Has the Supreme Court abandoned religious liberty in favor of a progressive mandate?
On Nov. 10, 2025, the highest court declined to review a case from Kim Davis, a former Kentucky clerk, challenging the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that cemented same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, while upholding a $100,000 award against her as SCOTUSblog.com reports.
Over a decade ago, following the Obergefell decision, Davis, then a county clerk in Kentucky, took a stand by refusing to issue a marriage license to David Moore and David Ermold, a same-sex couple. Her decision sparked a firestorm of legal battles still echoing today.
Not content with just denying one couple, Davis halted issuing marriage licenses to everyone, regardless of orientation. This blanket refusal led to immediate pushback, as it clashed with the newly established legal landscape in the wake of the Obergefell decision.
Two lawsuits emerged from her actions -- one by Moore and Ermold asserting their right to marry was violated, and another contesting her total ban on licenses. The courts weren’t amused by her stance against federal mandates.
U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered Davis to issue licenses to all couples, whether gay or straight. Yet, even under court pressure, Davis and her deputies stood firm, rejecting Moore and Ermold’s renewed request for a license.
In response to such conflicts, Kentucky eventually passed a law removing clerks’ names and signatures from marriage forms, aiming to ease tensions for officials like Davis. But for her, this accommodation came after the damage was done.
The legal saga continued as Moore and Ermold’s case went to trial, where a jury awarded them $50,000 each, totaling $100,000 in damages. Davis, undeterred, appealed this hefty penalty to higher courts.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the award, dismissing Davis’ argument that her religious beliefs, protected under the First Amendment, justified her refusal. The court reasoned her actions represented government policy, not personal conviction.
Davis escalated her fight to the Supreme Court, seeking a ruling on whether the First Amendment shielded her and whether Obergefell should be overturned. Her petition, filed with urgency, aimed to redefine the balance between faith and law.
On Aug. 7, the Supreme Court requested a response from Moore and Ermold, a step needing at least one justice’s vote. Their brief, filed on Oct. 8, argued that Davis’ latest defense was untimely and her challenge to Obergefell was waived earlier.
Davis argued in her petition that the Obergefell decision “had no basis in the Constitution” and left her “with a choice between her religious beliefs and her job.” Isn’t it ironic that a ruling on rights forces some to abandon their deepest convictions?
The petition and responses were reviewed by justices on Oct. 22, for a Nov. 7 conference. Davis needed four votes to secure a hearing, but hope dwindled as no such support emerged.
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a brief, unsigned order rejecting Davis’ appeal without explanation. No justice publicly dissented, leaving her case -- and broader questions of religious freedom -- unaddressed.
Under President Donald Trump’s administration, many hoped for a judiciary that prioritizes individual liberties over sweeping mandates. Yet, this decision suggests the court remains reluctant to revisit settled progressive victories, even at the cost of personal faith.
