The Supreme Court has declined to reconsider its landmark gay marriage ruling, dealing a blow to conservative hopes of correcting what some view as a profound legal error.

The case was brought by Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk who became a national figure after she defied the court's ruling in 2015.

Her petition asked the court to review a verdict requiring her to pay $100,000 in "emotional damages," plus $260,000 in attorneys' fees to a gay couple.

“If ever a case deserved review, the first individual who was thrown in jail post-Obergefell for seeking accommodation for her religious beliefs should be it,” Liberty Counsel, the nonprofit law firm representing Davis, wrote in its petition.

Status quo upheld

When Obergefell was decided in 2015, the conservatives then on the Supreme Court criticized the decision as undemocratic and predicted that it would lead to Christians being marginalized for their beliefs. Many would say that forecast has proven accurate - if anything, it failed to anticipate just how radically leftward American culture would shift in the decade after Obergefell. 

While it has long been seen as having settled the question of gay rights, Davis blasted the ruling as a "legal fiction" that eviscerated religious freedom.

Many court observers were skeptical of Davis' case, however, and its potential to overturn Obergefell. Rick Garnett, a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, said Davis' appeal revolved around smaller legal questions, despite the public attention it received.

"Although various commentators and activists have spent weeks claiming that a vehicle for overturning Obergefell was being considered by the justices, no informed court observers ever thought that the court would grant review in this case," he said.

Thomas' criticism

Even non-experts could have guessed the court would not disturb Obergefell, which most Americans have come to accept as the law of the land. Still, the Supreme Court's repeal of Roe v. Wade had fueled some speculation that the justices might give Obergefell a second look.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion in the historic Dobbs ruling tossing Roe, renewed criticism of Obergefell and other precedents based on the liberal legal doctrine of "substantive due process," which has been used to recognize rights with no concrete basis in the Constitution.

“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote in the concurrence, which was quoted by Davis’ lawyers in their petition to the Supreme Court.

Amy Coney Barrett, another conservative, took another view, recently saying Obergefell has "concrete reliance interests," which is a fancy way of saying that repealing it would cause chaos in a lot of people's lives.

Not the right time?

At least four justices would have had to vote to review the case, but it appears there is no appetite on the court for that currently.

Were the justices simply bending to the popular will, or do they view Davis' case as the wrong vehicle to revisit an erroneous ruling? The answer is that we do not know, because the justices didn't explain their decision. But the legal group representing Davis is not giving up hope.

Davis "was jailed, hauled before a jury, and now faces crippling monetary damages based on nothing more than purported hurt feelings," said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel.

"We will continue to work to overturn Obergefell," Staver said. "It is not a matter of if, but when the Supreme Court will overturn Obergefell."