US Supreme Court to consider hearing case to overturn same-sex marriage ruling

The Supreme Court of the United States is facing a decision over whether to hear a case, presented by former county clerk Kim Davis, which would explicitly ask it to overturn same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court is facing a choice whether to take up an appeal by former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, urging it to overturn its landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, which legalised same-sex marriage across the United States.

Davis spent six days in jail in 2015, after she refused to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, even though the ruling had passed.

She is appealing for a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages and $260,000 for attorneys fees – but if the case is considered, it could represent a threat to federal protections for same-sex marriage.

As written by Davis’ attorney Mat Staver in a petition to SCOTUS, the appeal will be based on various religious objections to same-sex marriage, and argue that it is at odds with the American Constitution.

“Obergefell was ‘egregiously wrong,‘ ‘deeply damaging,’ ‘far outside the bound 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,'” Staver wrote.

The petition reads that Davis’ case, which was filed last month, “presents the ideal opportunity to revisit substantive due process that ‘lacks any basis in the Constitution.'”

“This flawed opinion has produced disastrous results leaving individuals like Davis ‘find[ing] it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws,'” it continues.

“And, until the Court revisits its ‘creation of atextual constitutional rights,’ Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'”

In short, Davis is attempting to use the case as a vehicle to overturn same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court denied a similar appeal filed by Davis in 2020.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal, and subsequently overturns Obergefell v. Hodges, decisions on legalising same-sex marriage would return to individual states, as with the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

For decades, Roe v. Wade guaranteed nationwide abortion rights. Many states have not yet legalised same-sex marriage.

The filing says that any same-sex couples who married since the ruling would be grandfathered, meaning they would remain married.

Staver told Newsweek that he believes it’s time to “reevaluate [Obergefell v. Hodges] and overturn it,” and that the original ruling is “weak on shaky ground.”

William Powell, the attorney for the couple that sued Davis in 2015, wrote in a statement to Newsweek that he is “confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis’s arguments do not merit further attention.”

Law professor at Northeastern University Daniel Urman similarly told the publication that while “There’s a chance that a conservative majority could use the case to expand the rights of religious objectors to same-sex marriage,”… “that’s not the same as overturning the right itself, and I don’t see a majority of the Court ready to do that.

“Culturally, same-sex marriage has become embedded in American life, and it is still popular in public opinion polls.”

The Supreme Court could make a decision on whether to accept the case in the coming month, but has not publicly stated which way it is inclined.

It currently sits at a 6-3 conservative-liberal majority, with three of the Justices (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett) appointed by President Donald Trump, and three (John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) appointed by G. W. Bush.

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were appointed by Obama, and Ketanji Brown Jackson by Biden.

Jim Obergefell himself, the lead plaintiff in the landmark same-sex marriage ruling, recently warned that same-sex unions would be “erased” under Trump’s second presidency.

Share your thoughts! Let us know in the comments below, and remember to keep the conversation respectful.