by Worthy News Washington D.C. Bureau Staff
(Worthy News) – Ten years after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the justices will soon decide whether to revisit — and potentially overturn — that historic ruling.
Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who in 2015 spent six days in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, is appealing a federal jury’s verdict ordering her to pay $100,000 in damages plus $260,000 in attorneys’ fees. In a petition filed last month, Davis argues that the First Amendment’s protections for the free exercise of religion shield her from personal liability and, more broadly, that the court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges was “egregiously wrong.”
“The mistake must be corrected,” her attorney, Mathew Staver, wrote in the petition, calling Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion “legal fiction.” Davis is widely seen as one of the few individuals with standing to directly challenge the precedent, making this petition the first formal request since 2015 for the high court to reconsider Obergefell.
Lower courts have rejected Davis’ claims, with a federal appeals court ruling earlier this year that she could not use the First Amendment as a defense because she was acting as a state official. “Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis’s rehearing petition,” said William Powell, attorney for David Ermold and David Moore, the Kentucky couple who sued Davis. “We are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis’s arguments do not merit further attention.”
Davis’ case arrives amid a renewed push by some conservative lawmakers and advocacy groups to roll back same-sex marriage rights. Nine states in 2025 have either introduced bills aimed at blocking new marriage licenses for LGBTQ couples or passed resolutions urging the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell.
In June, the Southern Baptist Convention voted to make reversing such rulings a top priority, citing “God’s design for marriage and family.”
When Obergefell was decided, 35 states had bans on same-sex marriage, while only eight explicitly allowed it. Both Chief Justice John Roberts and the late Justice Antonin Scalia dissented in 2015, warning of threats to democracy and religious liberty.
The Supreme Court is expected to consider Davis’ petition in a private conference this fall. If accepted, the case could be argued in spring 2026 and decided by the end of June that year. The court could also decline review, leaving the lower court’s ruling — and Obergefell — intact.
With today’s 6-3 conservative majority, the justices now face a consequential choice: reaffirm or revisit one of the most significant civil rights decisions of the 21st century.
We’re being CENSORED … HELP get the WORD OUT! SHARE!!!Latest Worthy News
Netanyahu Urges Iranians to Rise Against Regime, Pledges Israeli Help for Water Crisis in a Free Iran Hostility Against U.S. Churches Remains Historically High in 2024, New FRC Report Finds Supreme Court Asked to Reverse Same-Sex Marriage Decision in Kim Davis Case Federal Judge Partially Blocks Arkansas Ten Commandments Classroom Display Law Trump Extends Tariff Truce With China for 90 Days, Buys Time for Trade Talks Israel Says It Killed Al Jazeera Reporter Linked to Hamas (Worthy News Investigation) Democrats Hit Record Low Approval Among Own Voters as Party Struggles Post-2024 Russian Forces Push Into Eastern Ukraine Ahead of Trump-Putin Summit U.S. Inflation Holds Steady in July as Tariff Impact Remains Limited
Fair Use Notice:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Categories US News
