Supreme Court declines Kim Davis appeal, leaving same‑sex marriage precedent intact — and signaling the limits of the current Court’s appetite to revisit Obergefell
On Monday, November 10, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s petition asking the justices to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that recognized a constitutional right to same‑sex marriage nationwide. The denial lets stand a Sixth Circuit decision upholding damages against Davis and, more broadly, indicates the Court is not presently inclined to reopen Obergefell despite its 6–3 conservative majority. [1]
- SCOTUS denied cert in Davis v. Ermold, leaving Obergefell undisturbed and a lower‑court damages award intact. [2]
- The Sixth Circuit held Davis was liable for violating couples’ constitutional rights; her Free Exercise defense failed because she acted as a state official. [3]
- Even if Obergefell were ever narrowed, federal law now compels interstate recognition of marriages via the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA). [4]
What the Court did — and did not — decide
The justices denied review of Davis’s petition arising from Ermold v. Davis, a case in which a federal jury awarded $100,000 to a same‑sex couple Davis refused to license in 2015; subsequent fee awards brought her total liability to roughly $360,000. The denial leaves the judgment intact and signals no appetite to revisit Obergefell. News accounts note the Court acted without comment, a common practice in cert denials. [5]
In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that Davis violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and rejected her arguments for qualified immunity and a Free Exercise defense, emphasizing that First Amendment protections do not shield state officials from liability when acting under color of law. [6]
- Obergefell remains the controlling constitutional precedent nationwide.
- Public opinion has stabilized at roughly seven in ten Americans supporting legal same‑sex marriage, shaping the political incentives around future challenges. [7]
The legal posture: Davis’s claims and the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning
From clerk counter to the Supreme Court’s doorstep
David Ermold and David Moore sued Davis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after she refused to issue them a marriage license following Obergefell. A jury awarded each $50,000 for emotional distress; a second couple in a parallel case received no damages. The Sixth Circuit’s published opinion upheld liability and the jury’s award. [8]
Why the First Amendment argument failed
The Sixth Circuit held that Davis could not invoke a Free Exercise defense to shield conduct taken as a government actor; the court also found Kentucky’s RFRA inapplicable and concluded that the plaintiffs’ detailed testimony supported the damages verdict. [9]
“Advising plaintiffs to ‘go someplace else’ to marry compounded the stigma,” the Sixth Circuit wrote, explaining why relocation did not cure the constitutional injury. [10]
What Monday’s denial means for policy and politics
| What the denial DOES | What the denial DOES NOT do |
|---|---|
| Leaves Obergefell fully intact nationwide. [11] | Issue any merits ruling on Obergefell’s correctness or future. [12] |
| Affirms, by inaction, that public officials cannot claim religious exemptions to deny licenses. [13] | Foreclose future religious‑liberty claims in different factual settings. [14] |
| Leaves in place damages and attorney’s fees against Davis. [15] | Resolve broader questions about conflicts between RFMA and contrary state laws if Obergefell were ever limited. [16] |
How federal statute now interacts with constitutional doctrine
In 2022, Congress enacted the Respect for Marriage Act, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and codifying federal recognition of any marriage valid where celebrated. Critically, RFMA also obliges states to give full faith and credit to out‑of‑state marriages without regard to sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. It does not, however, require states to issue new licenses if the constitutional right recognized in Obergefell were ever curtailed. [17]
Legal scholars note that under RFMA, even a hypothetical reversal of Obergefell would not erase recognition of existing or out‑of‑state marriages, though couples in some states might need to travel to obtain licenses. [18]
State‑level landscape: repeals, “dormant” bans, and ongoing politics
California’s constitutional clean‑up
Voters approved Proposition 3 (2024), repealing defunct anti‑marriage language and affirmatively protecting the right to marry in the state constitution. [19]
Colorado repeal and follow‑on statute
Colorado voters repealed the state’s marriage ban in 2024 (Amendment J), and lawmakers updated statutes in 2025 to align with that change. [20]
Many states still have unenforceable bans
Policy maps show a patchwork: numerous state constitutional or statutory bans remain on the books but are dormant under Obergefell; repeal efforts vary. [21]
Public opinion and the political calculus 🗳️
Gallup’s 2025 Values and Beliefs polling places national support for legal same‑sex marriage around 69–71%, near record highs. While partisan divides have widened, the broad, durable majority helps explain why the Court may see little institutional reason to reopen Obergefell and why many state‑level efforts now focus on symbolic resolutions or statutory “clean‑ups.” [22]
Stakeholders react
Liberty Counsel, which represents Davis, has long argued the case presents novel First Amendment questions and has urged the Court to overturn Obergefell; Monday’s denial closes that route for now. [23]
Mainstream coverage emphasized that the justices declined to revisit same‑sex marriage a decade after Obergefell, underscoring the Court’s current reluctance to relitigate the issue. [24]
What to watch next
Legal bottom line ⚖️
Obergefell remains binding nationwide. The Sixth Circuit’s reasoning—that public officials cannot use personal religious beliefs to deny constitutional rights—stands as controlling law in that circuit and persuasive elsewhere. [25]
Policy bottom line
RFMA now provides a statutory backstop on recognition of existing and out‑of‑state marriages. Future friction, if any, is likelier to arise in narrow contexts (e.g., scope of religious‑liberty defenses for private entities) rather than wholesale challenges to marriage itself. [26]
Political implications 📊
With public support stable near 70%, national candidates risk political costs for foregrounding repeal. Expect continued state‑level repeal of dormant bans and targeted litigation over ancillary issues, not a frontal Supreme Court challenge. [27]
Methodology and sourcing notes
This analysis draws on primary legal documents (Sixth Circuit opinion and federal docket materials), contemporaneous reporting from national outlets on November 10, 2025, and statutory text from Congress.gov for RFMA. Where advocacy organizations’ materials are cited, they are used to reflect their positions or provide procedural context and are cross‑checked against court records or major media. [28]
References
- Associated Press, “Supreme Court rejects call to overturn same‑sex marriage ruling,” Nov. 10, 2025. [29]
- Reuters, “US Supreme Court rejects bid to overturn same‑sex marriage right,” Nov. 10, 2025. [30]
- Washington Post, “Supreme Court won’t hear challenge to landmark gay marriage ruling,” Nov. 10, 2025. [31]
- Ermold v. Davis, 130 F.4th 553 (6th Cir. 2025) — opinion and case summary. [32]
- Respect for Marriage Act (Public Law 117‑228), text and CRS summary, Congress.gov. [33]
- SCOTUSblog preview and timing note on Davis petition conference. [34]
- Gallup Values & Beliefs polling (2025) on support for same‑sex marriage. [35]
- California Proposition 3 (2024) and Colorado Amendment J (2024) materials. [36]
- MAP (Movement Advancement Project) background on state‑level bans. [37]
Bottom line for readers
Today’s cert denial does not rewrite constitutional law so much as it confirms the status quo: marriage equality endures, reinforced by both Supreme Court precedent and federal statute. The political energy is shifting from existential fights over marriage itself toward narrower disputes at the intersection of equality and religious liberty—battles that will play out in lower courts, legislatures, and, ultimately, at the ballot box. 🏛️
Comments
0 commentsJoin the discussion below.