Lawyer for Kim Davis: ‘Strong possibility’ Supreme Court will reconsider same-sex marriage ruling

Kim Davis Appeals to Supreme Court on Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

The former County Clerk from Kentucky, infamous for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples a decade ago, is now appealing to the Supreme Court regarding a landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriages nationwide.

Kim Davis gained national attention in 2015 when she declined to sign a marriage license for same-sex couples, citing her religious belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Her attorney, Matt Staver, is advocating against a recent ruling that requires plaintiffs David Ahmold and David Moore to pay $360,000 in legal fees and expenses.

“The initial ruling should serve as a strong defense for Kim Davis. Moreover, we are urging the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell, the 2015 decision that initiated this entire situation,” Staver stated.

“It’s quite concerning for the country; they don’t seem to take any issues impacting Kim Davis seriously, and it feels like they’re undermining the Constitution—only the court can correct this,” he further expressed.

A Decade After Landmark Support, Republican Views on Same-Sex Marriage Shift

Staver also mentioned that there were three justices present during the 2015 decision, including two who are still active: Kagan and Sotomayor. “This might be the time to present persuasive facts that could potentially overturn Obergefell,” he noted.

He added that if the case reaches the Supreme Court, it will likely involve Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito—who opposed Obergefell—against Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, who backed it. “There are four newly appointed justices as well,” he clarified.

In a March ruling, a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stated that, from Davis’s perspective, issuing a marriage license to the plaintiffs would conflict with her constitutionally protected religious beliefs. However, it concluded that she cannot invoke a free movement clause defense as she is accountable for state actions not safeguarded by the initial amendment.

Revisiting Scalia’s Stance on Same-Sex Marriage: Prophetic or Controversial?

A certiorari petition was submitted last month on Davis’s behalf, appealing the decision. Staver argued, “Obergefell was fundamentally flawed from the outset, and it remains so due to its reliance on what I call legal fiction of substantive due process.” He insisted that understanding Obergefell won’t invalidate valid marriage licenses established before the ruling. All licenses, including those for same-sex couples, will continue to be recognized, essentially becoming “grandfathers” under the law. Moving forward, marriage would revert to a state control similar to the period before Obergefell.

William Powell, representing Elmold and Moore and also a senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, expressed skepticism. “I’m confident that, just like the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court will find Davis’s arguments unworthy of serious consideration,” he said.