The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to take up a case brought by Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. That landmark decision established the nationwide right to same-sex marriage. Davis, who spent six days in jail for her refusal, is now asking the Court to revisit and overturn Obergefell, arguing it infringes on religious liberty.

Davis’s attorney, Matthew Staver, expressed optimism about the Court hearing the case and filed a petition calling Obergefell “egregiously wrong” and “deeply damaging.” He claims the ruling created “atextual constitutional rights” and has led to negative consequences for people of faith like Davis, who he argues has been unfairly penalized. If overturned, marriage rights would revert to the states, though existing same-sex marriages would remain valid under a proposed grandfather clause.

Opposing attorneys believe the Court is unlikely to take the case. William Powell, who represents the couple that sued Davis, told Newsweek he is confident the Supreme Court will reject the arguments. Legal scholars also note that while some justices, including Clarence Thomas, have expressed openness to revisiting Obergefell, the current case may not be the right vehicle for such a challenge.

Experts like Northeastern University’s Daniel Urman suggest the Court might use the case to expand religious liberty rights but not to reverse same-sex marriage outright. He emphasized that same-sex marriage remains culturally embedded and broadly supported by the public, making a full reversal unlikely.

Paul Collins, a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, noted that the case focuses on damages awarded to the couple Davis denied, not the legality of same-sex marriage itself. Despite Davis’s broader aims, the Court may view the case as limited in scope and insufficient for revisiting such a major constitutional ruling.