The legal ground in America is shifting. Honestly, if you’d asked most legal analysts a decade ago if Obergefell v. Hodges was safe, they would have said yes. It felt like settled law. But today, the conversation is different. People are genuinely asking if the US Supreme Court asked to overturn same sex marriage will actually happen, and the answer is more layered than a simple yes or no. It's about specific cases, judicial philosophy, and a very specific map of the current bench.
Justice Clarence Thomas essentially lit a fuse back in 2022. When the Court handed down the Dobbs decision—the one that ended Roe v. Wade—Thomas wrote a concurring opinion that sent shockwaves through the country. He didn't stutter. He explicitly argued that the Court should reconsider all "substantive due process" precedents. That includes Griswold (contraception), Lawrence (same-sex intimacy), and, most notably, Obergefell.
The Legal Architecture of the Challenge
To understand why the US Supreme Court asked to overturn same sex marriage is even a headline, you have to look at how these laws are built. They aren't built on a specific line in the Constitution that says "everyone can marry." Instead, they rely on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
The current conservative majority has a very different view of that clause than the Kennedy-era court did. Justices like Alito and Thomas believe that for a right to be protected under "substantive due process," it has to be deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition. Since same-sex marriage is a relatively recent legal recognition in the U.S., it becomes a target for those who use a "strict originalist" lens.
It's not just academic.
✨ Don't miss: Who Has Trump Pardoned So Far: What Really Happened with the 47th President's List
Actual legal challenges often start small. They begin with a baker, a web designer, or a state official who claims their religious liberty is being stepped on by the existence of these marriage laws. We saw this with 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. While that case was technically about free speech, it signaled a narrowing of how marriage equality interacts with other rights.
Is there a "Smoking Gun" Case?
Right now, there isn't one single case that acts as a direct "overturn this today" vehicle in the way Dobbs was for abortion. However, the pieces are moving. Several states have seen lawmakers introduce "sovereignty" bills or "marriage defense" acts. These are designed to trigger a conflict that eventually lands on the steps of the Supreme Court.
Some legal experts, like those at the Human Rights Campaign or the ACLU, point to the "invitation" Thomas issued. He basically told lawyers: "Bring me a case." When a Supreme Court Justice does that, ambitious attorneys general in conservative states usually listen. They look for a plaintiff. They look for a specific grievance.
Then there’s the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA). Congress passed this in late 2022 as a sort of "break glass in case of emergency" measure. But here is what most people get wrong: The RFMA doesn't actually force states to issue same-sex marriage licenses if Obergefell falls. It just requires states to recognize valid marriages performed in other states. If you live in a state that bans it and the Supreme Court flips, you might have to drive across a border to get the paperwork done. It’s a messy, patchwork solution.
🔗 Read more: Why the 2013 Moore Oklahoma Tornado Changed Everything We Knew About Survival
The Math of the Bench
Numbers matter. 6-3. That is the conservative-to-liberal split. But it’s not a monolith.
Chief Justice John Roberts generally prefers "incrementalism." He hates big, sweeping changes that make the Court look political. He famously didn't want to overturn Roe entirely, preferring a middle ground. On the other hand, you have Kavanaugh and Barrett. They are the wild cards. While they joined the majority in Dobbs, they have both, at various times, hinted at a respect for stare decisis (the principle of sticking to previous rulings) when it comes to "settled expectations" like marriage.
People have built lives. They have adopted children. They have shared health insurance. Overturning marriage equality creates a "reliance interest" nightmare that abortion didn't necessarily have in the same administrative way.
Why This Matters for the 2026 Landscape
As we move through 2026, the political pressure is ramping up. State supreme courts are becoming the new battleground. In some places, we’re seeing "reverse" challenges—groups asking state courts to affirm that their state constitution protects marriage regardless of what the federal guys do.
💡 You might also like: Ethics in the News: What Most People Get Wrong
The reality? The US Supreme Court asked to overturn same sex marriage is a scenario that is legally possible but politically explosive. Even some conservative strategists worry that pushing this too hard would lead to a massive backlash at the polls.
But the Court doesn't always care about polls.
If a case arrives involving a state clerk refusing to issue a license based on a new state law, the Court will be forced to choose. Do they uphold the "history and tradition" test from Dobbs, or do they protect the "equal dignity" established in Obergefell?
Practical Steps and Real-World Protection
If you are worried about the legal stability of your marriage or the marriages of people you care about, waiting for a news alert isn't the best strategy. Legal experts consistently suggest a few "paper armor" steps:
- Update your estate planning. Ensure you have a valid will, power of attorney, and healthcare proxy. These documents can often function as a backup if a marriage's legal status is ever questioned in a medical or inheritance emergency.
- Confirm "Second Parent" Adoptions. Even if both names are on a birth certificate, some states are more finicky than others. A formal adoption decree is generally recognized across all 50 states and is much harder to undo than a marriage license.
- Monitor your state’s "trigger laws." Several states still have same-sex marriage bans on the books that are simply "dormant" because of Obergefell. If that federal ruling vanishes, those bans could theoretically spring back to life.
- Support legislative codification at the state level. The most secure way to protect marriage rights right now is to ensure they are written into state statutes, making the federal Supreme Court's opinion a moot point for residents of that state.
The legal landscape is rarely a straight line. It's more like a pendulum. Right now, it's swinging toward a very narrow, historical interpretation of the Constitution. Whether marriage equality survives that swing depends on the courage of lower courts and the specific facts of the next case that makes its way to Washington D.C.