Chase StrangioKonto zweryfikowane

Today the Court declined to hear a case involving Kim Davis (the clerk who, after SCOTUS's marriage equality decision, refused to issue marriage licenses claiming it violated her First Amendment free exercise rights). The case was not a direct challenge to Obergefell.

In the Court's order declining to hear the case (known as denial of certiorari (or cert)), Justices Thomas and Alito wrote a separate concurrence indicating their desire to overturn Obergefell (marriage equality) altogether. So, what does this mean?

In one sense it isn't surprising given that both Justices dissented in Obergefell (and Bostock) and generally are anti-LGBTQ in every way. The concurrence, however, suggests that they are eager to overturn Obergefell already - even though it is only 5 years old.

It is a reminder that stare decisis - the principle of applying precedent - will not protect even recently decided cases. The brazenness of the rightward direction of the Court is a threat to even the most basic expectation of legal protection.

What we can expect is the continued erosion of legal protections gained over the past century. And even if you, like me, are critical of movement priorities like marriage equality or formal systems like non-discrimination law, these threats will impact everything.

Resources will be redirected to preserve even the most limited status quo while assaults on our bodies and survival opportunities will escalate with no judicial checks.

The courts will not save us but they will increasingly become a constraint upon our ability to organize and save ourselves. As this process continues, our work is to keep up our fight whatever that looks like for us. Organizing, litigating, caretaking, resisting.