The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal aimed at overturning a significant ruling that established the right to same-sex marriage nationwide.
Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky, sought to challenge the 2015 landmark ruling after a jury awarded damages to a couple who had been denied a marriage license.
“The court can and should correct this error,” her legal team claimed in court documents.
In a brief order, the justices opted not to entertain Davis’ appeal, along with many others under consideration during their regular closed session.
The legal community viewed Davis’ attempt as largely futile, but it sparked worries among LGBTQ rights advocates since several conservative justices who dissented in the original case are still on the bench.
Davis gained widespread attention for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples due to her religious beliefs, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.
David Armold and David Moore were among those denied a license and later filed a lawsuit. Additionally, Davis was found in contempt of court for not complying with a judge’s order to issue licenses.
She spent five days in jail, the couple eventually received their licenses, and Kentucky subsequently enacted a law permitting clerks to refrain from signing marriage certificates.
Even after the couple was awarded $100,000 for emotional distress and $260,000 in legal fees, Davis persisted with her legal battles.
Her appeal focused on her assertion of a personal First Amendment right tied to her religious beliefs, despite her role as a government official.
Davis also sought to have the Obergefell decision completely overturned, positing that doing so would invalidate the entire case.
The couple contended that Davis’ appeal was improperly presented to the Supreme Court and that she had abandoned her claims early on.
“The court should hold her to that statement,” their attorneys stated. “Before addressing whether to set aside the Obergefell ruling in this context, the court must tackle the complex issue of how such a ruling would impact Davis’s liability.”
