Justices leave intact $100,000 jury award against former Kentucky clerk who refused same-sex marriage licenses
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal by Kim Davis, the former Rowan County clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision. The denial of certiorari leaves in place a $100,000 jury award against her and closes the door on a direct challenge to the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Davis had asked the Court not only to overturn the jury verdict that found her personally liable for emotional damages, but to go further and reverse Obergefell altogether, arguing that it lacked a constitutional foundation and improperly removed the issue from state control. By denying review, the justices allowed the Sixth Circuit’s ruling against Davis to stand.
The case gained attention not only for revisiting Davis’s high-profile refusal to issue marriage licenses, but for pushing a broader legal theory: that government officials should be personally shielded from damages when acting based on religious conviction, even if their actions violate others’ constitutional rights.
Davis’s petition, filed July 24, 2025, was the most direct request yet to use Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, as a legal model to revisit and reverse Obergefell. Her legal team, led by Liberty Counsel, argued that the Obergefell decision was wrongly decided and that Davis’s actions were constitutionally protected expressions of religious conscience.
The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by David Ermold and David Moore, who were denied a marriage license by Davis in the weeks after Obergefell. They eventually received a license from another deputy clerk, but sued Davis for emotional distress. A jury awarded each man $50,000 in damages. The Sixth Circuit upheld the verdict, ruling that Davis had acted under color of state law and could not use the First Amendment to shield herself from personal liability.
By seeking to reverse both the damages judgment and Obergefell itself, Davis’s appeal marked an escalation. Rather than arguing for a narrow exemption or reinterpretation of the law, the petition challenged the legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision outright, citing Dobbs as precedent for overturning settled rights not explicitly found in the Constitution.
The Court’s refusal to hear the case does not create new precedent but reaffirms Obergefell’s continued authority and lets the lower court ruling stand. The decision not to take up the appeal was issued without comment or noted dissents.
This outcome follows years of litigation over Davis’s actions and reflects the Court’s current unwillingness to reopen the debate over same-sex marriage. While some conservative justices have criticized Obergefell in past opinions, the Court has not shown interest in revisiting it directly since Dobbs.
The case is Davis v. Ermold, U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 24-527. The denial of certiorari was issued November 10, 2025.
Read the original ReligiousLiberty.TV story about the petition from July 25, 2025: https://open.substack.com/pub/religiouslibertytv/p/ex-kentucky-clerk-seeks-to-use-religious
Comment
We follow cases like this not to score points, but to understand how constitutional rights are tested and interpreted in real situations. These are not abstract questions. They involve real people, public institutions, and principles that affect how liberty and law coexist.
Davis’s petition asked the Court to reconsider the boundaries of religious liberty for former government officials and, more dramatically, to overturn Obergefell using reasoning similar to Dobbs. The Court declined. Without comment, it left in place a ruling that found Davis’s conduct violated clearly established rights, and that she could be held personally responsible.
In recent months, the Court has taken a more restrained and balanced approach across a range of cases. While some still call it “activist” when it rules against their interests, this denial reflects a pattern of letting prior precedent stand, especially when a petition presses too far beyond the facts of the case.
The jury found that Davis caused emotional harm by denying a government service she was obligated to provide. Her defense was that her religious beliefs justified her refusal. The courts ruled that once she stepped into a government role, those beliefs could not be used to deny others their constitutional rights. That distinction—between belief and public obligation—was central to the outcome, and the Supreme Court has now declined to revisit it.
TLDR (Too Long / Didn’t Read Summary)
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Kim Davis’s appeal, letting stand a $100,000 jury award against her for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2015. Davis sought not only to reverse the damages but to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. By denying certiorari, the Court leaves that precedent untouched. Davis’s case, backed by Liberty Counsel, argued that her refusal was protected religious conduct and that Dobbs justified overturning Obergefell. The Sixth Circuit rejected those arguments, finding she acted as a state official and caused legal harm. The Court issued no comment on the denial.
Like this article? Share it with your network and subscribe to ReligiousLiberty.TV at https://religiouslibertytv.substack.com for breaking legal updates, case analysis, and in-depth reporting on religious freedom and constitutional law.
AI Disclaimer
This article was prepared with the assistance of AI technology and reviewed for factual accuracy. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a licensed attorney for legal counsel related to their own circumstances.
Tags: Kim Davis, Obergefell v. Hodges, religious liberty, Supreme Court, same-sex marriage
Source: ReligiousLibertyTV on Substack
