Supreme Court Weighs Challenge to Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
On November 7, 2025, the Supreme Court held a private conference to consider a petition from former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis requesting the Court overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 decision that established same-sex marriage rights nationwide. While legal experts consider her appeal unlikely to succeed, the case has triggered concerns among LGBTQ advocates about the Court’s willingness to revisit established precedent, particularly after the justices overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. For more on related LGBTQ legal developments, see our coverage of the Respect for Marriage Act.
Davis is asking the Court to reverse both the 2015 Obergefell decision and a lower court ruling requiring her to pay $360,000 in damages and attorney fees to David Ermold and David Moore.
The Case Timeline
Obergefell v. Hodges Decision
The Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry nationwide.
Davis Denies Licenses
Kim Davis, Rowan County Clerk in Kentucky, refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples citing religious objections.
Davis Jailed for Contempt
Federal judge orders Davis to jail for five days (September 3–8) after she continues refusing to issue licenses despite court orders.
Jury Awards Damages
Federal jury awards David Ermold and David Moore $50,000 each ($100,000 total) in emotional damages for being denied a marriage license.
District Court Final Judgment
District court enters final judgment in favor of Ermold and Moore, with attorney fees adding approximately $260,000 to the total amount owed.
Prior SCOTUS Petition Denied
Supreme Court denies Davis’s earlier petition. Justices Thomas and Alito issue a statement respecting the denial.
Sixth Circuit Affirms Judgment
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (No. 24-5524) affirms the district court’s judgment and damages award.
Supreme Court Conference
Justices hold private conference to vote on whether to hear Davis’s petition (Case No. 25-125). Decision expected by November 10, 2025.
Public Opinion and Marriage Equality Data
Current Case Details
Petitioner
Kim Davis, former Rowan County Clerk, Kentucky
Respondents
David Ermold and David Moore (same-sex couple denied license)
Case Number
Total Amount Owed
$360,000 (damages + attorney fees)
Davis’s Primary Argument
First Amendment religious protections shield her from personal liability
Lower Court Rulings
6th Circuit affirmed district court judgment; no appeals judge supported Davis’s position
What This Case Is About
The Direct Challenge to Obergefell
Davis’s petition directly asks the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. Her attorneys argue the decision was “legal fiction” and call for a “course correction” to “reaffirm the rule of law and the proper role of this Court.”
The Practical Legal Question
The bulk of Davis’s appeal concerns whether the First Amendment’s religious protections should shield her from the $360,000 damages ruling. The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this argument, and no judges expressed support for Davis’s position.
How SCOTUS Makes the Decision
Four justices must vote to grant certiorari (accept the case). However, five votes are needed for a majority outcome on the merits, meaning four votes may not be sufficient if justices cannot agree on a fifth vote for their preferred outcome.
Kentucky Law Change
In response to Davis’s refusal to include her name on marriage licenses, Kentucky amended state law in 2016 (SB 216) to remove all county clerk names from marriage licenses.
What Justices Have Publicly Said
Justice Samuel Alito, one of the Court’s most conservative members and an Obergefell dissenter, has discussed concerns about the decision’s consistency with originalist legal philosophy while noting that it is “a precedent of the court that is entitled to the respect afforded by the doctrine of stare decisis”—the legal principle emphasizing adherence to established precedent.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett has discussed reliance interests in public remarks, noting the importance of the legal foundations established over the decade since Obergefell, which include matters of child custody, healthcare decisions, and financial planning for same-sex couples.
Justice Clarence Thomas remains the only sitting justice who has publicly called for Obergefell to be reconsidered. In a 2020 statement joined by Justice Samuel Alito, Thomas argued that Obergefell “created a problem that only it can fix.”
State-Level Legislative Activity in 2025
At least nine states in the first half of 2025 introduced legislation aimed at blocking new marriage licenses for LGBTQ people or passed resolutions urging the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell, according to Lambda Legal. For Vatican developments on this topic, see our recent analysis of Pope Francis and same-sex blessings.
Recent example: On October 24, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court amended the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, adding a comment to Canon 4 stating: “It is not a violation of these canons for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief.”
These state-level actions reflect a coordinated effort by conservative opponents of same-sex marriage to build legal momentum and cases for potential challenges to Obergefell.
Federal Protections for Existing Marriages
The Respect for Marriage Act (2022)
In 2022, Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act with bipartisan support. The law requires the U.S. federal government and all states to recognize legal same-sex and interracial marriages performed in any state, regardless of any future change in constitutional doctrine. This means that if Obergefell were overturned, existing same-sex marriages would not be invalidated. Learn more about how this bill passed the Senate.
Why Legal Experts Consider This a Longshot
No lower court support: Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit showed interest in Davis’s rehearing petition. Attorney William Powell, representing the respondents, argued that Davis’s case “does not merit this Court’s review,” calling it “a relatively easy case” where Davis’s policy “went beyond anything she arguably had a right to do” given her role as the sole government official tasked with issuing licenses.
Justices’ public statements: Conservative justices have discussed stare decisis and reliance interests in general; none has announced a vote to revisit Obergefell.
Political climate: While opposition to same-sex marriage remains among some religious groups, public support for marriage equality remains strong at 69%, and Congress has protected such marriages through federal legislation.
Court procedure mechanics: Davis needs four votes to grant certiorari but five for a favorable outcome on the merits. If only four justices want to hear the case but cannot secure a fifth vote for their preferred outcome, the petition will not be accepted.
What Happens Next
Expected Timeline
The Supreme Court typically announces its decisions on conference votes by Monday following the private Friday meeting. A ruling on the Davis petition is expected by November 10, 2025.
If Petition Is Held for Opinion
When the Court holds a petition and one or more justices write opinions about the denial, it typically signals disagreement among the justices about whether to hear the case—a sign of internal division on the merits.
If Petition Is Accepted
If four or more justices vote to hear the case, the Court would schedule oral arguments for a future term. A decision on the merits would likely take months or years to resolve.
If Petition Is Denied
If the petition is denied, Davis’s damages obligation to Ermold and Moore stands. The lower court ruling becomes final, and the broader question of Obergefell’s constitutionality remains unresolved at the Supreme Court level.
The Broader Legal Campaign
Liberty Counsel, the legal organization representing Davis, has argued in court filings that Obergefell should be overturned. The organization’s petition and reply brief explicitly request that the Supreme Court reverse the decision. This reflects a broader conservative legal strategy to challenge established LGBTQ rights precedents through multiple cases over time—similar to the successful decades-long effort that ultimately led to overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Civil rights organizations are monitoring the situation. Mary Bonauto, a veteran civil rights attorney at GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) who argued the Obergefell case, emphasized: “I’m not taking my eye off this issue, and neither is my organization. You can never really rest on your laurels because other forces just don’t give up.”
Current Status
The Supreme Court reviewed Kim Davis’s petition during its private conference on November 7, 2025, as part of its routine case review process. The petition requested the justices overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and reverse a lower court’s damages ruling against Davis. Public statements from sitting justices, legal filings from both parties, and statements from civil rights groups outlined differing perspectives on constitutional precedent, religious liberty, and established legal protections. The Court’s action on the petition follows established procedures for certiorari review, with an expected announcement by November 10, 2025. For more Supreme Court developments, read our coverage of recent SCOTUS decisions and analysis of constitutional freedoms.
