Amy Coney Barrett signals right-wing justices not on same page on this major issue

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett signaled in a recent interview that she, at least, is not fully on board with a renewed push to overturn the right to same-sex marriage.

According to Newsweek, Barrett made the comments during an interview with right-leaning New York Times analyst Ross Douthat, who asked her about "social reliance interests" that the court might have to consider in certain cases. “The Supreme Court recognized a right to same-sex marriage. Originalist justices at the time believed that ruling was wrongly decided. One of the arguments for why Obergefell v. Hodges is unlikely to ever be overturned is the idea that people have made decisions about who to marry and therefore where to live and children ... Everything else, on the basis of that ruling.”

Barrett, the last of President Donald Trump's three Supreme Court appointees and the deciding vote to end abortion rights, seemed to agree with this line of thinking, calling it a “very concrete reliance interest.” She further defined "reliance interest" to mean “things that would be upset or undone if a decision is undone.”

This stands in contrast to Justice Clarence Thomas, who has recently written in his opinions that he wants the court to revisit the entire concept of "substantive due process" — the legal doctrine that not only protects the right to same-sex marriage, but also the right to consensual same-sex relationships and contraception.

Earlier this year, Kim Davis, a Kentucky clerk who has been battling litigation for years after she refused to issue licenses to same-sex couples, petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell. There is currently no indication the court will take up such a case.

In the same interview with Douthat, Barrett raised eyebrows by admitting there might not be much she could do if Trump decided to ignore her rulings.

However, the court has been wading into a number of other controversial topics lately, including oral arguments this month in a case that could significantly cripple the Voting Rights Act's ability to police racial discrimination in congressional redistricting.