SCOTUS FOCUS
Will the Supreme Court revisit its ruling on same-sex marriage?

By Amy Howe
on Aug 13, 2025

In 2015, shortly after the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, a local county clerk from Kentucky made national headlines when she refused on religious grounds to issue a marriage license to a gay couple, David Moore and David Ermold. That clerk, Kim Davis, is back in the news again this summer, this time because she has asked the justices to overturn their 2015 decision. Although, as a statistical matter, Davis may face tough odds on convincing the Supreme Court to grant review, the real question is whether there are four votes to revisit Obergefell (and five to overrule it).

In 2015, Davis was the clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. Her job description included issuing licenses – such as marriage licenses – to county residents. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell, Kentucky’s governor at the time, Steve Beshear, sent a letter to the clerks in all of the state’s counties, directing them to “license and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples.”

Although a county attorney told Davis that she would be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Davis opted instead to stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone – gay or straight. While this moratorium was in effect, Davis refused to issue a marriage license to Moore and Ermold. She told the couple that she was acting “under God’s authority” and that they could get a marriage license in a different county.

{snip}

Earlier this year, the 6th Circuit rejected Davis’ appeal. It reasoned that Davis is protected by the First Amendment when she is a private citizen, but she was acting on behalf of the government when she denied Moore and Ermold’s marriage license – an action that was not protected by the First Amendment. The court of appeals acknowledged that in Obergefell the Supreme Court observed that “many people ‘deem same-sex marriage to be wrong’ based on ‘religious or philosophical premises.’” “But those opposed to same-sex marriage,” the court of appeals wrote, “do not have a right to transform their ‘personal opposition’ into ‘enacted law and public policy.’” “The Bill of Rights,” the court stated, “would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates.”

{snip}

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Will the Supreme Court revisit its ruling on same-sex marriage?, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 13, 2025, 1:19 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/08/will-the-supreme-court-revisit-its-ruling-on-same-sex-marriage/