Kim Davis Loses Final Bid with Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review for­mer Rowan Coun­ty Clerk Kim Davis’ final peti­tion, effec­tive­ly end­ing her years-long legal bat­tle. Davis, who in 2015 refused to issue mar­riage licens­es to same-sex cou­ples, was found by both the U.S. Dis­trict Court for the East­ern Dis­trict of Ken­tucky and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir­cuit to have vio­lat­ed the con­sti­tu­tion­al rights of the cou­ples she denied.

Lib­er­ty Coun­sel, which rep­re­sent­ed Davis, urged the Supreme Court to revis­it Oberge­fell v. Hodges, argu­ing that forc­ing a pub­lic offi­cial to issue mar­riage licens­es in con­tra­dic­tion to their reli­gious beliefs would be uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. The Court declined to take the case.

Lib­er­ty Coun­sel founder Mat Staver said the group will con­tin­ue efforts to chal­lenge the mar­riage-equal­i­ty prece­dent, stat­ing:
“Three sit­ting jus­tices have issued strong dis­sents to Oberge­fell. A major­i­ty sure­ly knows that the opin­ion was wrong­ly decid­ed… What Kim Davis began will con­tin­ue. Now we move to Phase 2, where oth­er indi­vid­u­als, states, and local gov­ern­ments assert their rights to reli­gious lib­er­ty and the Tenth Amend­ment. The days of Oberge­fell are num­bered.”

The legal con­se­quences for Davis, how­ev­er, have already been sig­nif­i­cant. A 2023 jury and sub­se­quent judg­ments award­ed more than $360,000 to plain­tiffs David Ermold and David Moore. Attor­neys from George­town Law’s Insti­tute for Con­sti­tu­tion­al Advo­ca­cy and Pro­tec­tion argued that the First Amend­ment does not allow a pub­lic offi­cial to use their per­son­al beliefs to deny con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­tec­tions to cit­i­zens.

Pro­fes­sor John Cul­hane not­ed that the peti­tion faced steep odds:
“You didn’t have the votes to over­turn Oberge­fell. We have a very unsym­pa­thet­ic peti­tion­er here — some­one who open­ly defied the law and with­held mar­riage licens­es, claim­ing a reli­gious lib­er­ty inter­est. That’s no valid rea­son for deny­ing cou­ples the licens­es they were enti­tled to.”

Legal experts say the Court’s refusal to hear the case pre­serves nation­wide reliance on Oberge­fell, pro­tect­ing legal, finan­cial, and fam­i­ly struc­tures built on mar­riage recog­ni­tion. Crit­ics of Davis’ actions argue that the rul­ings reaf­firm that pub­lic offi­cials can­not cite pri­vate beliefs to deny con­sti­tu­tion­al rights — and the Supreme Court’s deci­sion leaves Oberge­fell v. Hodges firm­ly in place.