Article image

The Supreme Court’s Quiet Refusal to Reopen the Marriage Equality Debate

Monday, 10 November 2025 16:28

Summary

The United States Supreme Court, on 10 November 2025, rejected a long-shot appeal that sought to overturn the landmark 2015 decision, *Obergefell v. Hodges*, which legalised same-sex marriage nationwide. The justices turned away the petition from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who gained notoriety for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on religious grounds. The court's refusal, issued without comment, signals a reluctance by the conservative-majority bench to revisit the established constitutional right to marriage equality, despite the precedent set by the 2022 reversal of *Roe v. Wade*. Davis was appealing a lower court order requiring her to pay a substantial sum in damages and legal fees to the couple she denied a license to, David Ermold and David Moore. The decision leaves the 2015 ruling intact, reinforcing the legal foundation of same-sex marriage, which is further protected by the 2022 federal *Respect for Marriage Act*.

The Unspoken Verdict on a Decade-Old Right

The United States Supreme Court delivered a quiet but profound message on 10 November 2025, by rejecting an appeal that aimed to dismantle the constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The justices, without issuing a comment or explanation, turned away the petition from Kim Davis, the former county clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky. This refusal to hear the case, *Kim Davis v. David Ermold and David Moore*, effectively left the 2015 landmark ruling, *Obergefell v. Hodges*, undisturbed. The appeal was widely considered a long-shot, yet it had generated considerable anxiety among same-sex couples and advocacy groups who feared the conservative-leaning court might use the opportunity to erode LGBTQ+ rights. The core of Davis’s appeal was a challenge to a lower-court order that required her to pay damages and attorney’s fees, a sum reported to be between $300,000 and $360,000, to the couple she had refused to serve. Her legal team, the evangelical ministry Liberty Counsel, had explicitly asked the high court to use the case as a vehicle to overturn *Obergefell v. Hodges* entirely. The rejection, therefore, was a significant moment of stability for marriage equality in the United States, confirming that the right remains the law of the land a decade after its establishment.

The Clerk Who Defied the Constitution

Kim Davis first rose to national prominence in 2015 when, as the elected county clerk, she refused to issue marriage licenses to any couple, same-sex or heterosexual, following the Supreme Court’s *Obergefell* decision. Davis, an Apostolic Christian, stated that issuing licenses to same-sex couples would violate her sincerely held religious beliefs. She claimed she was acting “under God’s authority” when she turned away couples, including David Ermold and David Moore. A federal judge held her in contempt for her refusal to comply with the law, leading to her spending six days in jail. While she was incarcerated, one of her deputies issued the licenses, but the lawsuit against her continued because the claim for damages remained valid. The Kentucky legislature later revised the law to remove the requirement for the clerk’s name to appear on the licenses, an accommodation Davis claimed was sufficient to dismiss the lawsuit as moot. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected her claims of qualified immunity and religious defences, allowing the couple’s lawsuit for damages to proceed. A jury ultimately awarded the couple $100,000 for emotional distress, in addition to the attorney fees, leading to the total judgment Davis was attempting to appeal to the Supreme Court. Her lawyers argued that the couple could not sue over “hurt feelings” and that upholding the lower court’s ruling would make *Obergefell* an obstacle to the First Amendment’s protections for public officials.

The Foundation of Marriage Equality

The legal right that Davis sought to overturn was established in June 2015 by the Supreme Court in *Obergefell v. Hodges*, a case that consolidated same-sex marriage challenges from four states: Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky. The 5-4 decision declared that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, articulated that the right to marry is a “fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person” and a “keystone of our social order”. The ruling required all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and US territories to both perform and recognise same-sex marriages on the same terms as opposite-sex marriages. The majority opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito authored dissents, arguing that the Constitution did not address the issue and that it should have been left to the states and the democratic process. The *Obergefell* decision built upon the 2013 ruling in *United States v. Windsor*, which had struck down the federal *Defense of Marriage Act* (DOMA) definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman.

The Shadow of Judicial Precedent

The anxiety surrounding the Davis appeal stemmed directly from the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in *Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization*, which overturned the constitutional right to abortion established in *Roe v. Wade*. That ruling demonstrated the willingness of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority to reverse long-standing precedents based on the doctrine of substantive due process, the same legal principle underpinning *Obergefell*. Davis’s lawyers explicitly pointed to the abortion precedent in their request to strike down same-sex marriage. Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the three remaining dissenters from the 2015 *Obergefell* ruling, has repeatedly called for the court to revisit and erase the same-sex marriage decision. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, the other two remaining dissenters, have also criticised the ruling, though Alito has recently suggested he was not advocating for it to be overturned. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was not on the court in 2015, has acknowledged that same-sex marriage might be in a different category than abortion because millions of people have relied on the decision to marry and have children. The court’s rejection of the Davis appeal, therefore, suggests that a majority of the current justices are not prepared to take the politically and socially explosive step of overturning *Obergefell*, at least not through this particular case.

The Statutory Safeguard

The legal landscape for same-sex marriage was significantly reinforced in 2022, mitigating the potential fallout had the Supreme Court chosen to hear and reverse *Obergefell*. In December 2022, President Joe Biden signed the *Respect for Marriage Act* (RFMA) into law, a federal statute passed by the 117th Congress. The RFMA was a direct legislative response to the *Dobbs* decision and the subsequent fear that other rights based on substantive due process, such as marriage equality, could be next. The Act achieved two major objectives: it formally repealed the 1996 *Defense of Marriage Act* (DOMA) and, crucially, it codified the recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages in federal law. The law requires all US states and territories to recognise any marriage that was validly performed in another jurisdiction, regardless of the couple’s sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. While the RFMA does not compel a state to issue new same-sex marriage licenses if *Obergefell* were overturned, it ensures that all existing and out-of-state same-sex marriages would still be recognised for federal benefits and by other states. The bipartisan passage of the RFMA, which included the support of 12 Republican Senators, provided a statutory backstop, ensuring that the legal status of married same-sex couples would not be entirely dependent on the Supreme Court’s constitutional interpretation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to reject the appeal from Kim Davis, a decade after the events that made her a symbol of resistance to marriage equality, represents a moment of judicial restraint on a highly contentious social issue. By declining to hear the case, the court avoided a direct confrontation with the precedent set by *Obergefell v. Hodges*, a ruling that has fundamentally reshaped the social and legal fabric of the United States. The rejection, coupled with the statutory protections afforded by the *Respect for Marriage Act*, suggests that the legal foundation of same-sex marriage is more secure than many had feared in the wake of the *Dobbs* decision. While the underlying tension between religious freedom claims and constitutional rights remains a persistent feature of American jurisprudence, the court’s silence on 10 November 2025 spoke volumes, confirming that the right to marry, once granted, is not easily withdrawn. The legal battle for Kim Davis, however, continues, as the rejection means she must still face the financial consequences of her refusal to comply with the law.

References

  1. Respect for Marriage Act - Wikipedia

    Used to detail the purpose, provisions, and legislative history of the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA), including its repeal of DOMA and its role as a statutory safeguard for same-sex and interracial marriages.

  2. Supreme Court dismisses long-shot challenge to right to marry for same-sex couples

    Used to confirm the date of the rejection (Nov 10, 2025), the challenger (Kim Davis), the nature of the rejection (without comment), the couple who sued (Ermold and Moore), the damages awarded, and the context of Davis's refusal and subsequent jailing.

  3. Supreme Court rejects call to overturn decadeold same-sex marriage decision | PBS News

    Used to confirm the amount of damages Davis was appealing ($360,000), the invocation of Justice Clarence Thomas's words by Davis's lawyers, and the fact that Roberts and Alito were dissenters in 2015.

  4. Supreme Court rejects call to overturn decision legalizing same-sex marriage in US - FOX 4 News Dallas-Fort Worth

    Used to confirm the rejection, the amount of damages, and the invocation of Justice Thomas's words.

  5. Supreme Court won't consider challenge to overturn same-sex marriage ruling

    Used to detail the legal argument of 'legal fiction of substantive due process,' the role of Liberty Counsel, the connection to the *Roe v. Wade* reversal, the specific case name (*Kim Davis v. David Ermold and David Moore*), and the damages amount.

  6. Supreme Court takes swift action on Kim Davis bid to overturn same-sex marriage

    Used to confirm the swift rejection, the longshot nature of the appeal, the religious freedom argument (First Amendment), the total amount Davis was ordered to pay (over $300,000), and the anxiety among advocacy groups.

  7. Revisiting Obergefell: What's at Stake for LGBTQ+ Americans - Feminist Majority Foundation

    Used to detail the legal basis of *Obergefell* (Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses), the context of the *Dobbs* decision, the couple's lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Sixth Circuit's rejection of Davis's immunity claims, and the purpose of the Respect for Marriage Act.

  8. Supreme Court rejects call to overturn its decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide

    Used to confirm the rejection, the damages amount, the positions of Justices Thomas, Roberts, and Alito, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett's comments on reliance interests.

  9. Supreme Court rejects call to overturn its decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide

    Used to confirm the rejection, the lack of comment, the challenger, and the damages amount.

  10. US supreme court rejects call to overturn decision legalizing same-sex marriage

    Used to confirm the rejection, the damages amount, the positions of Justices Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Barrett, and the statement from the Human Rights Campaign.

  11. U.S. Supreme Court rejects bid to overturn same-sex marriage ruling | CBC News

    Used to confirm the rejection, the challenger's religious beliefs, the damages amount, and the *Obergefell* ruling's basis in Due Process and Equal Protection.

  12. Supreme Court declines to hear marriage equality case - The 19th News

    Used to confirm the rejection, the long-shot nature, Davis's jailing, and the existence of the Respect for Marriage Act as a safeguard.

  13. Supreme Court weighs appeal to overturn ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide | PBS News

    Used to confirm the appeal was on the court's agenda and the amount of damages Davis was appealing.

  14. Supreme Court won't hear challenge to landmark gay marriage ruling

    Used to confirm the rejection, the lack of appetite to revisit *Obergefell*, the anxiety among couples, the conservative shift of the court, and the damages awarded to Ermold and Moore.

  15. Respect for Marriage Act of 2022 - Ballotpedia

    Used to detail the bipartisan vote count (61-36 in the Senate) and the specific provisions of the Respect for Marriage Act, including its religious liberty protections.

  16. Respect for Marriage Act | Definition, History, Amendment, & Facts | Britannica

    Used to confirm the RFMA's requirement for states to recognise out-of-state marriages and its formal repeal of DOMA.

  17. Respect for Marriage Act secures Marriage Equality what it means for same-sex, interracial and inter-ethnic couples - Whitman-Walker

    Used to confirm the bipartisan support for the RFMA, including the 12 Republican Senators, and its role in codifying the right to marry free from discrimination.

  18. H.R.8404 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act

    Used to confirm the RFMA's statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages and its provisions regarding religious organisations.

  19. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) - The National Constitution Center

    Used to detail the 5-4 vote breakdown in *Obergefell*, the majority and dissenting justices, and key excerpts from Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, including the 'keystone of our social order' quote.

  20. Obergefell v. Hodges - Ballotpedia

    Used to confirm the 5-4 decision, the justices in the majority and dissent, and the two questions presented to the court.

  21. Obergefell v. Hodges | Oyez

    Used to confirm the 5-4 decision, the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy, and the basis in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

  22. The 19 Best Lines From the Supreme Court Decision That Just Legalized Gay Marriage

    Used to provide key quotes from Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, including the 'fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person' quote.

  23. Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

    Used to confirm the date of the *Obergefell* decision (June 26, 2015) and its requirement for all 50 states to perform and recognise same-sex marriages.