The Supreme Court is hearing a case involving marriage equality, but despite his hopes, a legal expert doesn't think conservative Justice Samuel Alito will get his wish.

Kim Davis, a notorious Kentucky county clerk, refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples even after the Supreme Court ruled on the case. The couple sued Davis, and the jury found in the couple's favor. She was jailed for six days and ordered to pay $100,000 in damages.

With the change of the Supreme Court, Davis filed a "petition for writ of certiorari filed [in July], Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses," ABC News reported.

"More fundamentally, she claims the high court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges -- extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment's due process protections -- was 'egregiously wrong,'" the report continued.

While legal experts on MSNBC disputed the idea that the case would be overturned using Davis' case specifically, one comment from Justice Samuel Alito puzzled Slate's Michael Joseph Stern.

"I think the odds are exceedingly unlikely that the full court takes it up, in part, because what Davis is trying to do here is get out from under the $100,000 in damages that she owes to those two men in the video to whom she denied a marriage license," said Stern.

He added that he thinks the justices will read it as a cynical attempt to get attention for herself so she can fundraise off of it.

Speaking about the case and the Obergefell ruling on Wednesday, host Katy Tur quoted Alito speaking to a conference in which he said, "In commenting on Rockefeller, I am not suggesting that the decision in that case should be overruled."

"Do you take Justice Alito at his word there at all?" Tur asked Stern.

"No, not at all," Stern said flatly. "Because he has already suggested in an opinion that it should be overruled. I think he caught himself and was trying to avoid a bad headline. I don't think there's any question that if this issue came to the Supreme Court for the very first time, now, the court would rule against marriage equality 6-3. That is not the question. The question is whether marriage equality as a precedent is vulnerable at this court."