
Supreme Court Faces Decision on Case Urging Overturn of Same-Sex Marriage
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The U.S. Supreme Court is facing a choice about whether to take up a case filed by former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis urging the overturn its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case that guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage nationwide.
Davis' attorney Matthew Staver told Newsweek he is optimistic the court will take the case. William Powell, the attorney who represented the couple that sued Davis, wrote in a statement provided to Newsweek he is "confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention."
Daniel Urman, law professor at Northeastern University, told Newsweek it is unlikely the Supreme Court would agree to overturn same-sex marriage.
Why It Matters
The case, filed by Davis—a former Kentucky clerk who spent six days in jail over her refusal to provide marriage certificates to same-sex couples on religious grounds—could represent a threat to federal protections for same-sex marriage one decade after the nation's highest court legalized the unions across the country.
Some justices like Clarence Thomas have signaled an openness to revisiting the case in recent years as the court has moved to the right. That conservative shift on cultural issues has been defined by its 2022 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, which for decades guaranteed abortion rights.
If the court overturns nationwide same-sex marriage, the issue would likely return to the states, many of which have still not passed laws allowing members of the same sex to get married.
The U.S. Supreme Court justices pose for a portrait in Washington, D.C., on October 7, 2022.
The U.S. Supreme Court justices pose for a portrait in Washington, D.C., on October 7, 2022.What To Know
In a recently filed petition to the Supreme Court, Davis' attorney Matthew Staver raised religious objections to same-sex marriage.
"Obergefell was 'egregiously wrong,' 'deeply damaging,' 'far outside the bound of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed,' and set out 'on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided,'" he wrote.
Davis' case "presents the ideal opportunity to revisit substantive due process that 'lacks any basis in the Constitution,' " the petition reads.
"This flawed opinion has produced disastrous results leaving individuals like Davis 'find[ing] it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws,'" it reads. "And, until the Court revisits its 'creation of atextual constitutional rights,' Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"
The filing said that if the court overturns Obergefell, marriage rights would be returned to the states, but that any same-sex couples who were married since the ruling would be grandfathered.
Staver told Newsweek he believes the decision is on "weak on shaky ground."
"It has no basis in the Constitution," he said. "It's what caused this issue with Kim Davis to be sent to prison for six days and now facing hundreds of thousands of dollars personally, is the Obergefell opinion originally, and I think that it's time to reevaluate that and overturn it."
Urman told Newsweek it is "very unlikely for the Court to hear the case."
While Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito may side with her, it's appears less likely that conservative justices like Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts would move to overturn same-sex marriage, he said.
"There's a chance that a conservative majority could use the case to expand the rights of religious objectors to same-sex marriage," he said. "But that's not the same as overturning the right itself, and I don't see a majority of the Court ready to do that. Culturally, same-sex marriage has become embedded in American life, and it is still popular in public opinion polls."
Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Newsweek that while Davis wants to use the case as a vehicle for the court to overturn same-sex marriage, that isn't necessarily the issue at the heart of the case.
"Instead, it is about a jury verdict for inflicting emotional damages by violating a same-sex couple's right to marry. This just isn't the right vehicle for challenging a constitutional right to same-sex marriage," he said.
Conservative members of the court are likely to be interested in overturning same-sex marriage but may not view this as the best case to do so, Collins said.
"If the Court were to take the case, I think they would likely stick to the core issue in the case: the jury verdict regarding Davis violating the couple's constitutional right to marry," he said.
Kim Davis' Arguments Have Faced Legal Scrutiny
Davis became a national figure after she denied licenses to same-sex couples following the Obergefell ruling on June 26, 2015, over her religious objections. In September of that year, a judge held her in contempt, and she spent six days in jail.
Davis' arguments have been rejected by lower courts.
A 6th District Court of Appeals panel earlier this year dismissed her First Amendment argument because she is being "held liable for state action," rather than her individual actions.
"Although Davis's assertions are novel, they fail under basic constitutional principles. Under § 1983, Davis is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect—so the Free Exercise Clause cannot shield her from liability," that ruling reads.
The Supreme Court also denied an appeal filed by Davis in 2020.
How Popular Is Support for Same-Sex Marriage?
Polls show that most American support for same-sex marriage remains high, but has dropped in the past few years. Gallup showed that 69 percent of all Americans back the legalization of same-sex marriage in May 2024, down from 71 percent in May 2023.
Eighty-three percent of Democrats and 74 percent of independents support same-sex marriage, while only 46 percent of Republicans do so.
What People Are Saying
Attorney William Powell, who represents the couple who sued Davis for not providing a marriage license wrote in a statement to Newsweek: "Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis's rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention."
Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst told Newsweek: "Conservative Christians are serious about getting the Court to reconsider Obergefell. This case is being brought by Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal organization. If the Court denies Davis' petition—which I think it will—this won't be the end of the battle against same sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights more generally."
Daniel Urman, law professor at Northeastern University, told Newsweek: "The current supermajority on the Supreme Court has the votes to reshape American law how they see fit, but the Court still needs to appear legitimate in the eyes of the public. Overturning the right to same-sex marriage could spark tremendous public backlash and criticism of the Court. Chief Justice Roberts would work very hard to avoid this, and I don't see more than 2 votes (Alito and Thomas) to overturn Obergefell."
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the 2022 case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court could make a decision about whether to accept Davis' case in the coming months but has not indicated either way which way it is leaning.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
Mississippi Allowed to Require Age Verification for Social Media—For Now
The Supreme Court will allow Mississippi to enforce a law requiring social media sites verify the age of users or receive parental consent as it awaits a legal challenge—but Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed skeptical the law is constitutional. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the law would 'likely' violate the First Amendment rights of social media users. Getty Images This is a breaking story and will be updated.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court declines for now to block Mississippi social media age-check law
By Mike Scarcella WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Thursday to put on hold a Mississippi law requiring that users of social media platforms verify their age and that minors have parental consent in a challenge by a trade group whose members include Meta's Facebook, Alphabet's YouTube and Snapchat. The justices denied a request by NetChoice to block the law while the Washington-based tech industry trade association's legal challenge to the law, which it argues violates the U.S. Constitution's protections against government abridgement of free speech, plays out in lower courts. Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a statement about the court's order said the Mississippi law was likely unconstitutional, but that NetChoice had not met the high bar to block the measure at this early stage of the case. In a statement, Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said Kavanaugh's view "makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed" in its challenge. Taske called the Supreme Court's order "an unfortunate procedural delay." The Mississippi attorney general's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. NetChoice turned to the Supreme Court after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals let the law take effect even though a judge found it likely runs afoul of the First Amendment. NetChoice sued in federal court in 2024 in a bid to invalidate the law, which was passed unanimously in the state legislature amid concern by lawmakers about the potential negative effects of social media use on the mental health of children. Its emergency request to the justices marked the first time the Supreme Court was asked to consider a social media age-verification law. The state law requires that a social media platform obtain "express consent" from a parent or guardian of a minor before a child can open an account. It also states that regulated social media platforms must make "commercially reasonable" efforts to verify the age of users. Under the law, the state can pursue civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation as well as criminal penalties under Mississippi's deceptive trade practices law. U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden in Gulfport, Mississippi, last year blocked Mississippi from enforcing the restrictions on some NetChoice members. Ozerden issued a second order in June pausing the rules against those members, including Meta and its Instagram and Facebook platforms, Snapchat and YouTube. The 5th Circuit on July 17 issued a one-sentence ruling that paused the judge's order, without explaining its reasoning. Courts in seven states have preliminarily or permanently blocked similar measures, according to NetChoice. Some technology companies are separately battling lawsuits brought by U.S. states, school districts and individual users alleging that social platforms have fueled mental health problems. The companies have denied wrongdoing. NetChoice said the social media platforms of its members already have adopted extensive policies to moderate content for minors and provide parental controls. In its request to the Supreme Court, the state told the justices that age-verification and parental consent requirements "are common ways for states to protect minors."
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Brazil lawmaker Eduardo Bolsonaro warns of more US sanctions, maybe tariffs
By Marcelo Teixeira and Luciana Magalhaes WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Brazilian Congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro, the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, told Reuters on Thursday that he expects additional U.S. sanctions against Brazilian officials and possibly more tariffs due to a legal crackdown on his father. In an interview at the Reuters bureau in Washington after meetings with senior U.S. officials, the lawmaker said he saw no way for Brazil to negotiate a lower U.S. tariff on its exports without concessions from the Brazilian Supreme Court. "The Supreme Court justices have to understand they've lost power," he said. "There is no scenario where the Supreme Court emerges victorious from this whole imbroglio. They're in conflict with the greatest economic power in the world." The younger Bolsonaro's advocacy in Washington has put him at the center of bilateral tensions after U.S. President Donald Trump slapped a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods and financial sanctions on the Brazilian judge overseeing prosecution of the elder Bolsonaro, demanding an end to a "witch hunt" against the former president. "I think he's an honest man... This is really a political execution that they're trying to do with Bolsonaro," Trump told reporters on Thursday. Jair Bolsonaro is currently on trial before Brazil's top court over an alleged plot to overturn the 2022 election that he lost. He denies any wrongdoing. Eduardo Bolsonaro described the U.S. tariffs on Brazilian beef, coffee, fish, footwear and other goods as "bitter medicine" aimed at curbing what he called an out-of-check legal offensive against his father. "I've told everyone trying to approach this only through the lens of trade: it won't work. There needs to be a signal first to the U.S. that we're resolving our institutional crisis," he said. The U.S. State Department ratcheted up pressure on Wednesday, moving to revoke and restrict visas on government officials and their family members from countries including Brazil due to their ties with an exchange program involving Cuban doctors. Eduardo Bolsonaro said he expects those restrictions will soon hit Health Minister Alexandre Padilha and probably leftist ex-President Dilma Rousseff for their roles in the program. Rousseff was the chief of staff and successor to current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva when his second term ended in 2010. Representatives for Padilha and Rousseff did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Lula has dismissed Trump's demands as an affront to national sovereignty and said he has refused to "humiliate" himself with a call to the White House. In a Reuters interview last week, he called Eduardo Bolsonaro and his father "traitors" for courting Trump's intervention. Brazil's top court is investigating both Bolsonaros over their appeals to Trump. Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes has increased pressure on the former president, putting him under house arrest and forbidding contact with his son in the U.S. or foreign officials. In Thursday's interview in Washington, Eduardo Bolsonaro said he expected a U.S. response to that crackdown, including sanctions against Viviane Barci de Moraes, a high-powered Brazilian attorney married to Justice Moraes. Bolsonaro also said he could see more tariffs on Brazilian goods on the way. "I could expect more tariffs, because Brazilian authorities have not changed their behaviors," he said. The Brazilian lawmaker, who moved in March to the United States in an effort to garner Trump's support for his father, said he had been advocating for sanctions targeting Moraes and his family, with tariffs as a "last resort." He said immediate U.S. sanctions against other Supreme Court justices seemed unlikely, given the focus on isolating Moraes, whom he called a "gangster," a "psychopath" and a "mafioso." The Supreme Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Moraes has described his rulings, which have been upheld by the wider court, as a defense of Brazilian democracy under constitutional law. In an interview with Reuters last month, Jair Bolsonaro said he expected his son to seek U.S. citizenship to avoid returning to Brazil. The younger Bolsonaro declined to comment on the details of his immigration status, but said he and his family had permission to stay in the United States "for a good while," and left the door open to seeking asylum and eventually citizenship. Sign in to access your portfolio