The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 decision granting same-sex couples the constitutional right to marry. The court’s refusal to hear the appeal of former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis was seen as a relief by LGBTQ advocates, who had feared that the conservative-leaning bench might reconsider the ruling amid ongoing challenges to other precedent-setting cases. Davis had sought to overturn a lower court’s ruling ordering her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and legal fees for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the Obergefell decision.

The Supreme Court offered no explanation for rejecting Davis’s appeal, which drew national attention given the current court’s 6–3 conservative majority and its prior decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. That reversal heightened speculation that Obergefell could be next on the chopping block. Davis’s attorney, Mat Staver, argued in his petition that Obergefell was “egregiously wrong” and “deeply damaging,” calling it a flawed interpretation of constitutional principles. He urged the justices to revisit the decision, arguing that it undermined religious liberty and forced individuals like Davis to violate their faith. Staver contended that marriage regulation should return to the states and that existing same-sex marriages could be grandfathered in if Obergefell were overturned.

Legal scholars, however, doubt the court is prepared to reverse same-sex marriage rights. Daniel Urman, a law professor at Northeastern University, told Newsweek that while the case could expand religious exemptions, it was unlikely to eliminate marriage equality itself. Paul Collins, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, agreed, noting that Davis’s case centers on damages rather than the constitutional right to marry. “This just isn’t the right vehicle for challenging Obergefell,” he said.