Kim Davis’ Appeal Challenges Obergefell v. Hodges, Raising Fears for Marriage Equality

August 11, 2025

Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to revisit the contentious issue of same-sex marriage this fall, as it prepares to hear a case brought by former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis that could potentially overturn the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The case, set for oral arguments in spring 2026 with a decision expected by June, marks the first direct challenge to Obergefell since its ruling, raising alarm among LGBTQ+ advocates and legal scholars about the future of marriage equality in the United States.

Davis, who gained national attention in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Rowan County, Kentucky, citing religious objections, was jailed for six days for contempt of court. Now, she is appealing a $360,000 judgment against her—$100,000 in emotional damages and $260,000 in attorneys’ fees—awarded to David Ermold and David Moore, a same-sex couple she denied a license. Represented by Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian legal group, Davis argues that the First Amendment’s free exercise clause protects her from liability and that Obergefell was “egregiously wrong,” lacking constitutional grounding and infringing on religious liberties.

The petition, filed on July 24, 2025, contends that Obergefell’s reliance on substantive due process—a legal doctrine used to establish rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, such as marriage equality—has “no basis in the Constitution” and has led to “ruinous consequences” for religious Americans. Davis’ attorney, Matthew Staver, told Newsweek, “It’s time to reevaluate and overturn [Obergefell],” arguing that the decision places individuals like Davis in an untenable position. The petition suggests that overturning Obergefell would return marriage laws to the states, though existing same-sex marriages would be grandfathered under the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act, which mandates federal and state recognition of legal same-sex and interracial marriages.

Legal experts are skeptical about the case’s chances of fully overturning Obergefell. Daniel Urman, a law professor at Northeastern University, told Newsweek that while Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have signaled openness to revisiting Obergefell, it’s unlikely that conservative justices like Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, or Chief Justice John Roberts would support a complete reversal, citing the decision’s cultural entrenchment and public support. “Same-sex marriage is embedded in American life,” Urman said, noting that 69% of Americans backed marriage equality in a May 2024 Gallup poll, though support among Republicans has dipped to 46%. Paul Collins, a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, added that the case’s focus on damages for a specific violation makes it a poor vehicle for challenging marriage equality broadly.

LGBTQ+ advocates, however, are not complacent. Mary Bonauto of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders warned that even a narrow ruling expanding religious exemptions could erode protections for same-sex couples. “This case is a reminder that our rights are not guaranteed,” Bonauto said. The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School estimates there are 823,000 married same-sex couples in the U.S., with 591,000 wed since Obergefell. A reversal could disrupt future marriages in 32 states with existing bans, despite the Respect for Marriage Act’s protections for existing unions.

The case comes amid a broader conservative push to challenge LGBTQ+ rights, with nine states introducing legislation in 2025 to block new same-sex marriage licenses or urge the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell. The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, voted in June to prioritize reversing the ruling. Justice Thomas’ 2022 concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, explicitly called for reconsidering Obergefell, fueling speculation about the court’s direction under its 6-3 conservative majority.

Opponents of Davis’ petition, including Ermold and Moore’s attorney William Powell, argue that her claims lack merit. “Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed interest in Davis’s arguments,” Powell told ABC News, expressing confidence that the Supreme Court will decline to upend Obergefell. Lower courts, including the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, have consistently rejected Davis’ First Amendment defenses, ruling that she was liable for state action, not personal beliefs.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, announced after its private conference in late 2025, has heightened tensions. If the court rules in Davis’ favor on narrower grounds, it could expand accommodations for religious objectors without dismantling marriage equality. However, a broader ruling overturning Obergefell would return marriage laws to the states, potentially creating a patchwork of protections and reigniting battles over LGBTQ+ rights. As the nation awaits the court’s ruling, the case underscores the fragility of constitutional protections in an era of shifting judicial priorities.