In America: Supreme Court Will Hear Case Considering Overturn of Same-Sex Marriage as Constitutional Right

cottonbro studio

Over a decade ago, the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling legalized same-sex marriage federally. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will consider granting a review of arguments from Davis v. Ermold that could challenge same-sex marriage as a constitutionally protected right. Kim Davis argues government officials should have the right to refuse participation in marriage licensing based on religious beliefs. If this stance is approved, it would create inequality in access to government services and weaken same-sex marriage rights. This would lead to a regression, or possible reversal, in the legal precedent protecting LGBTQIA+ rights. Davis has petitioned an appeal to SCOTUS who has decided to conduct private conferences to listen to her arguments. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could lead to dramatic change in this legal precedent and an upheaval in the political environment of the United States. 

The Legal Precedent Leading To Davis v. Ermold

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. This ruling presented the nation an answer to the legality of state bans on same-sex marriage. SCOTUS decided that the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses ensured same-sex marriage was a fundamental right. The right to marry being federally protected required the entirety of the United States to license and recognize same-sex marriages. 

Members and supporters of the LGBTQIA+ community would consider this ruling to be a landmark victory that encouraged the advocacy and growth of other related political rights movements.

At the time, Kim Davis was working as a Kentucky county clerk responsible for the issuance of marriage licenses. She refused to issue or endorse marriage licenses of same-sex couples, claiming it went against her Christian beliefs. After the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, Davis refused to issue all marriage licenses as a form of protest to the decision. She was held in contempt of court for her protest against doing her government duties. Couples affected by Davis’ actions sued her resulting in a federal lawsuit that made national headlines. 

The plaintiffs argued that Davis violated their right to marry and equal protection of rights. Davis argued that issuing the marriage licenses conflicts with her religious beliefs. Forcing her to issue the licenses, she argued, would be a violation of her religious freedom. Davis also discussed how states should allow government officials to opt-out of duties that conflict with religious beliefs. The Miller v. Davis' ruling found that Davis’ refusal to issue the marriage licenses was unconstitutional. 

In addition to this lawsuit, the couples sued Davis personally for civil damages. In Davis v. Ermold, Davis argued she had qualified immunity as a government official to not be held personally liable for the damages and the Obergefell v. Hodges and Miller v. Davis rulings infringe on government officials’ religious liberty. The court that oversaw the case ruled that government officials have a responsibility to issue the marriage licenses despite religious beliefs. Allowing religious exemption from duties would result in unequal treatment of individual rights. 

Nov. 7th SCOTUS Considers Granting Review Of Davis v. Ermold 

The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed Davis’ appeal to this ruling affirming the lower court’s decision. In 2020, Davis requested SCOTUS review of the arguments and was denied; however, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito stated that through Davis v. Ermold, the constitutional implications of Obergefell v. Hodges could be reconsidered.  

In July of this year, Kim Davis filed a new writ of certiorari requesting SCOUTS to reconsider reviewing the case. This Friday, the Supreme Court will begin private conferences to decide on whether or not to review the Davis v. Ermold ruling. To review the case, four out of the nine justices will need to vote in favor of granting the writ of certiorari. If this happens, SCOTUS may create legal changes in the Davis v. Ermold and Obergefell v. Hodges rulings. 

The challenges in these rulings include several legal issues. The current legal precedent protects the equality of individual rights by denying government officials using religious liberty to not abide by the law. This ensures there is no government establishment of religion. What Davis argues through these upcoming conferences is that Obergefell v. Hodges and Miller v. Davis established an equality mandate that is too broad. She questions if same-sex couples’ right to marry guarantees the right to receive equal access to government services from government officials whose religious beliefs conflict with same-sex marriage.  

Public Opinion Of SCOTUS’s Nonpartisanship

Amongst the three branches of government, the Judicial branch is intended to be nonpartisan. This means SCOTUS bears the responsibility of pursuing the interpretation of law instead of endorsing certain political agendas. This has been widely debated as the Executive and Legislative branches of the government have become polarized into two dominant ideologies. 

Supreme court justices are responsible for understanding and developing legal precedent at the highest level. The Supreme Court has the greatest authority over the law including decisions involving the constitutionality of federal and state laws. As the court is solely trusted to fulfill this role, it has received increasing criticism like accusations of being partisan. The government has checks and balances that ensure the equality of power within the three branches of government. While the justices have their own judicial philosophies, the politicians who appoint them through presidential nomination and Senate confirmation can make it seem as if SCOTUS is influenced by political ideology. 

The general public believes SCOTUS is politically driven, similar to the presidency and Congress. According to a 2025 study, 54% of Americans believe SCOTUS has a political affiliation with either the Republican or Democratic party. American’s favorable view of SCOTUS is the lowest it has been in three decades. Attention to the court’s behavior grew tremendously after its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. After this ruling, the majority of Americans say that Supreme Court justices allow partisan views to influence major court rulings.   

Statistics involving recent SCOTUS rulings would contradict this belief. In the 2024-2025 term, amongst 67 rulings, SCOTUS voted unanimously 42% of the time and only split 9% within the perceived political ideologies of the justices. 

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett defended SCOTUS’s nonpartisanship in a 2021 lecture at the University of Louisville:

“Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties,” Barrett insisted. “[Justices must be] hyper vigilant to make sure they’re not letting personal biases creep into their decisions, since judges are people, too.”

The Obergefell v. Hodges' ruling was a major cornerstone in the history of the LGBTQIA+ movement. This movement holds a resonating voice in American politics today. As SCOTUS is considering reviewing the ruling of Davis v. Ermold, the court’s reputation as nonpartisan could be at risk. Depending on if the court reviews this case and what they decide, the court may create political outrage in the United States similar to what occurred with the overturning of Roe v. Wade.