US Supreme Court Weighs Case That Could Challenge Same- Sex Marriage
Earlier this month, the US Supreme Court declined to take up a case that would have challenged the Obergefell ruling of 2015. Had the Supreme Court chose to take up the case and overturn Obergefell, then individual states would have been granted the ability to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages.
The case was brought forward by Kim Davis, who openly opposed the Obergefell ruling and refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the aftermath of the 2015 decision. Davis was forced to pay $100,000 to a couple in damages due to this practice, leading her to appeal this decision (said decision being denied in March.) After this, Davis attempted to get the Supreme Court to overturn her rejected appeal, which was ultimately not taken up by the court in November.
While the Supreme Court’s decision to not take up the Davis case shows an effort to protect the rights of same-sex individuals, other actions of the Supreme Court this year has shown the body failing to safeguard rights. A notable instance of this can be seen through the Supreme Court’s ruling over deportations under the Trump administration. Through a 6-3 ruling, the court lifted an injunction that a federal district court judge had imposed (which prevented the administration from deporting migrants to countries other than their homeland.) This action by the Supreme Court occurred in the aftermath of the Abrego Garcia case, who was deported to El Salvador in March 2025 (with Garcia’s case becoming a rallying point for opponents of the Trump administration.) Considering the context of Garcia’s deportation and the Supreme Court’s ruling, these cases show the Supreme Court failing to uphold the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. The political agenda of the Trump administration and their desires to rid the US of “illegal aliens” has (in these cases) seemingly trumped the duty of the Supreme Court to protect the rights of US citizens.
This clash between the political agenda of Trump’s administration and the role of the Supreme Court as a right-protecting body is a common theme between many of the rulings that the Supreme Court has carried out this year. Regrettably, other examples showcase that the Supreme Court is favouring the political aims of Trump.
The US Supreme Court issued a temporary ruling in September, which lifted restriction which prevented ICE agents carrying out immigration stops on factors such as race. A key feature of this ruling is the lack of explanation from the majority (6-3), which is contrasted by the far more lengthier explanation of dissent by the three liberal justices. Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that the criteria deployed by ICE was “common sense” in comments written separately from the decision, with these comments acting as a useful tool to analyse the nature of the US Supreme Court today. The “common sense” criteria deployed by ICE often targeted people who spoke Spanish or English with an accent and often disproportionately targeted people who worked at a carwash or jobs in a similar line of work. This “common sense criteria” disproportionately targeted Hispanics US citizens, with this criteria only appearing more oppressive when one considers that nearly 50% of L.A’s population is of Hispanic origin (where ICE have carried out raids this year.) With all of this considered, for Kavanaugh to label ICE’s criteria as “common sense” highlights blissful ignorance or a conscious effort to defend ICE’s operations in spite of the racist undertones of their raids. This case, put simply, provides ICE with a blank cheque to use racial profiling to aid their raids.
While the view of the September ruling by the Supreme Court expressed in this article may come across as being quite harsh, it is important to consider the ramifications that rulings such as these have on the lives of US citizens and on the perception of the US Supreme Court. For US citizens, rulings such as the one in March and the one in September provides a pathway for bodies such as ICE to separate loved ones from their families and from the country they call home. Moreover, the perception of the Supreme Court is damaged with every ruling it carries out which infringes upon the rights of US citizens. The country will merely view the Supreme Court as a body that enables Trump’s political agenda. In addition, as 6 of the 9 sitting justices are conservative justices, this perception and potential backlash from the country may only push the court to make further rulings that support the Trump administration.
The court’s choice, therefore, to reject taking up Davis’s appeal in early November fails to reverse the damage done to it’s overall perception and to the rights of US citizens. Political agendas trump the safeguarding of rights.
By Nifemi Femi-Sanni
