Supreme Court May Revisit Same-Sex Marriage in Case Brought by Former Clerk Kim Davis

The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to consider a high-profile case brought by Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who gained national attention in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis is now seeking to challenge the landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which established the constitutional right to same-sex marriage across the United States.

Davis’s attorney, Matthew Staver, has formally submitted a petition to the Supreme Court, urging the justices to take up the case. In his filing, he argues that the Obergefell decision was unconstitutional and that it violated the rights of individuals who object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Staver described the ruling as “egregiously wrong” and claimed it has had harmful effects, particularly on people like Davis who, he says, are forced to choose between their faith and their public duties.

“Obergefell lacks any foundation in the Constitution,” Staver stated. “It’s what led to Kim Davis being jailed and now facing significant financial penalties. It’s time to revisit and reverse it.”

Davis was briefly jailed in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing her Christian beliefs. One of those couples, who successfully sued Davis, was awarded financial damages after a jury found that she had violated their rights. Davis’s appeal to the Supreme Court not only aims to reverse that verdict but also seeks a broader reconsideration of federal protections for same-sex marriage.

While Staver and Davis hope the high court will use the case as a vehicle to overturn Obergefell, legal experts caution that the case may not be the appropriate platform for such a sweeping decision.

William Powell, the attorney who represented the couple who sued Davis, remains confident that the Supreme Court will not revisit the broader issue. In a statement to Newsweek, Powell said, “We’re confident the Court will agree that Davis’s arguments do not deserve further consideration.”

Even so, the case arrives at a time when the Supreme Court has shown increasing willingness to revisit long-standing precedents. In 2022, the Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the decision that had protected abortion rights for nearly 50 years. That move, which followed the appointment of several conservative justices in recent years, signaled a shift in how the Court may handle culturally significant cases.

Justice Clarence Thomas has previously indicated an openness to reconsidering past decisions like Obergefell. In a 2020 opinion, he criticized the ruling and suggested that the Court should revisit its approach to recognizing certain constitutional rights.

The petition submitted by Davis’s legal team urges the Court to reconsider the use of substantive due process, the constitutional doctrine that was central to the Obergefell decision. It argues that this legal reasoning creates “atextual constitutional rights” and imposes a burden on religious Americans who oppose same-sex marriage.

The petition also includes a proposed path forward: if the Court overturns Obergefell, marriage laws would revert to state control, while same-sex marriages performed since the ruling would remain legally recognized under a “grandfather” clause.

Some legal scholars acknowledge that the Court may use the case to reinforce religious liberty protections. Daniel Urman, a law professor at Northeastern University, told Newsweek that a conservative majority might aim to “expand the rights of religious objectors” without fully undoing the right to same-sex marriage.

“That’s very different from reversing Obergefell,” Urman explained. “The public broadly supports same-sex marriage now, and it’s become a part of American life. I don’t see a majority of the justices ready to walk that back.”

Paul Collins, a legal and political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, echoed that sentiment. He noted that the real issue in the case is not the constitutionality of same-sex marriage itself, but rather the damages awarded to a couple whose rights were violated by a public official.

“This case is fundamentally about emotional damages resulting from a clerk’s refusal to issue a marriage license,” Collins said. “It’s not the ideal case for challenging a constitutional right like marriage equality.”

The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will hear Davis’s appeal. If it does, the outcome could have significant implications not only for the future of same-sex marriage rights but also for the balance between religious liberty and anti-discrimination protections in America.