In June 2015, the Supreme Court of the U.S. in Obergefell v. Hodges declared that the Fourteenth Amendment promises the right to marry for same-sex couples and that it is compulsory for every state to recognize those marriages performed in other states. The landmark decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy was a major victory for the LGBTQ+ community’s rights, and it led to the demise of state bans and finally marriage equality throughout the country.
Ten years later, the decision is still valid, but the political and legal challenges that have been launched recently call for a fierce debate on whether the ruling will be kept. In August 2025, Kim Davis—the ex-Kentucky clerk who was widely known for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015—asked the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell by filing a petition. Her lawyers contended that the ruling was “egregiously wrong” and that it infringed the constitutional rights of people who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons.
Nevertheless, court experts have indicated that the justices will not reconsider the case unless there is a disagreement between appellate courts or a new legal question. According to commentators on SCOTUSblog, it would be extremely difficult to get around “concrete” reliance interests when trying to overturn Obergefell because a large number of people have based their rights and economic lives on marriage equality.
Despite this, political and religious factions have been trying to challenge the ruling and, in some cases, to reject it as a token. The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, in a resolution passed in June 2025, called upon the repeal of Obergefell and stated that homosexual marriage is “contrary to biblical teaching”. The Idaho House of Representatives also passed a resolution encouraging the Supreme Court to reverse its decision and stating that marriage should be “reserved for one man and one woman only.” In the case of an Obergefell reversal, it would not be legal for a same-sex couple to marry all over the U.S. In accordance with the Movement Advancement Project, there are still at least 30 states that have either constitutional or statutory bans on same-sex marriages, and these bans have not been rescinded but are only rendered unenforceable by Obergefell. Among them, states such as Texas, Florida, and Michigan are included. Thus, in those states, the act of same-sex marriage would probably become illegal again right after the court decision is reversed, unless it was protected by some legislation that existed at the state level. But the Respect for Marriage Act of 2022—Congress passed it with bipartisan majorities—would still be binding all the states to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages that were legally performed in other states, even if individual states had reinstated bans. The law functions as a shield, but it does not force the states to issue marriage licenses themselves.
The figures coming from Gallup and the Census Bureau reveal that the number of legally married same-sex couples in the United States has more than doubled between 2015 and 2023, rising from approximately 390,000 to over 850,000 households. Nationally, the public continues to be in favor of same-sex marriage with about 70 percent of support, though there have been a growing number of partisan divisions in the past few years. Nevertheless, a few conservative justices, among them Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, have expressed their readiness to question the precedent and have stated that Obergefell involved judicial overreach.
In November 2025, the Supreme Court decided not to hear Davis’s appeal, thereby preserving the status quo of Obergefell. The refusal to grant the petition was a momentary reprieve for proponents of marriage equality, but it also highlighted the precariousness of precedent in a court that is willing to reconsider its decisions. For a great number of Americans, the controversy around Obergefell is not only a legal query but also a cultural mirror reflecting the nation’s ongoing conflict regarding civil rights, religious freedom, and the extent of judicial power.
