Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Obergefell v. Hodges
The Supreme Court has recently refused to revisit their decision regarding the historic Obergefell v. Hodges case in an appeal made by a former Kentucky clerk. Obergefell v. Hodges set precedent when the decision in its favor allowed same-sex couples the right to marry nationwide.
Kim Davis, a former clerk of Rowan County in Kentucky, had been resisting the decision since it came into place in 2015. As a county clerk, part of Davis’s duties was issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In the aftermath of Obergefell v. Hodges, Davis’s office refused to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples, claiming a religious right not to do so.
She was sued in 2015 by David Moore and David Ermold, a couple whom Davis had refused to issue a marriage license to on three occasions. She was then ordered by the courts to issue a license to the pair but defied the order and, subsequently, spent six days in jail for contempt, as well as losing re-election for the position of clerk. During her sentence, Moore and Ermold were able to acquire their marriage license.
However, their lawsuit continued, even after Kentucky changed the law to allow marriage licenses to be issued without the clerk’s name on it. A jury eventually awarded Moore and Ermold $100,000 in damages and an additional $260,000 in legal fees which Davis would have to pay.
Davis’s appeal of this decision has garnered attention due to the landmark case of Roe v. Wade being overturned in 2022, putting an overturn of Obergefell v. Hodges into the realm of possibility. This concern is heightened for proponents of same-sex marriage with Justice Clarence Thomas stating in his opinion on Roe v. Wade that the Supreme Court should reconsider their decisions on same-sex marriage, same-sex intimacy, and birth control.
Members of the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court criticized Davis’s actions.
Judge Helene White, a senior member of the court, stated, “In their private lives, government officials are of course free to express their views and live according to their faith. But when an official wields state power against private citizens, her conscience must yield to the Constitution.”
Judge Chad Readler stated similarly, “her conduct here exceeded the scope of any personal right.”
