By now, you’ve probably seen the giddy headlines from America’s propaganda media about the U.S. Supreme Court declining to take up a case that sought to overturn so-called “gay marriage.”
“BREAKING: The Supreme Court rejects a call to overturn its decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide,” an Associated Press tweet with more than 21,000 likes reads.
“Supreme Court rejects challenge to landmark same-sex marriage decision,” a USA Today headline blared.
This “breaking news” is in response to an order list published by the Supreme Court on Monday detailing which cases it will and will not be taking up during its ongoing 2025-2026 term. Among those the court declined to consider is a case (Davis v. Ermold) involving former Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis.
Davis’ legal troubles began following the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that opened the door for so-called “gay marriage” in America.
As described by Liberty Counsel — the Christian group representing Davis — the former clerk “ceased issuing any marriage licenses while she sought an accommodation for her religious beliefs.” “The courts,” the organization said, “then used Obergefell … to deny her a religious accommodation that unconstitutionally forced her to choose between her religious beliefs and her livelihood.”
Davis “was the first victim jailed, sued, and held personally liable post-Obergefell for her sincerely held religious beliefs on marriage,” according to the group.
The average person reading legacy media headlines about the Supreme Court’s denial of Davis’ request is likely to come away with the conclusion that the former clerk’s case represented a serious threat to the precedent established in Obergefell.
But that is simply not accurate.
While it’s true that Davis’ petition to SCOTUS asked the justices to consider whether Obergefell should be overturned, there were many more prominent factors central to her case that made it highly unlikely the court would use it as a vehicle to revisit its ill-fated 2015 decision.
The most notable is that Davis’ case primarily dealt with legal questions surrounding the First Amendment and tort liability.
As described by Cornell Law School, “tort” is an “act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability.” “The primary aims of tort law,” the school noted, “are to provide relief to injured parties for harms caused by others, to impose liability on parties responsible for the harm, and to deter others from committing harmful acts.”
With respect to Davis’ case, the gay couple who sued Davis after she declined to grant them a marriage license “sought damages for the emotional distress caused by [her] actions,” according to Justia. When the matter went to court, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky sided with the plaintiffs “on liability, and a jury awarded them compensatory damages.”
As described by Justia, Davis appealed the decision to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, “arguing she was entitled to qualified immunity, had defenses under the Free Exercise Clause and the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and that the evidence of emotional distress was insufficient to support the jury’s award.” The 6th Circuit subsequently affirmed the district court’s decision, rejecting Davis’ free exercise claims and upholding “the jury’s award of damages, finding that the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence of emotional distress.”
In their petition to SCOTUS, Davis’ attorneys took issue with the 6th Circuit’s ruling. They more specifically challenged the appellate court’s conclusion that her actions “are not protected by the First Amendment, regardless of the capacity [individual or state actor] in which the defendant is sued.”
Davis’ attorneys asked the court to address whether “the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause provides an affirmative defense to tort liability based solely on emotional distress damages with no actual damages in the same manner as the Free Speech Clause under” existing SCOTUS precedent, the petition reads.
Davis’ legal team does go on to explain the problems with the court’s Obergefell decision in its petition — and there are many of them. The question of overturning so-called “gay marriage,” however, was never the central issue at play. Rather, it was the tort liability issue.
It’s entirely possible a more direct legal challenge to the Supreme Court’s horrific Obergefell ruling could make its way before the justices in the years to come. But to portray the high court’s rejection of Davis’ case as massive win for “gay marriage” and “LGBT rights,” as the media have done, is totally dishonest.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
