Kim Davis Cites Thomas and Barrett in Effort to Overturn Obergefell
Former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis is seeking to have the Supreme Court overturn its landmark 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which established same-sex marriage rights nationwide. Davis gained notoriety when she refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple after the ruling came down.
Support from Justices Thomas and Barrett
In her recent court filings, Davis heavily references Justice Clarence Thomas. She quotes him multiple times in her final brief, submitted before the justices decide whether to review her petition. Historically, it takes four justices’ votes to grant a review.
- Thomas has previously expressed skepticism about same-sex marriage rights.
- A notable statement from Thomas in 2020 critiqued the Obergefell ruling, claiming it prioritized a “novel constitutional right” over First Amendment protections.
Davis also mentions Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s recent book, where she argues that “stare decisis is only a presumption,” suggesting the Court may correct its past mistakes.
Background on the Obergefell Case
The 2015 Obergefell decision was a 5-4 ruling. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Dissenting opinions came from Justices Thomas, Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Antonin Scalia.
Davis’ petition challenges a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which supported the couple David Moore and David Ermold in their civil case against her. Moore and Ermold argue that the Obergefell decision was correctly determined and should not be revisited.
Next Steps
The Supreme Court justices are set to review Davis’ petition in their private conference scheduled for November 7. While the court does not have a strict deadline to make a ruling, a decision could be announced soon afterward. Analysts suggest that a majority of justices are unlikely to be swayed toward overturning the well-established precedent set by Obergefell.
As the legal community watches closely, the nature of any dissenting or separate statements connected to the outcome might garner significant attention.
