The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up a case that could have reopened the debate over same-sex marriage nationwide, opting not to revisit its 2015 landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which affirmed a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.
The Court quietly rejected an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following Obergefell.
Davis argued that her religious beliefs should shield her from liability. Lower courts disagreed, leaving her responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and legal fees.
The Supreme Court offered no written explanation for denying the appeal—a routine practice, but one that carried added weight given the court’s recent history.
In 2022, the Court overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion. That decision sparked widespread concern among LGBTQ+ advocates that Obergefell might be next.
“Today, love won again,” said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “When public officials take an oath to serve their communities, that promise extends to everyone — including LGBTQ+ people. The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences.”
Civil liberties groups and LGBTQ+ advocates viewed the decision as a relief, but not necessarily a guarantee of long-term stability. The Court’s current 6–3 conservative majority is far more ideologically different than the Court that decided Obergefell nearly a decade ago.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the Obergefell opinion, retired in 2018. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, another key supporter of the ruling, died in 2020. Both were replaced by conservative justices.
Still, the Court’s move signals, at least for now, a willingness to let the precedent stand.
Meanwhile, Davis’s legal team insisted the fight is not over.
“Obergefell was egregiously wrong from the start,” said Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, who represented Davis. “We will continue to work to overturn it. It is not a matter of if, but when.”
