The United States Supreme Court quietly declined on November 10, 2025, to take up Kim Davis’ petition asking the justices to revisit the 2015 Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The court’s refusal to grant review leaves in place lower-court rulings against Davis and closes this chapter for now, even as millions of Americans on both sides watch closely.
Most Americans remember how Kim Davis became a household name in 2015 when she was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the grounds of her Christian conscience. The controversy did not end there: a jury later awarded damages and the legal battles continued for years, with courts repeatedly rejecting her immunity claims.
Legally, Davis’ appeal tried to force the high court to reconsider not only her personal liability but the broader legal footing of Obergefell itself, after the Sixth Circuit refused to shield her from damages and rejected her qualified immunity and Free Exercise arguments. Those rulings stand absent Supreme Court review, demonstrating that claiming conscience alone does not automatically erase state liability when one acts as a government official.
Conservatives who hoped the current conservative majority would use this vehicle to reverse Obergefell got a sober reminder that the Court moves in measured ways, for better or worse. Some will call that restraint; others will see it as a missed opportunity to restore clarity to competing constitutional commitments of marriage law and religious liberty.
From a religious-liberty perspective, the decision is a bitter pill. Scores of Americans who serve the public while trying to live by faith worry that the law can force them to choose between convictions and careers, and the damage awards in Davis’ case underscore the stakes for ordinary people.
This moment should galvanize conservatives to act where the courts will not: through legislatures and the ballot box to strengthen conscience protections and ensure that laws like the Respect for Marriage Act do not become a blunt instrument against religious freedom. If the Supreme Court declines to revisit a precedent, it falls on principled lawmakers at the state and federal level to craft balanced solutions that protect both marriage and first-amendment liberties.
Kim Davis stood by her faith when it mattered, and many Americans admire that courage even if they disagree about the legal outcome. The conservative movement must turn disappointment into resolve, defending the right of faith-filled citizens to live according to their beliefs without being bankrupted by punitive lawsuits.
