Kentucky Clerk Petitions Supreme Court to Overturn Landmark Same-Sex Marriage Decision

Image Courtesy Ty Wright| Getty Images (C) 2025 All Rights Reserved

Legal Analysis: Kim Davis’s Petition to Overturn Obergefell v. Hodges

Somerset, Kentucky (SPA)---A decade after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), decision establishing same-sex marriage as a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the Court is being asked anew to overturn that landmark precedent. Kim Davis, the former Rowan County, Kentucky clerk, has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in Davis v. Ermold, challenging both the underlying doctrine and the personal liability judgment against her.

The following is our analysis of this case and what it may mean if the Supreme Court overturns the decision.

Background & Procedural Posture

     In 2015, Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing her religious convictions, and was briefly jailed for contempt of court. Following lower-court rulings and litigation, a jury ordered her to pay $100,000 in emotional-distress damages and approximately $260,000 in attorneys’ fees. The Sixth Circuit upheld the judgment, finding, inter alia, that Davis could not assert a personal First Amendment defense while performing a state actor’s duties. Davis now seeks review by the Supreme Court, challenging both the damage judgment and the constitutional foundation of Obergefell itself.

Legal Grounds & Arguments

1. First Amendment Defense
   Davis argues that as a public official, she should retain personal First Amendment protections—including the Free Exercise Clause—against emotional-distress liability. She contends that she was penalized solely for exercising religious beliefs, even absent actual damages, and analogizes to Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), to argue for that defense in cases of speech-related emotional distress (Liberty Counsel).
2. Overturning Obergefell
   More fundamentally, Davis’s petition challenges Obergefell as an erroneous expansion of substantive due process—a “legal fiction” lacking constitutional support, according to her attorneys Mat Staver and Liberty Counsel. The petition invokes Justice Thomas’s concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), calling for reconsideration of substantive due process precedents including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell (Liberty Counsel, Joe.My.God., PinkNews, Charisma Magazine Online).

Countervailing Considerations

• Lower Courts and Legal Opinions
  Lower courts uniformly rejected Davis's First Amendment defense, concluding that her function as a government official precludes such protections from shielding state-mandated duties. Legal experts widely view her petition as a long shot (Them, Liberty Counsel, San Francisco Chronicle).
• Public Sentiment & Statutory Protections
  Public support for same-sex marriage remains robust—Gallup and other surveys report majority backing even in 2025—with a plateau near 70% (AP News). Moreover, the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act mandates universal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages across states, insulating existing unions even if judicial precedent changes (San Francisco Chronicle, AP News).
• Supreme Court's Institutional Stability
  Despite the Court’s conservative shift, commentators note Chief Justice Roberts and others prioritize legal stability and institutional legitimacy, making a reversal of Obergefell unlikely absent a compelling, broadly accepted basis (San Francisco Chronicle).

Outlook & Procedural Forecast

The Supreme Court will privately consider the petition in its upcoming fall conference. Four votes are necessary to grant certiorari. If granted, oral argument may occur in spring 2026, with a decision potentially by the end of June. A denial would leave the current precedent intact (Them, Wikipedia, AP News).

Conclusion

Davis’s petition raises provocative questions regarding religious liberty, public-office liability, and the doctrinal foundations of Obergefell. Yet, entrenched public support, legislative safeguards, and institutional caution significantly mitigate the likelihood of a successful challenge. The case, should it be heard, would reignite profound debates over constitutional rights and the role of the judiciary in social evolution.

*******