On November 10, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court quietly but decisively declined to hear a challenge that could have upended the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The move—issued without comment or explanation, as is customary—offered a temporary sigh of relief to millions of Americans whose rights and families have hung in the balance amid a shifting legal and political landscape.
The case at the center of this latest chapter in the nation’s ongoing debate over marriage equality was brought by Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky. Davis became a household name in 2015 when, citing her Apostolic Christian faith, she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling. Her refusal led to a wave of lawsuits, a six-day jail stint for contempt of court, and, eventually, a series of costly civil judgments against her.
According to Reuters, Davis argued in her latest appeal that the Obergefell decision was “egregiously wrong” and that her actions were protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom. She sought to overturn not only the damages she owed—over $360,000 in total—but also the precedent that had settled the question of marriage equality for a decade. Yet, as the Supreme Court turned away her petition, the constitutional right to same-sex marriage remained intact, at least for now.
For LGBTQ+ advocates and many Americans, the Court’s refusal to revisit Obergefell was cause for celebration, but also for continued vigilance. Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the historic case, told Axios that the Court “did the right thing” in rejecting Davis’s request. “Marriage equality has given couples and families the rights, protections, and dignity they deserve. Queer kids can dream of a future, married to the person they love in the place they call home,” Obergefell stated. Still, he cautioned, “we should not assume marriage equality will stand forever,” acknowledging concerns that future challenges could bring the issue back before a more ideologically conservative bench.
These anxieties are not without foundation. The Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the federal constitutional right to abortion, sent shockwaves through the legal community and reignited fears that other landmark rulings—like Obergefell—could be next. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion in Dobbs, explicitly suggested that the Court should reconsider its precedents on same-sex marriage, contraception, and same-sex intimacy. Although none of the other justices joined Thomas in that call, his comments have kept the issue simmering. As NBC News reported, “some LGBTQ activists have pointed to conservative Justice Clarence Thomas’ suggestion in his concurring opinion in the decision overturning Roe that Obergefell and some other cases should also be revisited as a cause for concern.”
Meanwhile, the political landscape in many states remains volatile. According to NPR, at least nine states in 2025 have introduced bills or resolutions seeking to limit marriage to heterosexual couples or criticizing the Obergefell ruling. Notably, on October 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of Texas adopted language allowing judges to refuse to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies on religious grounds. These state-level maneuvers underscore the fragility of rights that many had assumed were settled.
Should the Supreme Court ever overturn Obergefell, the consequences would be immediate and profound. More than two dozen states have so-called “trigger laws” that would curtail marriage equality if the federal precedent fell. However, as NPR and Axios highlighted, the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act—signed into law by President Joe Biden—offers a federal backstop, requiring states to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages performed elsewhere. Even so, the patchwork of protections would likely lead to a complicated and painful legal quagmire for families caught in the crossfire.
Kim Davis’s legal odyssey began in 2015, when she refused to issue a marriage license to David Moore and David Ermold, a same-sex couple seeking to wed in Rowan County. After a federal judge ordered her to comply, Davis defied the injunction and was jailed. While she was behind bars, Moore and Ermold obtained their license, but the legal battle was far from over. A jury ultimately awarded the couple $100,000 in damages, and Davis was ordered to pay an additional $260,000 in attorney’s fees. Davis’s appeals, which centered on her claim to religious liberty, were rejected by both the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
“Davis cannot use her own constitutional rights as a shield to violate the constitutional rights of others while performing her duties as an elected official,” wrote U.S. District Judge David Bunning in a 2022 ruling, as quoted by Reuters. The 6th Circuit echoed this sentiment, concluding that the First Amendment’s protections apply to private conduct, not the actions of government officials carrying out their duties.
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and Davis’s attorney, described the Supreme Court’s decision as “heartbreaking” for Davis and for “religious freedom.” He vowed to continue efforts to overturn Obergefell, stating, “Like the abortion decision in Roe v. Wade, Obergefell was egregiously wrong from the start. This opinion has no basis in the constitution.”
On the other side, LGBTQ+ advocates and civil rights organizations welcomed the Court’s action. Kevin Jennings, CEO of Lambda Legal, told NBC News, “Today, the Supreme Court affirmed what we all know: marriage equality is the law of the land.” Mary Bonauto, GLAD Law’s senior director of civil rights and legal strategies, echoed this relief, noting that “millions of Americans can breathe a sigh of relief.” Brian K. Bond, CEO of PFLAG National, emphasized the tangible impacts of marriage equality, saying, “The freedom to say ‘I do’ is more than just love and commitment. It’s also about the right to visit your spouse in the hospital or to make medical decisions. It’s about both parents having legal rights to raise their children. It’s about having access to financial benefits for buying a house or car.”
For now, the Supreme Court’s refusal to take up Kim Davis’s challenge keeps the legal status quo in place. Yet, as recent history has shown, precedent is not always safe from reversal. The future of marriage equality in America may be secure for the moment, but the forces seeking to roll it back remain active and determined. As the case returns to lower courts for the collection of damages, the broader battle over rights, religion, and the role of government continues to play out in legislatures, courtrooms, and communities across the country.
With this latest decision, the Supreme Court has, at least temporarily, reaffirmed the constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples—reminding the nation that, while progress can be hard-won, it is never guaranteed.
