Supreme Court rejects challenge to gay marriage decision

Driving the news: The Supreme Court rejected the application without explanation, as is custom.

• The case was brought by Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue a gay couple a marriage license in 2015. Her appeal claimed the court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges was "egregiously wrong" and "deeply damaging."
• Davis was ordered to pay $360,000 in damages and fees, and she has been unsuccessful in her attempts to challenge that judgment.

Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the historic case, said in a statement provided to Axios that the court did the "right thing" in rejecting the request, saying he hopes this "is the last we hear from" Davis.

• He said marriage equality "has given couples and families the rights, protections, and dignity they deserve. Queer kids can dream of a future, married to the person they love in the place they call home."
• While he said today warrants celebration, Obergefell added "we should not assume marriage equality will stand forever" and that there could be "continued efforts to bring another case before the Supreme Court, a court that has proven that precedent is not always safe."

Between the lines: LGBTQ+ rights advocates, like Obergefell, have stressed that marriage equality must still be defended. However, legal experts previously told Axios the high court was likely to deny review in this case.

• Unwinding years of protections for same-sex marriage would create a complicated legal quagmire.
• But the Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision — and Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion suggesting the court should revisit Obergefell — raised alarms that marriage equality could be the next right to fall.
• More than two dozen states have trigger laws that would limit marriage equality if the Supreme Court ever overturned its 2015 decision.

What they're saying: Mat Staver — the founder of Liberty Counsel, which represents Davis — described the high court's decision as "heartbreaking" for Davis and for "religious freedom."

• He added, "We are committed to overturning Obergefell."

Yes, but: Mary Bonauto, GLAD Law's senior director of civil rights and legal strategies, said in a statement that today, "millions of Americans can breathe a sigh of relief."

• Bonauto, who argued Obergefell in 2015, said that "the only thing that has changed" since it was decided is that "people across the country have seen how marriage equality provides protection for families and children, and that protection strengthens communities, the economy and our society."
• Brian K. Bond, the CEO of PFLAG National, said in a statement that the "freedom to say 'I do' is more than just love and commitment."
• "It's also about the right to visit your spouse in the hospital or to make medical decisions. It's about both parents having legal rights to raise their children. It's about having access to financial benefits for buying a house or car," Bond said.

Catch up quick: Davis turned to the Supreme Court after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected her appeal.

• The court, citing Obergefell, said that while people can be opposed to same-sex marriage, they "do not have a right to transform their 'personal opposition' into 'enacted law and public policy.'"
• Davis' application to the Supreme Court argued the Obergefell decision was "grounded in the erroneous fiction on substantive due process" and should be overturned.

Go deeper: A decade after Obergefell, LGBTQ+ rights remain under threat

Editor's note: This story was updated with additional context.