Davis could not use her own constitutional rights as a shield to violate the rights of others
Em novembro de 2025, o Supremo Tribunal dos Estados Unidos recusou-se a reabrir a decisão histórica de 2015 que legalizou o casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo em todo o país, rejeitando silenciosamente o recurso de Kim Davis, uma funcionária do condado do Kentucky que se recusou a emitir licenças de casamento por convicções religiosas. A recusa do tribunal — de maioria conservadora — em retomar o caso Obergefell v. Hodges sugere que, pelo menos por agora, o direito ao casamento igualitário permanece constitucionalmente protegido, mesmo num momento em que os movimentos jurídicos conservadores continuam a procurar formas de o reverter. É um momento que recorda como os direitos conquistados raramente são definitivos, mas também como as instituições, por vezes, resistem à pressão de os desmantelar.
- Três anos e meio após o Supremo Tribunal revogar o direito constitucional ao aborto, a comunidade LGBTQ+ aguardava com apreensão se o casamento igualitário seria o próximo alvo.
- Kim Davis, que chegou a ser presa durante seis dias por desacato ao tribunal, acumulou uma dívida superior a 360 mil dólares em indemnizações e honorários legais por ter negado licenças de casamento a casais do mesmo sexo.
- Os tribunais inferiores foram unânimes: um funcionário público eleito não pode invocar a sua liberdade religiosa para violar os direitos constitucionais dos cidadãos que serve.
- O Supremo Tribunal, com seis juízes conservadores — três dos quais dissidentes em 2015 —, optou pelo silêncio jurídico, recusando simplesmente ouvir o recurso.
- Os advogados do casal lesado celebraram a decisão como uma confirmação do direito ao casamento igualitário; os grupos conservadores prometeram continuar a busca por um caso que leve o tribunal a reverter Obergefell.
O Supremo Tribunal dos Estados Unidos recusou esta semana ouvir o recurso de Kim Davis, funcionária eleita do condado de Rowan, no Kentucky, que em 2015 se negou a emitir licenças de casamento a casais do mesmo sexo, invocando a sua fé cristã apostólica. A recusa do tribunal em reabrir o caso Obergefell v. Hodges — a decisão histórica que legalizou o casamento igualitário em todo o país — chegou num momento de grande incerteza para os direitos LGBTQ+, três anos e meio após o mesmo tribunal ter revertido o direito constitucional ao aborto.
O casal David Ermold e David Moore, a quem Davis recusou o atendimento, avançou com uma ação judicial. Os tribunais rejeitaram o argumento de que a Primeira Emenda protegia a sua recusa enquanto funcionária pública: um juiz federal concluiu em 2022 que os direitos constitucionais de Davis não podiam ser usados como escudo para violar os direitos de outros. Em 2023, um júri atribuiu ao casal 100 mil dólares em danos, e o juiz acrescentou 260 mil dólares em custas e honorários. O Tribunal de Recurso do Sexto Circuito confirmou a sentença em março, e o Supremo Tribunal optou por não intervir.
A decisão de 2015, aprovada por cinco votos contra quatro, foi redigida pelo juiz conservador Anthony Kennedy, que escreveu que os casais do mesmo sexo pediam apenas não ser condenados à exclusão de uma das instituições mais antigas da civilização. Três dos quatro juízes que dissentiram nessa decisão — Clarence Thomas, John Roberts e Samuel Alito — continuam no tribunal, o que tornava a recusa em reabrir o caso ainda mais significativa.
O advogado do casal considerou a decisão uma confirmação inequívoca do direito ao casamento igualitário. Do lado oposto, Mat Staver, da Liberty Counsel, prometeu continuar a procurar um caso que leve o tribunal a reverter Obergefell, insistindo que a decisão carece de fundamento constitucional. Por agora, o casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo permanece protegido — mas o debate jurídico está longe de encerrado.
The Supreme Court of the United States declined this week to hear an appeal that sought to dismantle its landmark 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country. The case centered on Kim Davis, an elected county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who had refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing her Christian apostolic faith. Her legal challenge reached the nation's highest court at a moment of profound uncertainty for LGBTQ rights—three and a half years after the conservative-majority bench overturned the constitutional right to abortion, many expected the justices might reconsider marriage equality next.
Davis's refusal to perform her official duties triggered a lawsuit from David Ermold and David Moore, the same-sex couple she turned away. Lower courts rejected her argument that the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom exempted her from responsibility while acting as a government official. A federal judge ruled in 2022 that Davis could not use her own constitutional rights as a shield to violate the constitutional rights of others in her capacity as an elected employee. A jury awarded the couple $100,000 in damages in 2023, and the judge subsequently ordered Davis to pay an additional $260,000 in attorney fees and court costs—a total financial liability exceeding $360,000.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati, upheld the judgment in March, concluding that the First Amendment protects private conduct, not the official actions of government employees performing their duties. When Davis appealed to the Supreme Court, the justices simply declined to take the case—a quiet but significant choice given the ideological composition of the bench. Six of the nine justices are conservative; three were appointed by Donald Trump during his first term. Three of the four conservatives who dissented in the original 2015 Obergefell decision still sit on the court: Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito.
The 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision was itself a narrow victory, decided 5 to 4, with conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the four liberal justices. Kennedy wrote that same-sex couples seeking marriage asked only not to be condemned to live in isolation, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They sought equal dignity under the law, he reasoned, and the Constitution granted them that right. Overturning Obergefell would allow states to reinstate bans on same-sex marriage—a prospect that energized conservative legal movements after the Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and eliminate the federal constitutional right to abortion.
William Powell, the attorney representing Ermold and Moore, called the Supreme Court's refusal to hear Davis's appeal a confirmation of what should have been obvious: same-sex couples possess a constitutional right to marry, and Davis's defiance of that right violated it plainly. "This is a victory for same-sex couples around the world who have built their families and lives around the right to marry," Powell said. Mat Staver, founder of the conservative Christian legal group Liberty Counsel representing Davis, characterized the decision as devastating but vowed to persist. "We will continue to work to bring a case to the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell," Staver said, insisting the decision lacks constitutional foundation and that the justices know it.
Davis's case had already exacted a personal toll. After Obergefell was decided in 2015, she refused to issue licenses in her county, leading to her imprisonment for six days on contempt of court charges. Ermold and Moore eventually obtained their license while she was incarcerated. The Trump administration took no public position on the case while the Supreme Court deliberated whether to accept it. The Court's decision to let the lower court rulings stand leaves Obergefell intact for now, though the conservative legal movement has made clear it views the decision as vulnerable and continues to seek a vehicle to challenge it.
Citas Notables
Davis cannot use her own constitutional rights as a shield to violate the constitutional rights of others while performing her duties as an elected official.— U.S. District Judge David Bunning
We will continue to work to bring a case to the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell. Obergefell will be reversed because it has no basis in the Constitution.— Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did the Supreme Court decline to hear this case when it has the power to reshape marriage law?
The Court's silence is itself a statement. With a 6-3 conservative majority, they could have taken it. That they didn't suggests either caution about the political fallout or genuine reluctance to dismantle a right that's now woven into millions of lives.
But didn't the same Court overturn abortion rights just three years ago?
Yes, and that emboldened conservative groups to believe marriage equality was next. The difference may be that abortion touched on a different constitutional question—whether the Constitution protects a right at all. Marriage equality, once granted, has created legal and social facts on the ground that are harder to undo.
What happens to Kim Davis now?
She's out of office and carries a debt of over $360,000. But her legal team hasn't stopped. They see this as a temporary setback, not a defeat. They'll keep looking for another case, another angle.
Could they succeed if they find the right case?
Theoretically, yes. Three of the four original dissenters still serve. Trump appointed three more conservatives. The math exists. But the Court's refusal to hear Davis suggests even this majority has limits on how far it will go.
What does this mean for same-sex couples right now?
Their right to marry remains constitutionally protected. But it's no longer guaranteed to be permanent. It depends on who sits on the Court and what case lands in front of them next.