U.S. Supreme Court denies hearing in Kim Davis’s marriage equality challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will not hear the appeal of former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, the onetime county official who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the landmark 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.

"The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied,” the justices ordered. By denying review, the court let stand lower court rulings that found Davis personally liable for violating the constitutional rights of same-sex couples she refused to serve after Obergefell was decided. The move leaves marriage equality intact, marking a quiet but significant moment in a decade-long legal battle over the scope of religious exemptions in public office.

Related: Breaking: U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether to revisit marriage equality

Davis, who rose to prominence for her defiance of the 2015 ruling, had asked the court to revisit not only her liability but Obergefell itself. GLAD Law Legal Director Josh Rovenger, whose organization helped argue the original case, said the petition was always unlikely to succeed. “It would really be anomalous for the court to take a case with such a narrow fact pattern and use it to revisit Obergefell,” Rovenger told The Advocate before the court's announcement.

He described the legal questions in Davis’s appeal — about emotional-distress damages and qualified immunity — as “technical” and disconnected from the broader constitutional right at issue. Even so, Rovenger said advocates had remained prepared: “We’re ready for all possibilities,” he said.

Related: Jim Obergefell warns, ‘People should be concerned’ about Supreme Court considering marriage equality case

For Jim Obergefell, whose case made history nearly a decade ago, the court’s refusal to hear Davis’s appeal is cause for relief but not complacency. “They’ve turned the idea of freedom on its head,” he told The Advocate ahead of the announcement. “Unless we stand up for what it truly means, we risk losing the very promise of equality itself.”

National LGBTQ Task Force Communications Director Cathy Renna celebrated the justices’ decision. “Today’s decision is not surprising given the long-shot status of Davis’s claim, but it’s a relief that the Supreme Court will not hear it, given the current makeup of the court itself. We hope that this settles the matter and marriage equality remains the law of the land for same-sex couples,” she told The Advocate.

Lambda Legal CEO Kevin Jennings said in a statement after the decision that “this frivolous case now belongs in the trash bin of history.”

He added, “But let’s not be naïve: Our opponents are well-resourced and determined. They will keep trying to undo the progress we’ve made since Lambda Legal was founded 52 years ago. Now is not the time to let down our guard."

Lambda Legal Senior Director of Strategic Initiatives Jenny Pizer noted, “Today’s decision rightly leaves marriage equality crystal clear and undisturbed. However, LGBTQ+ people and their families still need vigilance and protection."

She continued, “We secured the freedom to marry for same-sex couples over a decade ago in our landmark 2015 Supreme Court victory, Obergefell v. Hodges, thanks to the powerful stories of thousands of couples and their families throughout the country, including in our many court cases. The fundamental rights of liberty and equal protection that the Court affirmed back then remain essential for all American families today."

The legal director at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, Shannon Minter, praised the justices’ decision while explaining the significance for transgender Americans. “In addition to its significance for same-sex couples, the Supreme Court‘s decision to decline review of Obergfell is also important for the many transgender people who are married or wish to marry. Before Obergefell, the validity of a transgender person’s marriage could be called into question, with no assurance that states, the federal government, or third parties would recognize such marriages."

Minter added, “Many transgender people faced devastating legal challenges to their marriages in child custody, spousal benefits, and inheritance cases — often with crushing outcomes that separated transgender parents from their children and left surviving transgender spouses or spouses married to a transgender person’s marriage with no protection. Obergefell eliminated these uncertainties and provided transgender spouses and their families with much-needed stability and security."

Editor’s note: This developing story has been updated with additional reporting.