The U.S. Supreme Court considered hearing a case from Kim Davis on Friday that could change the legality of same-sex marriage in the United States.

Davis, best known as the former county clerk for Rowan County, Ky., who defied federal court orders by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — and later, to any couples at all — is back in the headlines this week as she once again attempts to get Obergefell v. Hodges overturned on a federal level.

She has tried to get the Supreme Court to overturn this case before — the first time was just weeks after the initial 2015 ruling — arguing that, in her official capacity as a county clerk, she should have the right to refuse same-sex marriage licenses based on her First Amendment rights. The court has emphatically said Davis, at least in her official capacity as a county clerk, does not have the right to act on behalf of the state while simultaneously following her personal religious beliefs.

The Washington Blade spoke with Karen Loewy, interim deputy legal director for litigation at Lambda Legal, the oldest and largest national legal organization advancing civil rights for the LGBTQ community and people living with HIV through litigation, education, and public policy, to discuss the realistic possibilities of the court taking this case, its potential implications, and what LGBTQ couples concerned about this can do now to protect themselves.

Loewy began by explaining how the court got to where it is today.

“So Kim Davis has petitioned the Supreme Court for review of essentially what was [a] damages award that the lower court had given to a couple that she refused a marriage license to in her capacity as a clerk on behalf of the state,” Loewy said, explaining Davis has tried (and failed) to get this same appeal going in the past. “This is not the first time that she has asked the court to weigh in on this case. This is her second bite at the apple at the U.S. Supreme Court, and in 2020, the last time that she did this, the court denied review.”

Davis’s entire argument rests on her belief that she has the ability to act both as a representative of the state and according to her personal religious convictions — something, Loewy said, no court has ever recognized as a legal right.

“She’s really claiming a religious, personal, religious exemption from her duties on behalf of the state, and that’s not a thing.”

That, Loewy explained, is ultimately a good thing for the sanctity of same-sex marriage.

“I think there’s a good reason to think that they will, yet again, say this is not an appropriate vehicle for the question and deny review.”

She also noted that public opinion on same-sex marriage remains overwhelmingly positive.

“The Respect for Marriage Act is a really important thing that has happened since Obergefell. This is a federal statute that mandates that marriages that were lawfully entered, wherever they were lawfully entered, get respect at the federal level and across state lines.”

“Public opinion around marriage has changed so dramatically … even at the state level, you’re not going to see the same immediate efforts to undermine marriages of same-sex couples that we might have a decade ago before Obergefell came down.”

A clear majority of U.S. adults — 65.8 percent — continue to support keeping the Obergefell v. Hodges decision in place, protecting the right to same-sex marriage. That support breaks down to 83 percent of liberals, 68 percent of moderates, and about half of conservatives saying they support marriage equality. These results align with other recent polling, including Gallup’s May 2025 estimate showing 68 percent support for same-sex marriage.

“Where we are now is quite different from where we were in terms of public opinion … opponents of marriage equality are loud, but they’re not numerous.”

Loewy also emphasized that even if, by some chance, something did happen to the right to marry, once a marriage is issued, it cannot be taken back.

“First, the Respect for Marriage Act is an important reason why people don’t need to panic,” she said. “Once you are married, you are married, there isn’t a way to sort of undo marriages that were lawfully licensed at the time.”

She continued, explaining that LGBTQ people might feel vulnerable right now as the current political climate becomes less welcoming, but there is hope — and the best way to respond is to move thoughtfully.

“I don’t have a crystal ball. I also can’t give any sort of specific advice. But what I would say is, you know, I understand people’s fear. Everything feels really vulnerable right now, and this administration’s attacks on the LGBTQ community make everybody feel vulnerable for really fair and real reasons. I think the practical likelihood of Obergefell being reversed at this moment in time is very low. You know, that doesn’t mean there aren’t other, you know, case vehicles out there to challenge the validity of Obergefell, but they’re not on the Supreme Court’s doorstep, and we will see how it all plays out for folks who feel particularly concerned and vulnerable.”

Loewy went on to say there are steps LGBTQ couples and families can take to safeguard their relationships, regardless of what the court decides. She recommended getting married (if that feels right for them) and utilizing available legal tools such as estate planning and relationship documentation.

“There are things, steps that they can take to protect their families — putting documentation in place and securing relationships between parents and children, doing estate planning, making sure that their relationship is recognized fully throughout their lives and their communities. Much of that is not different from the tools that folks have had at their disposal prior to the availability of marriage equality … But I think it behooves everyone to make sure they have an estate plan and they’ve taken those steps to secure their family relationships.”

“I think, to the extent that the panic is rising for folks, those are tools that they have at their disposal to try and make sure that their family and their relationships are as secure as possible,” she added.

When asked what people can do at the state and local level to protect these rights from being eroded, Loewy urged voters to support candidates and initiatives that codify same-sex marriage at smaller levels — which would make it more difficult, if not impossible, for a federal reversal of Obergefell to take effect.

“With regard to marriage equality … states can be doing … amend state constitutions, to remove any of the previous language that had been used to bar same-sex couples from marrying.”

Lambda Legal CEO Kevin Jennings echoed Loewy’s points in a statement regarding the possibility of Obergefell being overturned:

“In the United States, we can proudly say that marriage equality is the law,” he said via email. “As the Supreme Court discusses whether to take up for review a challenge to marriage equality, Lambda Legal urges the court to honor what millions of Americans already know as a fundamental truth and right: LGBTQ+ families are part of the nation’s fabric.

“LGBTQ+ families, including same-sex couples, are living in and contributing to every community in this country: building loving homes and small businesses, raising children, caring for pets and neighbors, and volunteering in their communities. The court took note of this reality in Obergefell v. Hodges, citing the ‘hundreds of thousands of children’ already being raised in ‘loving and nurturing homes’ led by same-sex couples. The vows that LGBTQ+ couples have taken in their weddings might have been a personal promise to each other. Still, the decision of the Supreme Court is an unbreakable promise affirming the simple truth that our Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law to all, not just some.”

He noted the same things Loewy pointed out — namely that, at minimum, the particular avenue Davis is attempting to use to challenge same-sex marriage has no legal footing.

“Let’s be clear: There is no case here. Granting review in this case would unnecessarily open the door to harming families and undermine our rights. Lower courts have found that a government employee violates the law when she refuses to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples as her job requires. There is no justifiable reason for the court to revisit settled law or destabilize families.”

He also addressed members of the LGBTQ community who might be feeling fearful at this moment:

“To our community, we say: this fight is not new. Our community has been fighting for decades for our right to love whom we love, to marry and to build our families. It was not quick, not easy, not linear. We have lived through scary and dark times before, endured many defeats, but we have persevered. When we persist, we prevail.”

And he issued a direct message to the court, urging justices to honor the Constitution over one person’s religious beliefs.

“To the court, we ask it to honor its own precedent, to honor the Constitution’s commands of individual liberty and equal protection under the law, and above all, to honor the reality of LGBTQ families — deeply rooted in every town and city in America. There is no reason to grant review in this case.”

Kenneth Gordon, a partner at Brinkley Morgan, a financial firm that works with individuals and couples, including same-sex partners, to meet their legal and financial goals, also emphasized the importance of not panicking and of using available documentation processes such as estate planning.

“From a purely legal standpoint, overturning Obergefell v. Hodges would present significant complications. While it is unlikely that existing same-sex marriages would be invalidated, particularly given the protections of the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act, states could regain the authority to limit or prohibit future marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That would create a patchwork of laws across the country, where a couple could be legally married in one state but not recognized as married if they moved to or even visited another state.

“The legal ripple effects could be substantial. Family law issues such as adoption, parental rights, inheritance, health care decision-making, and property division all rely on the legal status of marriage. Without uniform recognition, couples could face uncertainty in areas like custody determinations, enforcement of spousal rights in medical emergencies, or the ability to inherit from a spouse without additional legal steps.

“Courts generally strive for consistency, and creating divergent state rules on marriage recognition would reintroduce conflicts that Obergefell was intended to resolve. From a legal systems perspective, that inconsistency would invite years of litigation and impose significant personal and financial burdens on affected families.”

Finally, Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson issued a statement about the possibility of the Supreme Court deciding to hear Davis’s appeal:

“Marriage equality isn’t just the law of the land — it’s woven into the fabric of American life,” said Robinson. “For more than a decade, millions of LGBTQ+ couples have gotten married, built families, and contributed to their communities. The American people overwhelmingly support that freedom. But Kim Davis and the anti-LGBTQ+ extremists backing her see a cynical opportunity to attack our families and re-litigate what’s already settled. The court should reject this paper-thin attempt to undermine marriage equality and the dignity of LGBTQ+ people.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday said the Trump-Vance administration can implement a policy that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers.

President Donald Trump once he took office signed an executive order that outlined the policy. A memo the Washington Blade obtained directed State Department personnel to “suspend any application where the applicant is seeking to change their sex marker from that defined in the executive order pending further guidance.”

The White House only recognizes two genders: male and female.

The American Civil Liberties Union in February filed a lawsuit against the passport directive on behalf of seven trans and nonbinary people.

A federal judge in Boston in April issued a preliminary junction against it. A three-judge panel on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in September ruled against the Trump-Vance administration’s motion to delay the move.

A federal judge in Maryland also ruled against the passport policy. (Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven trans people.)

 “This is a heartbreaking setback for the freedom of all people to be themselves, and fuel on the fire the Trump administration is stoking against transgender people and their constitutional rights,” said Jon Davidson, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, in a statement. “Forcing transgender people to carry passports that out them against their will increases the risk that they will face harassment and violence and adds to the considerable barriers they already face in securing freedom, safety, and acceptance. We will continue to fight this policy and work for a future where no one is denied self-determination over their identity.”

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

The Supreme Court ruling is here.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider whether to hear Kim Davis’s latest challenge to same-sex marriage — a case that, if accepted, could have major implications for LGBTQ rights in the United States.

Kim Davis, the former county clerk for Rowan County, Ky., made national headlines in 2015 when she defied federal court orders by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — and later, to any couples at all. Davis, a Pentecostal Christian, said that signing same-sex marriage licenses would violate her religious beliefs, claiming protection under the First Amendment. When questioned at the time, Davis told reporters she was acting “under God’s authority” and suggested couples could obtain licenses in other counties.

Her refusal came just weeks after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which guaranteed same-sex couples the constitutional right to marry under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. One of the couples who sought a license from Davis, April Miller and Karen Roberts, filed a federal lawsuit — Miller v. Davis — challenging her actions. Around the same time, another couple, David Moore and David Ermold, also sued after Davis again refused to issue them a license despite a court order directing her to do so.

In Kentucky, marriage licenses bore the county clerk’s name and title — something Davis argued forced her to personally endorse a practice she found morally objectionable. It wasn’t until the state legislature changed the law in 2016, removing clerks’ names from marriage licenses, that Davis and her deputies resumed issuing them.

In 2023, a federal jury awarded Moore and Ermold $50,000 each in damages for Davis’s repeated refusals. Davis appealed the decision, but the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the verdict earlier this year. The court ruled that Davis’s actions were not protected by the First Amendment because she was acting in her official capacity as a government official, not as a private citizen.

“The Bill of Rights would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates,” the court wrote, emphasizing that personal religious opposition cannot be translated into public policy.

Davis has now asked the Supreme Court to take up her case. Her petition, filed in August, argues that Obergefell “has no basis in the Constitution” and should be reconsidered. The justices are scheduled to review her petition in a private conference on Nov. 7, where they will decide whether to grant the case a full hearing.

Whether the court will take the case depends on whether at least four justices vote to hear it. Even if there are four votes to grant review, legal observers note that the justices would likely avoid taking up the case unless they are confident there is a fifth vote to overturn Obergefell.

Mathew Staver, Davis’s attorney, told Newsweek that Obergefell “has no basis in the Constitution” and could be overturned “without affecting any other cases.”

Legal experts, however, see such an outcome as unlikely. According to SCOTUSblog, while the case raises important questions about religious liberty and government authority, it centers on Davis’s personal liability rather than a direct challenge to the constitutionality of same-sex marriage itself.

Still, the case has reignited debate over the balance between religious freedom and LGBTQ rights — and whether the Supreme Court’s conservative majority might be open to revisiting one of its most significant civil rights decisions of the 21st century.