The Supreme Court declined to hear KDKim Davis's petition on Nov. 10, 2025, leaving intact its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges recognizing same-sex marriage rights. The order was issued without comment, denying relief sought by Davis, a former Rowan County, 🐴Kentucky clerk who in 2015 refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on religious grounds. A Sixth Circuit ruling had already held that she violated clearly established constitutional rights and could not claim qualified immunity, the doctrine that normally shields public officials from personal lawsuits unless they violate rights that were already clearly recognized.

A Sixth Circuit ruling had held that Davis's actions violated constitutional rights and ordered her to pay $100,000 in damages to plaintiffs DMDavid Moore and David Ermold plus about $360,000 in attorney's fees. She spent five nights in jail for contempt of court in 2015 after defying a federal court order to issue licenses. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear her appeal means the lower court's damages and fee awards stand, and she remains personally liable for refusing to abide by existing law.

Davis's legal team at Liberty Counsel had urged the Court's conservative majority to overturn Obergefell and erase protections for more than 591,000 same-sex couples who have married nationwide since 2015. The petition explicitly asked the justices to reconsider the 2015 decision, arguing that a right to same-sex marriage had no basis in the Constitution. Liberty Counsel founder MSMat Staver vowed to continue efforts to overturn Obergefell despite the court's rejection.

The 2025 Court is far more conservative than the 2015 Court that decided Obergefell, with three Trump appointees—Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—joining the bench. LGBTQ advocates feared the 6-3 majority might revisit marriage equality, especially after Justice Clarence Thomas suggested in his concurring opinion overturning Roe v. Wade that Obergefell should also be reconsidered. However, no other justices joined Thomas's opinion, and the court declined to take up Davis's case.

Nearly 600,000 same-sex couples have married since Obergefell was decided in 2015, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School. The court's refusal to hear the case suggests the justices recognize the significant reliance interests created by a decade of marriages. Overturning Obergefell would create legal chaos for hundreds of thousands of couples who have built lives, families, and financial arrangements based on their marriages.

The 2022 Respect for Marriage Act provides additional federal protections for same-sex marriages, requiring states to recognize marriages performed in other states. However, the act doesn't prevent the Supreme Court from overturning Obergefell, which would eliminate the constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The court's decision not to hear Davis's case provides some reassurance that marriage equality remains secure, at least for now.

The Human Rights Campaign and other LGBTQ advocacy groups celebrated the court's decision, calling it a victory for marriage equality. However, they noted that the court's conservative majority could still revisit the issue in future cases. The decision underscores that public officials cannot evade accountability under the law by invoking anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs.

The 2022 Respect for Marriage Act requires states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and provides federal statutory protections even if the Supreme Court narrows constitutional rights. But it cannot by itself preserve the Obergefell precedent: if the Court overturned Obergefell, couples would lose a constitutional right to marry and would have to rely on Congress to maintain and enforce statutory protections.

The Sixth Circuit also found that Davis had waived her right to challenge Obergefell by not raising that argument earlier in the litigation, a reminder that procedural rules can decide whether big constitutional questions ever get a fresh hearing. Even with a more conservative Court, litigants can lose their chance to test precedent if they miss procedural steps along the way.

In her petition, Davis asked the justices to weigh in on whether the First Amendment's free exercise clause can shield a public official from tort damages based solely on emotional distress and whether she could invoke personal religious defenses after losing her official immunity. By denying cert, the Court left the Sixth Circuit's answer in place—no—and signaled that, for now, lower courts will continue to treat Obergefell as clearly established law that public officials cannot simply opt out of.

Polling compiled by groups like the Human Rights Campaign shows that a solid majority of Americans now support marriage equality, a sharp shift from the years before Obergefell. Those numbers, combined with the reality that hundreds of thousands of couples have already married and raised children under this legal regime, help explain why even a more conservative Court has so far declined to reopen the question.