How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming months

CNN ^ | 2025-08-17 | John Fritze

[Salman]

The Supreme Court’s landmark opinion on same-sex marriage isn’t the only high-profile precedent the justices will have an opportunity to tinker with – or entirely scrap – when the court reconvenes this fall.

...

Even before Trump was reelected, the Supreme Court’s conservatives had put a target on a Roosevelt-era precedent that protects the leaders of independent agencies from being fired by the president for political reasons. The first few months of Trump’s second term have only expedited its demise.

...

A recent Supreme Court appeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has raised concerns from some about the court overturning its decade-old Obergefell decision. Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict – plus $260,000 for attorneys’ fees – awarded over her move to defy the Supreme Court’s decision and decline to issue the licenses.

Davis has framed her appeal in religious terms, a strategy that often wins on the conservative court. She described Obergefell as a “mistake” that “must be corrected.”

...

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

This policy was reasonable because the Obergefell opinion opened a lot of basic questions about what marriage intrinsically IS. No one could now define it, so it was to her credit to stop issuing licenses until that question could be sufficiently answered.

That question was answered. She just disagreed with the answer that the court system gave because it was not consistent with her personal religious beliefs. Though you always have the right to exercise your religious beliefs in your personal capacity, even if you are a government employee, you do not have the right to exercise state power in defiance of law based on your own religious beliefs. Her argument was that she did, and the Supreme Court disagreed.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

The issue with overturning Obergefell is the legal doctrine of reliance - whether it is actually possible to unwind it, and how much lives have been ordered around them. The Supreme Court cares a lot about that when it comes to reversing itself.

The reality is that you now have large numbers of gay marriages, and reversing Obergefell doesn't undue them. All reversing Obergefell would do is remove the requirement that individual states must permit them in the future. You'd still have all those gay marriages out there, and it is likely a majority of states would continue to permit them.

So what do you do at that point with all the pre-existing gay marriages in states that choose not to permit them? That is where the doctrine of detrimental reliance would come in. There will be all sorts of legal and business arrangements built around those marriages, people would have moved their and ordered their lives based on the fact that gay marriages were legal. You now reverse that, so what happens?

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT saying I would agree with keeping Obergefell because of that reason. I didn't create that doctrine - I'll just telling you that it exists and is a major consideration SCOTUS takes into account when determining whether to overturn a decision. Justice Thomas is unique in stating that he does not think the court should consider detrimental reliance when it comes to overturning prior decisions.

[fwdude]

That question (what IS marriage?) was answered.

No, it wasn't.

Its title was simply awarded to a completely different type of relationship, arbitrarily. It could have just as easily, and logically, been awarded to a man and his best canine friend.

exercise state power in defiance of law...

What "law", legislated properly through that branch of government solely tasked with that function, would that be?

[fwdude]

1. Why should not gay people have the opportunity to be as miserable as everyone else? and:

That's an old and not-funny joke. Speak for yourself in your own failed relationships. Most married man-woman couples have had deeply fulfilling marriages even though challenging.

But to answer your question, if the homo-left can redefine something as enduring as "marriage," then it logically follows that they can redefine anything else, for the rest of us.

One of these other things is "parenthood," which has more and more been morphed into a purely legal relationship, not based on biology or blood. Imagine if the left gains enough power. They can divest you of your own flesh and blood if you are not "affirming" enough of homosexuality. This has already happened.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

What "law", legislated properly through that branch of government solely tasked with that function, would that be?

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. It says so right there in Article VI of the Constitution. And just as it is, with every law passed at the federal or state level, the courts are tasked with interpreting that law. That also is part of the Constitution.

I don't agree with Obergefell any more than you do. But the fact is that once it was decided, it was the supreme law of the land according to the Constitution. End of discussion.

Again, Davis really didn't make any technical argument when she was appealing to the Supreme Court. Her core argument was that her religious beliefs trumped her obligations to perform the duties of her job in accordance with the Constitution. And that is rightly a losing argument 10 times out of 10.

I would point out that the flip side of your argument is exactly what the left tries to argue - and loses - on any number of issues where a Supreme Court decision does not go their way. By your argument, Democrats should be free to follow their own state laws regarding gun control, and ignore Supreme Court precedents on the right to keep and bear arms. Because after all, a Supreme Court decision isn't a "law", right?

Can't have it both ways.

[fwdude]

I would point out that the flip side of your argument is exactly what the left tries to argue

I would put you exactly in the camp of the left, with your perverted reasoning.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Yeah, that's the kind of response I typically get from people like you when you have no rational response to an argument. You don't care if an argument is correct - all you care about is whether it aligns with your views.

The argument that the Supreme Court's orders are not laws and that states don't have to follow them cuts both ways, and you simply don't want to admit it.

[fwdude]

Go play in the DU sewer, it suits you better.

Will be petitioning the mods to reconsider your membership here.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

So because you are unable to respond intelligently to an argument, you want to silence the people making those arguments. You're just as bad as those leftist douchenozzles who shout down conservatives on college campuses.

Maybe you want to give the Gavin Newsomes of the country the right to ignore Supreme Court decisions and federal court orders because state law is supreme.

Personally, I think that would be a really bad idea.

[Danie_2023]

“”...means that the blue states have no grounds to complain when being forced to honor red states carry permits and perhaps even constitutional carry is forced upon them - among many other things, like NFA ownership.””

Ok, I’ll ask. Since ‘when’ has the left ever adhered to “having no grounds to complain” when it comes to equal and fair treatment on ANY damned issue? That comment is totally illogical and unmoored from the reality that we all have experienced re: that to date.

[Labyrinthos]

“Well worth reading.”

CNN - No thanks. Our goal as conservatives should be to put CNN out of business, not put money in its pocket.

[fwdude]

Supreme Court decisions can be and often are wrong. If you disagree with this, you are beyond hope.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Unfortunately, the Defense Of Marriage Act made it a Fedgov issue. This was warned against at the time, but the Republicans dismissed these objections. Not the first or the last time that this has happened.

They didn't really have much choice because there were aspects of state sanctioned same-sex marriages that had national implications. That included how the federal government should treat same-sex marriages for federal purposes (taxes, eligibility for federal spousal benefits, etc), and also to what extent other states that did not have same-sex marriages had to respect the marriages performed in other states.

There wasn't really any way around addressing those issues without Federal legislation.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Of course Supreme Court decisions can be wrong. I've said in this very thread that the Obergefell itself was a horrible decision legally, on a par (or perhaps triple bogey might be more accurate) with Roe v. Wade. My personal opinion is that analytically, both of them are legally indefensible.

But my personal opinion as to the merits of those decisions doesn't eliminate the obligation for the state or federal government to follow them. Tons of leftists out there argue that the Heller decision recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms was wrongly decided. Those Democrat-run states don't get to ignore the Supreme Court's decision on the Second Amendment simply because they believe it was wrongly decided.

Likewise, Kim Davis's opinion regarding the merits of the Obergefell decision doesn't change her obligation as a state official to comply with a federal district court order.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Of course Supreme Court decisions can be wrong. I've said in this very thread that the Obergefell itself was a horrible decision legally, on a par (or perhaps triple bogey might be more accurate) with Roe v. Wade. My personal opinion is that analytically, both of them are legally indefensible.

But my personal opinion as to the merits of those decisions doesn't eliminate the obligation for the state or federal government to follow them. Tons of leftists out there argue that the Heller decision recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms was wrongly decided. They also think the citizens united case, which eliminated so-called campaign finance reform, was wrongly decided. But Democrats don't get to continue regulating guns in violation of Heller, or regulating political speech in violation of the citizens united, just because they believe those cases were wrongly decided

They can try pushing back if there are gray areas, but elected officials in those Democrat-run states don't get to ignore Federal court orders on those issues simply because they believe the Supreme Court's decisions were wrong.

Likewise, Kim Davis's opinion regarding the merits of the Obergefell decision doesn't change her obligation as a state official to comply with a federal district court order.

[Segovia]

where is the law that says adoptive parents have to be married?