Will the U.S. Supreme Court Revisit Same-Sex Marriage?

Marriage, ,

News outlets report the U.S. Supreme Court may review the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that overturned state marriage laws and instituted same-sex marriage nationwide.

Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis — who has been taken to court for declining to issue same-sex marriage licenses — is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. She is also challenging the essence of the Obergefell ruling.

ABC News reports:

She [Kim Davis] claims the high court’s decision in Obergefell — extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment’s due process protections — was “egregiously wrong.”

“The mistake must be corrected,” wrote Davis’ attorney Mathew Staver in the petition. He calls Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell “legal fiction.”

The petition appears to mark the first time since 2015 that the court has been formally asked to overturn the landmark marriage decision. Davis is seen as one of the only Americans currently with legal standing to bring a challenge to the precedent.

Back in 2015, we said that Obergefell was about a lot more than just same-sex marriage. The bigger question has always been about how marriage will be defined in America and who gets to write that definition. From 2004 to 2015, voters in more than three-fifths of the country democratically passed laws and amendments defining marriage in their respective states. In most cases, those measures defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Voters in three states chose to define marriage differently. The court’s Obergefell decision struck down every one of those state marriage laws.

In 2020, U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito made blunt statements that Obergefell has had “ruinous consequences for religious liberty,” saying it lets courts and governments label people who believe in traditional marriage “as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”

Support for same-sex marriage has actually declined in recent years. Reversing the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision may not seem likely right now, but the same thing seemed true of Roe v. Wade 50 years ago.

The reality is Obergefell was a deeply flawed decision in 2015. It’s still a deeply flawed decision today. And as Justices Thomas and Alito said in 2020, “the Court has created a problem that only it can fix.”

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

READ MORE

Arkansas Congressman French Hill Praises President Trump’s Order Against Debanking

Religious Freedom, ,

Last week, President Trump signed an executive order against debanking. The purpose of the order is to guarantee fair banking for all Americans.

Arkansas Congressman French Hill (AR-02), who chairs the House Committee on Financial Services, issued a statement praising the order, saying,

“Targeting Americans for their political beliefs undermines the freedoms our country was built upon and should have no place in our financial system. I commend President Trump for taking decisive action to protect all Americans from politically motivated financial discrimination. The president’s executive order is an important step toward restoring fairness and accountability in our banking system, and the House Financial Services Committee will continue its work to investigate and prevent debanking for lawful businesses.”

Congressman Hill also published the following timeline regarding federal inquiries into debanking:

  • On April 29, 2025, the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, led by Subcommittee Chairman Barr, held a hearing to examine regulatory overreach and debanking.
  • On February 20, 2025, Chairman Hill, Subcommittee Chairman Dan Meuser (PA-09), Subcommittee Chairman Andy Barr (KY-06), and Subcommittee Chairman Bryan Steil (WI-01), sent a letter to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) with recommendations to help clarify digital asset regulations and prevent debanking.
  • On February, 6, 2025, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, led by Subcommittee Chairman Meuser, held a hearing to discuss debanking efforts under the Biden-Harris Administration.
  • On May 21, 2025, the Committee passed H.R. 2702, the FIRM Act, with bipartisan support, to remove reputational risk from bank supervision. This bill directly aligns with the Federal Reserve’s recent decision to remove reputational risk from their exam process.
  • In March and April 2023, then-Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion Subcommittee Chairman French Hill, then-Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Bill Huizenga, and former Chairman Patrick McHenry sent multiple letters to the Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Jerome Powell, then-Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Martin Gruenberg, and then-Acting Comptroller of the Currency, Michael Hsu, requesting information related to potential coordinated efforts by the agencies to deny banking services to digital asset firms and the ecosystem as a whole. 
  • In March 2023, then-Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion Subcommittee Chairman French Hill held a hearing to highlight the Biden Administration’s Attack on the Digital Asset Ecosystem.

We have written repeatedly about allegations that major financial institutions have deliberately debanked conservative individuals and organizations.

In 2021 Family Council’s credit card processor abruptly cancelled our account after designating our organization as “high risk.” Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident. Other organizations have had similar experiences as well.

We deeply appreciate the Trump Administration and congressmen like Rep. French Hill leading the way against debanking. After all, banks that are too big to fail are too big to discriminate.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

READ MORE

President Trump Signs Executive Order to Target Debanking

Religious Freedom, , ,

On August 7, President Trump signed an executive order “guaranteeing fair banking for all Americans.”

Since 2021, news outlets and congressional testimony have highlighted how federal officials and financial institutions targeted conservative organizations through “reputational risk” policies. Conservatives deemed “high risk” could have their bank accounts closed without warning and without explanation.

President Trump’s new executive order directs federal banking regulators to “remove the use of reputation risk or equivalent concepts that could result in politicized or unlawful debanking.”

The order says,

Financial institutions have engaged in unacceptable practices to restrict law-abiding individuals’ and businesses’ access to financial services on the basis of political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities.  Some financial institutions participated in Government-directed surveillance programs targeting persons participating in activities and causes commonly associated with conservatism and the political right following the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.

In a separate statement, the White House said,

President Trump believes that no American should be denied access to financial services because of their political or religious beliefs, and that banking decisions must solely be made on the basis of individualized, objective, and risk-based analyses.

We have written repeatedly about allegations that major financial institutions deliberately targeted conservative individuals and organizations.

In 2021 Family Council’s credit card processor terminated our account after designating our organization as “high risk.” 

At 10:29 AM on Wednesday, July 7, 2021, our office received a terse email from our credit card processor — a company owned by JPMorgan Chase — saying, “Unfortunately, we can no longer support your business. We wish you all the luck in the future, and hope that you find a processor that better fits your payment processing needs.”

Within sixty seconds, our account was terminated and Family Council could no longer accept donations online.

We later learned our processor had flagged us as “high risk,” but we were unable to get an explanation from the company. All we could do was speculate that our conservative principles and our public policy work might have had something to do with the decision to close our account.

Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident. Other organizations have had similar experiences as well. In fact, corporate shareholders, state attorneys general, congressmen, and other organizations all have expressed concerns over conservatives being wrongly labeled as “high risk” or “hate groups” and subsequently debanked.

Since then, JPMorgan Chase has taken steps to prevent religiously-motivated debanking. That’s good, but our state and federal government need to make sure this sort of thing never happens to anyone again.

We deeply appreciate the Trump Administration leading the way in getting rid of “reputation risk” policies that have been used to debank conservatives. After all, banks that are too big to fail are too big to discriminate.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

READ MORE