Ten years after a controversial court decision reshaped the definition of marriage, the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to slam the brakes on what many conservatives see as judicial overreach.
A decade after the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling mandated nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage, a former Kentucky clerk’s legal battle has brought a direct challenge to overturn that precedent, igniting a firestorm among traditional values advocates, as ABC News reports.
Back in 2015, the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges forced all states to recognize same-sex unions, overturning bans in 35 states while only eight had laws explicitly allowing such marriages at the time. For many on the right, this was less a victory for equality and more a judicial fiat trampling state sovereignty.
Enter Kim Davis, then the Rowan County Clerk in Kentucky, who became a symbol of resistance by refusing to issue marriage licenses to a same-sex couple based on her religious convictions. She spent six days in jail for defying the court order. Her stand resonated with millions who felt their faith was under siege by a progressive agenda.
Davis, as the sole authority for issuing licenses under state law, argued her actions were rooted in deeply held beliefs, not malice. Yet, the couple sued, and a jury hit her with a $100,000 verdict for emotional damages, plus $260,000 in attorneys’ fees. Talk about adding insult to injury for standing on principle.
Fast forward to her latest move: Davis has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, seeking First Amendment protection under the free exercise of religion clause to shield her from personal liability. Her legal team insists the Obergefell ruling was “egregiously wrong” and must be reversed. Finally, someone’s calling out the elephant in the courtroom.
Lower courts, unsurprisingly, dismissed Davis’ claims, with a federal appeals court panel ruling earlier this year that her actions as a state official aren’t shielded by the First Amendment. Her attorney, Mathew Staver, fired back in the petition, declaring, “The mistake must be corrected.” If only the judiciary had such clarity a decade ago.
Staver also argued, “Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell is legal fiction.” That’s a polite way of saying the ruling was a house of cards, built on sentiment rather than constitutional bedrock. Many conservatives nod in agreement, tired of activist judges rewriting tradition.
This petition isn’t just a personal plea; it’s the first formal request to the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell since 2015, and Davis is among the few with legal standing to challenge it. The timing couldn’t be more critical, with a conservative 6-justice supermajority now on the bench, including three Trump appointees. Could this be the moment for a course correction?
The broader context shows a renewed conservative campaign in 2025 to let states reclaim control over marriage policies. At least nine states have introduced measures to block new licenses for LGBTQ couples or passed resolutions urging the reversal of Obergefell, per Lambda Legal. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination, also voted overwhelmingly this year to prioritize overturning such rulings.
Public opinion, though, is a mixed bag -- Gallup data reveals support for same-sex marriage rose from 60% in 2015 to 70% by 2025, yet it has plateaued, and among Republicans, it dropped from 55% to 41% in recent years. Clearly, not everyone’s buying the progressive narrative that this issue is settled. There’s still a fight to be had.
Davis’ petition even cites Justice Clarence Thomas’ 2022 concurrence in the Roe v. Wade reversal, in which he urged reconsideration of Obergefell and other precedents. Thomas wrote, “Should reconsider all… substantive due process precedents.” His words are a rallying cry for those who believe the court overstepped in 2015.
The Supreme Court is set to mull over Davis’ petition in a private conference this fall, deciding whether to take up the case for oral arguments in spring 2026, with a potential ruling by mid-2026. If they pass, the lower court’s ruling against her stands, leaving her on the hook for hundreds of thousands in damages. The stakes couldn’t be higher for Davis -- or for the definition of marriage.
Legal experts caution that even if Obergefell were overturned, existing same-sex marriages -- estimated at 823,000 nationwide, with 591,000 post-2015 per the Williams Institute -- wouldn’t be invalidated thanks to the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act. Still, a reversal would hand states the reins to halt future unions, a move many conservatives would cheer as restoring local control. It’s not about undoing lives; it’s about undoing overreach.
As Chief Justice John Roberts, who dissented in 2015, warned back then, the ruling “creates serious questions about religious liberty.” His foresight rings true today as Davis’ case tests whether faith can coexist with state mandates. For conservatives, this isn’t just a legal battle -- it’s a cultural reckoning worth fighting.
