered suggests that overturning marriage equality is not a current priority.

This development provides reassurance to LGBTQ+ advocates who feared that the rollback of abortion rights in 2022 could lead to challenges to same-sex marriage and other civil rights precedents.

The decision also reinforces the principle that government officials must follow the law, regardless of personal religious beliefs. As legal scholars have pointed out, the issue was never about Davis’s faith but about her responsibilities as a public servant. When she refused to issue marriage licenses, she was effectively denying citizens their constitutional rights.

For now, the Supreme Court’s action sends a clear message — the right to marry, regardless of gender, remains protected under the Constitution.

Kim Davis’s case, once a symbol of deep national division, now serves as a reminder that individual beliefs cannot override established civil rights. With this decision, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the equal dignity of all citizens — including LGBTQ+ couples — remains a cornerstone of American democracy.