The Supreme Court has once again refused to revisit its controversial 2015 same-sex marriage ruling, leaving Kim Davis’s $360,000 penalty intact and ignoring renewed calls from Justice Clarence Thomas to correct what many conservatives view as judicial overreach.
Story Snapshot
- Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s appeal to overturn the Obergefell v. Hodges decision without comment.
- Former Kentucky clerk must pay $360,000 in damages for defending her religious convictions.
- Justice Thomas remains the sole voice calling for the reversal of the same-sex marriage ruling.
- Conservative justices Roberts and Alito show little appetite for challenging the precedent.
Supreme Court Dismisses Religious Liberty Appeal
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Kim Davis’s challenge to the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that imposed same-sex marriage nationwide.
The justices did not explain their rejection of Davis’s appeal, which sought to overturn a lower court’s order requiring her to pay $360,000 in damages and attorney’s fees. Davis, the former Rowan County clerk, had refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following her Christian beliefs after the 2015 ruling.
Davis’s legal team had specifically cited Justice Clarence Thomas’s previous statements calling for the Court to reconsider its same-sex marriage precedent.
Thomas remains the only sitting justice who has explicitly advocated for overturning Obergefell, despite being joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito in the original 2015 dissent.
The refusal to hear Davis’s case suggests even conservative justices are reluctant to revisit this settled law.
The Supreme Court on Monday denied a bid to overturn its landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. Former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis had asked the court to overturn its ruling and a $100,000 damages lawsuit against her.https://t.co/EjjwGXmhld pic.twitter.com/sldiFXZlq2
— Eyewitness News (@ABC7NY) November 10, 2025
Conservative Justices Signal Reluctance to Act
While Justice Thomas has consistently criticized the Obergefell decision, his conservative colleagues appear hesitant to challenge the ruling. Justice Alito, despite continuing to criticize the 2015 decision, recently stated he was not advocating for its reversal.
Chief Justice Roberts has remained silent on same-sex marriage since writing his dissenting opinion nearly a decade ago. This silence from leading conservative voices indicates a limited appetite for revisiting the controversial precedent.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the Court after Obergefell, has acknowledged the Court’s authority to correct previous mistakes, as demonstrated in the 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.
However, Barrett has suggested that same-sex marriage differs from abortion because countless Americans have built families and made life decisions based on the marriage ruling.
This distinction highlights the practical complications of unwinding established precedent that affects existing marriages and families across the nation.
Davis Faced Steep Financial Penalty for Faith-Based Stand
Kim Davis gained national attention in 2015 when she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Rowan County, Kentucky, citing her Christian beliefs.
Her defiance of federal court orders led to her imprisonment for contempt of court in September 2015, making her a symbol of religious liberty resistance.
Davis was eventually released after her staff issued licenses without her name, and Kentucky later passed legislation removing all county clerks’ names from marriage licenses statewide.
The $360,000 penalty Davis must now pay represents a significant financial burden for taking a principled stand based on her religious convictions. Her case illustrates the ongoing tension between religious liberty and newly established legal precedents.
Davis ultimately lost her reelection bid in 2018, suggesting voters in her conservative Kentucky county were divided on her controversial stance.
The Human Rights Campaign celebrated the Court’s refusal to intervene, claiming it sends a message about consequences for not respecting constitutional rights.
