The US Supreme Court is considering whether to take up a long-shot appeal that asks it to overturn the landmark 2015 ruling which legalised same-sex marriage across the country.
The case centres on Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Rowan County, Kentucky, who in 2015 refused to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples after the Obergefell v Hodges decision. Davis cited her religious beliefs and instructed staff in her office not to process licences for same-sex couples. Her refusal drew national attention and led to her being briefly jailed for contempt of court.
Two men, David Ermold and David Moore, who were denied a licence by Davis, later sued her for violating their constitutional rights. A jury awarded the couple $100,000 in damages for emotional distress, and a federal judge ordered Davis to pay a further $260,000 in legal fees and costs. Appeals courts have repeatedly rejected her arguments that she is protected from liability by the First Amendment and by religious freedom laws.
Davis, represented by conservative legal group Liberty Counsel, has now petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn both the damages ruling and Obergefell itself. Her legal team argues that the 2015 marriage equality decision was “egregiously wrong” and that public officials should not be forced to act against their religious convictions when carrying out their duties.
In her filing to the Court, Davis maintains that her stance was a matter of conscience. “I could not in good faith authorize a marriage that conflicts with God’s definition of marriage,” she said, insisting that her religious beliefs should have shielded her from personal liability.
The justices are scheduled to discuss the case, known as Ermold v Davis, in a private conference. It would take at least four of the nine justices to agree to hear the appeal. Legal experts widely view the challenge as unlikely to succeed, noting that the Court is not obliged to take the case and may choose to leave Obergefell intact while allowing the damages judgment against Davis to stand.
However, the petition is being closely watched by LGBTQ+ advocates and legal scholars. It is the first time since 2015 that the Supreme Court has been formally asked to revisit the core ruling that marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to same-sex couples. Campaigners warn that even entertaining such a challenge sends a worrying signal, coming in the wake of other decisions seen as curbing LGBT+ protections and rolling back long-standing precedents.
If the Court were to accept the case and ultimately reverse or weaken Obergefell, it could throw the status of hundreds of thousands of existing same-sex marriages into uncertainty and reopen fundamental questions about equality under US law. For now, the outcome hinges on whether the justices decide this is a dispute about one former clerk’s liability – or an opportunity to re-examine the legal foundations of marriage equality itself.