The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to reconsider its pivotal ruling that legalized same-sex marriage across the nation. The justices dismissed an appeal from Kim Davis, a former Kentucky court clerk who gained notoriety for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Davis sought to overturn a lower court's order requiring her to pay $360,000 in damages and attorney's fees to a couple she denied a marriage license. Her legal team cited Justice Clarence Thomas, the only current justice who has called for the reversal of the same-sex marriage ruling. Thomas was part of the dissenting opinion when the case was decided in 2015, alongside Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who remain on the court today.

Roberts has not publicly commented on the issue since his dissent, while Alito has criticized the Obergefell decision but clarified that he does not advocate for its reversal. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was not on the court during the 2015 ruling, has indicated that some decisions may warrant correction, as seen in the 2022 case that ended the constitutional right to abortion. However, Barrett has suggested that same-sex marriage may be treated differently because many individuals have relied on the ruling for their marriages and families.

Davis became a national figure in 2015 when she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing her religious beliefs. Her defiance led to her being jailed for contempt of court after she ignored federal court orders. She was released after her staff issued the licenses on her behalf, although her name was removed from the documents. Subsequently, the Kentucky legislature passed a law eliminating the names of county clerks from marriage licenses. Davis lost her re-election bid in 2018.

Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, commended the Supreme Court's decision not to intervene, stating, "The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences."