The Supreme Court has once again turned away Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk whose refusal to issue a marriage license to a gay couple became a national flashpoint. Her latest bid to challenge the 2015 ruling on same-sex marriage fell flat, leaving a decade-old debate firmly in place.
On Monday, the justices rejected Davis' long-shot appeal to reconsider the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, as reported by the New York Post. The 59-year-old former Rowan County clerk had urged the court to revisit a lower ruling from 2022 that found she violated the constitutional rights of David Ermold and David Moore.
Davis' journey through the legal system began in 2015 when she declined to issue the license, citing her religious beliefs. Her stance led to a five-day jail stint, a decision that turned her into a symbol for some and a stumbling block for others.
Back in July, Davis petitioned the Supreme Court to review the 2022 lower court finding against her. The hefty penalties she faced, including a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages and $260,000 in attorneys’ fees to Ermold and Moore, underscored the personal cost of her stand.
Her legal team at Liberty Counsel argued passionately for a rehearing, stating, “If ever a case deserved review, the first individual who was thrown in jail post-Obergefell for seeking accommodation for her religious beliefs should be it.” While their words carry weight for those who see a clash between faith and law, the reality is that the court’s silence on Monday suggests little appetite to reopen this wound.
The justices’ order gave no hint of internal dissent, though Justice Clarence Thomas has previously signaled openness to revisiting Obergefell. His 2022 opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization hinted at broader skepticism toward judicial overreach in personal rights cases, a thread Davis’ team hoped to pull.
In that 2022 concurrence, Thomas wrote, “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.” His critique of the legal theory behind Obergefell, among other rulings, offers a glimmer of hope to those who view such decisions as unmoored from constitutional text, though it clearly wasn’t enough to sway the full court here.
Substantive due process, the doctrine Thomas targeted, underpins not just same-sex marriage but also past rulings on birth control and consensual private conduct. Questioning it isn’t just academic; it’s a direct challenge to how courts have expanded rights beyond explicit constitutional language, a move many see as judicial activism.
Davis’ case, while personal, taps into this larger unease with unelected judges shaping cultural norms. Her penalties and jail time reflect the steep price of dissent when policy and principle collide, a tension that refuses to fade.
Monday wasn’t the first time the Supreme Court declined to take up Davis’ cause. A prior rejection in 2020 set the tone, signaling that her fight, however symbolic, lacks the traction needed for a full hearing.
Even with four justices required to agree for oral arguments, no indication emerged of such support. This silence leaves Davis and those who share her view with little recourse beyond hoping for a future shift in the court’s makeup or mood.
The broader implications of Obergefell remain untouched by this decision. For now, the 2015 ruling stands as a settled boundary, even if its foundation continues to stir quiet grumbling among some legal minds.
Kim Davis’ saga is more than a legal footnote; it’s a stark reminder of the friction between individual conviction and societal mandates. Her refusal to comply in 2015, followed by years of courtroom battles, paints a picture of a woman caught in a cultural crossfire.
While her penalties sting, they also highlight the system’s insistence on uniformity over personal belief, a stance that rankles those who prioritize religious liberty. Yet, the court’s repeated dismissal of her appeals suggests that this particular fight, however heartfelt, has reached its end.
For Davis and her supporters, the struggle may shift to legislative or local arenas, where the balance of rights can still be debated. As the nation watches these fault lines, the Supreme Court’s latest move signals that some battles, once decided, are unlikely to be refought on its steps.
