The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness

Supreme Court will not hear Kim Davis same-sex marriage case

Kim Davis, standing center, was jailed briefly in September 2015 for contempt of court after refusing to issue marriage licenses due to her opposition to gay marriage.
Kim Davis, standing center, was jailed briefly in September 2015 for contempt of court after refusing to issue marriage licenses due to her opposition to gay marriage. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
Placeholder while article actions load

The Supreme Court on Monday said it will not hear a case from a Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples, but two dissenters in the court’s landmark 2015 decision repeated their criticism of its “ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”

The court turned aside a case from Kim Davis, the former Rowan County clerk who was sued after she said her religious convictions kept her from recognizing same-sex marriages, even after the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to those unions in Obergefell v. Hodges. She was briefly jailed over the matter, and her case had attracted national attention.

Kentucky clerk ordered to jail for refusing to issue same-sex marriage license

Davis was defeated for reelection, and sued by two same-sex couples for refusing to issue marriage certificates. Her claim of qualified immunity was rejected by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

Conservatives are winning the battle for America’s courts, a triumph decades in the making. This is how they did it. (Video: The Washington Post)

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they agreed with the court’s decision not to accept Davis’s appeal, but used the occasion to renew their objections.

“Davis may have been one of the first victims of this court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last,” Thomas wrote. “Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other anti-discrimination laws.”

Supreme Court opens term at the center of America’s bitter political divide

Thomas continued: “It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law. But it is quite another when the court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch.”

The stinging opinion from Thomas renewed the debate over how established the court’s Obergefell decision should be seen. Some liberal activists said it was an indication the court might revisit the decision, especially if President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett is successful.

That would give the court a 6-to-3 conservative majority, and Barrett in the past has expressed skepticism about the Obergefell decision.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the only other dissenter from the 2015 decision still on the court, did not join Thomas’s opinion, nor did Trump’s other nominees to the court, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

As is customary, the court did not give a reason for not accepting Davis’s case.

“It is appalling that five years after the historic decision in Obergefell, two justices still consider same-sex couples less worthy of marriage than other couples,” said James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project. “When you do a job on behalf of the government — as an employee or a contractor — there is no license to discriminate or turn people away because they do not meet religious criteria. Our government could not function if everyone doing the government’s business got to pick their own rules.”

Thomas and Alito said they agreed with the decision not to accept the case, because it did not “cleanly” present the questions they felt are raised by the court’s 5-to-4 decision. And Thomas did not call explicitly for revisiting the question of whether states may deny marriage to same-sex couples.

“Nevertheless, this petition provides a stark reminder of the consequences of Obergefell,” Thomas wrote. “By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix.”

The question of what happens when religious beliefs collide with anti-discrimination laws returns to the court next month. It will hear a case about the city of Philadelphia’s decision to end a contract for foster-care services with a Catholic agency that refuses to work with same-sex couples.

The case denied Monday is Davis v. Ermold.