Conservative Justice Suggests Marriage Equality Likely to Endure

Conservative Justice Suggests Marriage Equality Likely to Endure

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has indicated that marriage equality in the United States is likely to remain intact, citing “very concrete reliance interests” as a significant factor in its stability.

In August, former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis sought to have her appeal heard by the Supreme Court. Davis was challenging a $100,000 jury verdict against her for emotional damages and an additional $260,000 in attorney fees. These penalties were imposed after she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015, following the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States.

Davis’ attorney, Mat Staver, has argued that her appeal is rooted in religious objections to same-sex marriage. The appeal document states that the case presents “the ideal opportunity to revisit substantive due process that ‘lacks any basis in the Constitution.’” Staver has argued that the Obergefell decision was “egregiously wrong, deeply damaging, far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed.” He believes it set a course for constitutional conflict from the start.

Despite these contentions, the Supreme Court previously denied a similar appeal from Davis in 2020. Many observers believe that it is unlikely that the ruling on same-sex marriage will be overturned. The social, legal, and economic upheaval that might result from such a reversal would be extensive. However, some LGBTQ+ individuals remain concerned, especially given the anti-LGBTQ+ undertones that characterized the Trump administration.

In a recent interview with Ross Douthat of the New York Times, Justice Barrett, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Donald Trump in 2020, discussed the concept of reliance interests. She described these interests as “things that would be upset or undone if a decision is undone.”

According to the Justia Legal Dictionary, reliance interests are defined as the stake that an individual or party has in a contract that has been violated, wherein they seek reimbursement for any losses or expenses incurred while depending on that contract.

During their conversation, Douthat posed a question to Barrett regarding the Obergefell decision, asking if it had created “social reliance interests” in terms of people making life choices based on a recognized right. He suggested that one argument for why Obergefell v. Hodges is unlikely to be overturned is that individuals have made decisions about marriage, residency, and family based on the rights it affirmed.

Barrett responded that she would not classify these reasons merely as “social reliance interests” because they represent “absolutely reliance interests.” She emphasized that these interests are not abstract but very concrete and tangible.

“Those would be classic reliance interests in legal terms,” Barrett stated. “They are financial. They are medical.”

However, should the Supreme Court agree to hear Davis’ case and decide to overturn the ruling on same-sex marriage, the issue of marriage equality could revert to pre-Obergefell conditions, where the legality of same-sex marriage was determined on a state-by-state basis.

Such a scenario would be reminiscent of the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade, a 1973 ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide. Following its reversal, numerous Republican-led states have imposed severe restrictions on abortion access.

In a similar vein, states that either explicitly banned or did not recognize same-sex marriages before the Obergefell ruling could potentially revert to those stances, invalidating the marriages of couples residing there.

However, the Respect for Marriage Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022, offers some protection. This act mandates that states, regardless of their stance on same-sex unions, must recognize marriages performed in states where they are legal. It guarantees that “interracial and same-sex marriage must be recognized as legal in every state in the nation.”

While concerns remain among the LGBTQ+ community about the security of marriage equality, the statements from Justice Barrett provide some reassurance that the legal framework supporting same-sex unions has significant, enduring foundations.