United States Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Overturn Landmark Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, Upholding Obergefell v. Hodges

 

Washington, D.C. – November 11, 2025 – In a swift and unceremonious decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to revisit its groundbreaking 2015 ruling that established a nationwide constitutional right to same-sex marriage, effectively preserving the landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges for at least the foreseeable future. The court's refusal to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk infamous for defying the ruling a decade ago, came without comment or dissent, quashing fears among LGBTQ+ advocates that the conservative-majority bench might dismantle one of the most significant civil rights victories of the modern era.

The nine justices turned away Davis's petition on Monday as part of their routine order list, leaving intact a lower-court ruling that requires her to pay approximately $360,000 in damages and attorney's fees to David Moore and David Ermold, the same-sex couple she denied a marriage license in 2015. Davis's legal team had tacked onto the appeal a bold request to overturn Obergefell entirely, arguing that the decision violated religious freedoms and lacked firm constitutional grounding. While the core of the case centered on whether Davis could claim a post-hoc religious exemption from liability as a private citizen, the inclusion of the Obergefell challenge elevated it to a flashpoint in ongoing debates over marriage equality and the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court's action reaffirms the 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, authored by the late Justice Anthony Kennedy, which held that the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses guarantee same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry. That ruling ended a patchwork of state laws, legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states and territories, and has since enabled millions of couples to wed, adopt children, and build families under federal recognition. Legal experts note that even if the court had taken up the case and overturned Obergefell, same-sex marriages performed to date would likely remain valid under the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act, signed by President Joe Biden, which codifies federal protections for both same-sex and interracial unions. However, reversal could have empowered states to halt new licenses or refuse recognition of out-of-state marriages, reigniting the pre-2015 era of legal uncertainty.

Davis's saga dates back to the summer of 2015, when the Obergefell decision was handed down on June 26. As the elected clerk of Rowan County in eastern Kentucky, a deeply conservative region, Davis cited her deeply held Christian beliefs as grounds for refusing to issue any marriage licenses—not just to same-sex couples, but to all applicants—for five months. Her defiance thrust her into the national spotlight, drawing crowds of supporters waving signs invoking religious liberty and opponents decrying discrimination. Davis, who had undergone a religious conversion while in prison years earlier, framed her stance as a stand against government overreach into personal faith, telling reporters, "God's law is above man's law."

The standoff escalated quickly. U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning issued an injunction ordering Davis to comply, but she persisted, leading to her arrest on September 3, 2015, on charges of contempt of court. She spent five days in the Carter County Jail, becoming a folk hero to some in the religious right and a symbol of resistance for conservative figures like then-presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who rallied outside the facility. Upon her release, Davis's deputies—acting under her authorization but without her direct involvement—began issuing licenses with her name redacted from the forms. In response, the Kentucky General Assembly passed legislation in 2016 amending the state's marriage license forms to remove the clerk's name entirely, a procedural workaround that neutralized future conflicts without addressing the underlying constitutional issues.

Moore and Ermold, a couple together since 1999, sued Davis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating their civil rights, securing a $100,000 damages award in 2022 and an additional $260,000 in fees from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2025. The appeals court ruled that Davis's actions as a public official did not entitle her to a religious defense against personal liability, emphasizing that "government officials are not free to disregard plain statutory or constitutional commands" even when motivated by faith. Davis's attorneys, from the conservative Liberty Counsel, argued before the Supreme Court that this precedent chills religious expression and that Obergefell itself was an unconstitutional overreach, unworthy of stare decisis—the doctrine of respecting prior rulings.

The petition's shadow loomed large over the court's conservative wing. Justice Clarence Thomas, the sole dissenter in Obergefell still vocally advocating for its reversal, has repeatedly questioned the decision's foundations. In a 2022 concurrence to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, Thomas called Obergefell "one of many" precedents "demonstrably erroneous" and urged the court to "reconsider" it, alongside cases on contraception and sodomy laws. Davis's lawyers leaned heavily on Thomas's words, portraying her case as the "stark reminder" he referenced in a 2018 denial of her earlier certiorari bid. Chief Justice John Roberts, who penned the Obergefell dissent warning of "consequences for the court's authority," has remained largely mum on the issue since, though his vote was pivotal in upholding the decision in related cases. Justice Samuel Alito, another original dissenter, has critiqued Obergefell as "an act of usurpation" in speeches but recently clarified he is not pushing for its immediate reversal.

Newer conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, confirmed in 2020, has articulated a nuanced view on precedent. In a 2024 interview, she acknowledged the court's power to "correct mistakes," as in Dobbs, but distinguished Obergefell due to widespread reliance interests—millions of marriages, adoptions, and family structures built over the past decade. "Stare decisis isn't as rigid in constitutional cases, but it's not toothless," Barrett said, suggesting that unlike abortion, where no analogous reliance existed, upending same-sex marriage could cause "chaos" for families. Legal scholars like Notre Dame's Richard Garnett described Davis's petition as a "minor, fact-bound" vehicle unlikely to sway the court, predicting it would fizzle without review.

Reactions poured in swiftly. Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, hailed the denial as a "clear message" that defying constitutional rights carries consequences. "The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences," Robinson stated, echoing broader relief from advocates who had mobilized amid post-Dobbs anxieties. Mary Bonauto, the GLAD attorney who argued Obergefell, called it a "decisive rejection" of efforts to erode equality. On the other side, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel vowed persistence, declaring, "It is not a matter of IF but WHEN Obergefell will be overturned."

The decision arrives against a tense backdrop. In 2025 alone, at least nine states—primarily in the South and Midwest—have introduced bills to block new same-sex licenses or resolutions urging Obergefell's reversal, per Lambda Legal. The Southern Baptist Convention, America's largest Protestant denomination, passed a measure in June endorsing such efforts, framing them as defenses of "biblical marriage." Polling from Gallup in October 2025 shows public support for same-sex marriage at a record 71%, up from 27% in 1996, underscoring the cultural shift even as legal skirmishes persist.

While Monday's order sets no binding precedent and the court could entertain a cleaner vehicle for review, it signals judicial restraint on this front. For Moore and Ermold, now married 10 years, the ruling closes a painful chapter. "This confirms what we already knew: same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry," their attorney William Powell said. As the nation marks Obergefell's 10th anniversary next June, Davis's rebuff serves as both a safeguard and a reminder of the fragility of progress in America's ongoing culture wars.