US Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court has set a date on whether it will hear a case challenging same sex marriage.

Back in July, Kim Davis – who made headlines in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples – filed a petition for writ of certiorari, appealing two past verdicts that ordered her to pay $100,000 to one of the same-sex couples she denied a marriage license to, and $250,000 in attorney fees.

The filing also urged the Court to overturn the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, calling it “grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process.” Davis further claimed that the 2015 decision forced her to choose “between her religious beliefs and her job.”

On 23 October, the Court announced that it had set a date to consider whether to hear the challenge.

According to SCOTUSblog, the nine justices will be meeting in a private conference on 7 November.

The blog went on to reveal that the Court usually grants reviews after two consecutive conferences. The upcoming hearing will be the first for Davis’ case. If the Court denies a review following their meeting on 7 November, an announcement can be released as soon as 10 November.

The recent update comes a week after conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett – who was appointed to the high court during Trump’s first term– addressed the possibility of Obergefell v. Hodges being overturned.

During a recent conversation with The New York Times‘s Ross Douthat, Barrett said marriage equality has “very concrete reliance interests,” making it unlikely to be taken away.

Ted Eytan on Flickr

She went on to define “reliance interests” as “things that would be upset or undone if a decision is undone.”

Elsewhere in the interview, Douthat inquired if there can be “social reliance interests in the sense of people making life choices on the basis of a right being protected.”

He added: “One of the arguments for why Obergefell v Hodges is unlikely to ever be overturned is the idea that people have made decisions about who to marry and therefore where to live and children… Everything else, on the basis of that ruling.”

In response, Barrett described Douthat’s example as “absolutely reliance interests,” stating that she wouldn’t classify them as “social reliance interests.”

“That kind of sounds like in things in the air. Those are very concrete reliance interests. So those would be classic reliance interests in the terms of the law, in terms of legal doctrine… Those are financial. Those are medical,” she explained.

Another conservative Supreme Court Justice who shared a similar opinion is Samuel Alito. While speaking at an academic conference on 3 October, he said that marriage equality is “entitled to respect,” despite his dislike of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling.

For information about the status of marriage equality in the US, click here.

The US Supreme Court have been presented with arguments in a case attempting to overturn Colorado’s conversion therapy ban for minors.

Back in June 2019, Colorado became the 18th state to prohibit the harmful and discredited practice from being used with its

So-called conversion therapy refers to any attempt at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity and can often involve cruel and dangerous methods such as electroshock therapy, nausea-causing drugs, verbal and physical abuse, food deprivation, and forced prayer.

While it has been widely condemned by health experts and scientific bodies worldwide, the US Supreme Court has recently considered the possibility of overturning Colorado’s ban on the harmful practice —a move that could roll back similar laws in other states.

On 7 October, the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, heard oral arguments regarding the Chiles v. Salazar case – which stemmed from Christian therapist Kaley Chiles’ lawsuit against the state of Colorado.  

In her petition, the licensed professional counsellor, who is represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), claimed that the state’s conversion therapy ban violates her freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

During opening arguments, Chiles’ lawyer, James Campbell, alleged that Colorado law forbids counsellors like his client “from helping minors pursue state disfavored goals on issues of issues of gender and sexuality.”

“This law prophylactically bans voluntary conversations, censoring widely held views on debated moral, religious and scientific questions. Aside from this law and recent ones like it, Colorado hasn’t identified any similar viewpoint-based bans on counselling. These laws are historic outliers,” he alleged.

During Colorado’s opening argument, the Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson defended the state’s ban, citing that “state power is at its apex when it regulates to ensure safety in the healthcare professions.”

“Colorado’s law lies at the bull’s eye center of this protection because it prohibits licensed professionals from performing one specific treatment because that treatment does not work and carries a great risk of harm,” she continued.

“No court has ever held that a law like this implicates the First Amendment, and for good reason. First, the law applies only to treatments, that is, only when a licensed professional is delivering clinical care to an individual patient. In that setting, providers have a duty to act in their patients’ best interest and according to their professional standards.

“The First Amendment affords no exception. Second, because this law governs only treatments, it does not interfere with any First Amendment interest. It does not stop a professional from expressing any viewpoint about the treatment to their patient or to anyone else.”

In addition to the above, the court heard an argument from the US Federal Government’s Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, who came out in support of Chiles, stating that the Colorado law is “subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.”

During the question portions of the hearing, many of the conservative justices pushed back against the state’s law, with Justice Samuel Alito expressing concern that it was “blatant viewpoint discrimination.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett also posed the question of whether states can “pick a side” regarding the standard of care.

In response to Barrett’s question, Stevenson said: “The state can show we’re regulating a treatment and we’re regulating consistent with the standard of care. There is a confirmation, a security that the court can have that there is no other motive going to suppress viewpoints or expression.”

While addressing Campbell’s argument, liberal Justice Sotomayor described Chiles vs Salazar as “an unusual case,” citing that there has been no enforcement of Colorado’s law within the last six years.

She also pointed out that state officials did not consider Chiles’ faith-based counselling as a violation of the state’s ban before adding: “So how does that fit into being an imminent threat of prosecution? Yes, you have an argument; they’ve disavowed it. How does that give you standing?

In response, Campbell said he didn’t believe Colorado officials have disavowed enforcement, alleging that “the state was relying on a misreading of the allegations in the case to say there’s no standing.”

He also claimed that several anonymous complaints have been filed against his client, alleging that the state is now investigating them for violating the conversion therapy ban.

During a post-hearing press conference, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser told reporters: “This practice is harmful – it’s been banned on bipartisan basis in Colorado and many other states. It tells young people that who they are is not OK, leaving lasting harm.”

Weiser also pushed back on Campbell’s claim that the state was investigating Chiles, revealing that “there have been no official proceedings or efforts to take any action against the petitioner.”

In the wake of the hearing, an array of LGBTQIA+ activists and organisations have slammed the attempt to reverse Colorado’s conversion therapy ban, including Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson.

“So-called ‘conversion therapy is not therapy, it is an abusive, discredited pseudoscience rooted in shame, rejection and fear. It often resorts to guilt, coercion and trauma in a disturbing effort to make someone believe they are less than simply because of who they are,” she said.

“These appalling practices can destroy families, worsen mental health outcomes and rob people of their faith communities. Laws like Colorado’s are crucial in ensuring that parents can trust licensed mental health professionals to keep youth safe, supported and able to get the care they need without fear of judgment or bias.”

The Supreme Court is expected to reach a decision in Chiles v Salazar in June 2026.

To listen to the full 90-minute hearing, click here.

A new study revealed that LGBTQIA+ people in the US want to get married.

In 2015, the queer community achieved a massive victory when same-sex marriage was legalised across all 50 states – following the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case.

Over the last decade, thousands of LGBTQIA+ couples have exercised their right to get married, with many more considering the possibility.

According to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, 59% of LGBTQIA+ US adults under 50 who have never been married say they want to get hitched. Comparatively, 63% of non-LGBTQIA+ individuals under the same age bracket say the same thing.

Upon further investigation, researchers found that of the surveyed LGBTQIA+ adults, those between the ages of 18 and 29 were more than likely to say they wanted to get married compared to those aged 30 to 49.

Non queer adults also displayed similar stats, with 79% of 18 to 29-year-olds embracing marriage, while only 49% of 30-49 year olds agreed.

When surveying those who are divorced, widowed or separated, 49% of LGBTQIA+ adults said they were more likely to get married again. The same couldn’t be said for their heterosexual peers, with only 33% expressing an interest.

The study also shed some light on the respective groups’ views about having children.

47% of non-LGBTQIA+ adults under 50, who don’t have kids, were shown to have more of an interest in starting a family, while only 33% of LGBTQIA+ adults shared the same sentiment.

However, a nearly equal portion of LGBTQIA+ adults (28%) and non-LGBTQIA+ adults (29%) were unsure if they wanted to have children.

Lastly, it was revealed that 37% of LGBTQIA+ women and 36% of LGBTQIA+ men want to have kids someday.

There was a bigger disparity between the straight individuals. 54% of non-LGBTQIA+ men were reported to want children, and 39% of non-LGBTQIA+ women shared the same interest.

The recent data comes at a time when marriage equality is facing a new wave of attacks from Republicans and conservative figures.

In July, former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis – who made headlines in 2015 when she refused to issue marriage licenses to LGBTQIA+ couples – filed a petition urging the US Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.

In the filing, she described the ruling as being “grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process” and further claimed that it forced her to choose “between her religious beliefs and her job.”

For more information about the petition and whether the Court will hear the case, click here.

When will the US Supreme Court make a decision on whether it will hear the case?

As of now, no date has been set for when the US Supreme Court will make its decision. According to the Court’s website, the case will be considered by the nine justices during their 29 September conference, with a decision potentially coming in October. However, it could take longer, as the Court sometimes “re-lists particularly controversial cases,” meaning they may be discussed at multiple conferences, per Forbes.

What are legal experts saying about the petition and the likelihood of same-sex marriage being overturned?

Many legal experts doubt that the US Supreme Court will (1) hear Kim Davis’ case or (2) overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.

In an interview with Newsweek, Northeastern University law professor Daniel Urman said it was “very unlikely” the Court would take on the case, despite the current conservative majority on the bench.

“There’s a chance that a conservative majority could use the case to expand the rights of religious objectors to same-sex marriage. But that’s not the same as overturning the right itself, and I don’t see a majority of the Court ready to do that,” Urman told the outlet.

“Culturally, same-sex marriage has become embedded in American life, and it is still popular in public opinion polls.”

Carl Esbeck, a religious liberty expert at the University of Missouri School of Law, and Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, expressed similar views in statements to USA Today.

“It would be a useless act to overturn Obergefell. The politics have simly moved on from same-sex marriage, even for conservative religious people,” Esbeck said.

Stone noted that while some Supreme Court justices may disagree with the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, they are unlikely to overturn it given the public’s support for marriage equality and a desire to “avoid the appearance of interpreting the Constitution in a manner that conforms to their own personal views.” He added: “Even some of the conservative justices might not vote to overrule Obergefell.”

Lastly, ABC News legal analyst Sarah Isgur stated that “there is no world in which the Court takes the case as a straight gay marriage case.”

“Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett seem wildly uninterested. Maybe Justice Neil Gorsuch, too,” she continued. “It would have to come up as a lower court holding that Obergefell binds judges to accept some other kind of non-traditional marital arrangement.”

What will happen if same-sex marriage is overturned? Is there current legislation to combat the decision?

If marriage equality were overturned, the US would likely revert to the pre-Obergefell v. Hodges system, leaving the decision to each state. However, existing same-sex couples would still be protected under a 2022 law signed by former US President Joe Biden.

On 13 December, he enacted the Respect for Marriage Act, which requires the federal government — and all US states and territories — to recognise same-sex and interracial marriages performed in other states. For example, if a gay couple from Arkansas — where marriage equality would be banned if Obergefell were overturned — married in California, Arkansas would still be required to honour their union.

Is Kim Davis the only one targeting marriage equality through legal means?

No, Kim Davis isn’t the only conservative figure targeting same-sex marriage. According to a February report from NBC News, lawmakers in at least nine states — including Michigan, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota — have sought to reverse the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. Meanwhile, lawmakers in Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have introduced proposals to create a new category of marriage, called a “covenant marriage,” which would be reserved for one man and one woman.