The U.S. Supreme Court is deliberating on whether to take up a case initiated by former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who aims to reverse the court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, a pivotal decision that affirmed the right to same-sex marriage throughout the country.
Davis’ legal representative, Matthew Staver, conveyed a sense of hope regarding the court’s willingness to hear the case, as reported by Newsweek.
Conversely, William Powell, the attorney who represented the couple that filed a lawsuit against Davis, issued a statement to Newsweek expressing his confidence that the Supreme Court will agree that Davis’s claims do not warrant further consideration.
The case, initiated by Davis—a former Kentucky clerk who spent six days in jail for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on her religious beliefs—could present a considerable challenge to federal protections for same-sex marriage nearly ten years after the Supreme Court legalized such marriages nationwide.
Certain justices, including Clarence Thomas, have indicated a readiness to revisit this issue in recent years, especially as the court has moved towards a more conservative stance. This shift in conservative alignment on cultural issues was highlighted by the 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, which had ensured abortion rights for many years.
Should the court decide to invalidate the nationwide right to same-sex marriage, the issue would likely return to the states—many of which have not yet enacted laws recognizing such marriages.
In a recently submitted petition to the Supreme Court, Staver contended against same-sex marriage on religious grounds.
He stated that Obergefell was ‘egregiously wrong,’ ‘deeply damaging,’ ‘far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed,’ and set out ‘on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided.’
Davis’ case “provides the perfect opportunity to reexamine substantive due process that ‘lacks any foundation in the Constitution,'” the petition states, according to Newsweek.
“This erroneous opinion has led to catastrophic outcomes, leaving individuals like Davis ‘find[ing] it increasingly challenging to engage in society without violating Obergefell and its impact on other antidiscrimination laws,'” it continues. “And, until the Court reconsiders its ‘creation of atextual constitutional rights,’ Obergefell will persist in having devastating effects on religious liberty.'”
The petition indicated that if the court were to annul Obergefell, the power to define marriage rights would return to the states, while same-sex marriages conducted since the ruling would still be legally acknowledged under a grandfather clause.
Staver informed the outlet that he believes the court’s prior ruling on the matter is constitutionally flawed.
“It lacks any grounding in the Constitution,” he remarked. “This is what led to Kim Davis being imprisoned for six days and now facing personal liabilities amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars; it stems from the original Obergefell opinion, and I believe it is time to reassess and overturn it.”
Other legal scholars express skepticism regarding the likelihood of the high court reversing its previous decision.
“There is a possibility that a conservative majority could leverage the case to broaden the rights of religious objectors to same-sex marriage,” Daniel Urman, a law professor at Northeastern University, conveyed to Newsweek.
“However, that does not equate to overturning the right itself, and I do not perceive a majority of the Court prepared to take that step. Culturally, same-sex marriage has become ingrained in American society, and it continues to enjoy popularity in public opinion surveys,” he added.
Paul Collins, a professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, conveyed to Newsweek that while Davis aspires to utilize the case as a vehicle to abolish same-sex marriage, that is not necessarily the case.