Alito: Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Was 'Decisive' Turn Against Religious Liberty
In a new book, the Supreme Court justice elaborates on his dissent to Obergefell v. Hodges, arguing the decision ushered in an era of hostility toward religious beliefs.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has described the court's landmark 2015 decision extending marriage rights to same-sex couples as a pivotal moment in the nation's shift away from religious liberty. Alito, a devout Catholic conservative, made these remarks in a speech delivered at Catholic University of America three years after the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which he had sharply dissented from.
His comments were published this month in "So Ordered," a collection of his speeches reflecting his judicial philosophy. In the 2018 address, Alito expressed concern that equating certain viewpoints with bigotry could alienate religious individuals from public life. He suggested in a later 2022 speech that his prediction has materialized, stating, "Quite suddenly, religious liberty has become controversial."
Alito points to a series of lawsuits that have reached the Supreme Court in recent years as evidence that "support for religious liberty has cratered." These cases, he argues, involve businesses facing penalties for refusing services for same-sex weddings and faith-based organizations encountering regulatory challenges without religious exemptions. "What we see in these and other cases," Alito stated in the 2022 speech, "is a refusal to live in peace with those who violate the new moral code." He anticipates that these dynamics will ensure a continuous flow of religious liberty cases before the Supreme Court.
Despite Alito's characterization, the Supreme Court has, in many of the cases he cites, ultimately ruled in favor of religiously affiliated parties. These include decisions supporting a Colorado baker who declined to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple and a Christian website designer who objected to creating websites for same-sex ceremonies. The court also ruled that some private employers could opt out of the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate on religious grounds and that religiously affiliated private schools should be eligible for state-funded tuition programs and tax credit initiatives.
Recent rulings have also expanded protections for religious exercise in the workplace, siding with a former public school football coach disciplined for praying at midfield after games. The court has also mandated broader employer accommodations for employees needing time off for worship services. In one instance, the court blocked a city's attempt to exclude Catholic Social Services from its foster care program over LGBTQ discrimination and subsequently struck down state laws banning conversion therapy, which some religious advocates argued infringed upon Christian teachings about sexuality.
Alito joined the majority in these decisions, reflecting a pattern of voting in favor of faith-based interests throughout his tenure on the high court. However, the issue of same-sex marriage itself remains a significant point of contention.
In 2025, Alito publicly stated he does not advocate for overturning the same-sex marriage ruling, despite Justice Clarence Thomas's calls to reconsider such precedents. Nevertheless, Alito maintains in his book that the marriage decision has effectively marginalized those who believe unions should be exclusively between one man and one woman, drawing a parallel to Catholics in post-Reformation England who were forced into seclusion.
While many religious liberty advocates share Alito's concerns, some organizations present a more optimistic view. First Liberty Institute reported in its 2025 annual report that "religious liberty of all Americans, resulting in more religious freedom today than at any other time in our lives." Similarly, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty's 2025 report indicated that "faith in the public square is on the rise" and that Americans are moving away from a reserved approach to religious freedom.
Alito, who considers freedom of religion a "pet issue," acknowledges the legal victories for religious exercise rights but continues to express concern about threats to people of faith. He noted that it "says a lot that the parties whose free-exercise rights were violated had to take their claims all the way to our Court." The book also delves into Alito's views on originalism, textualism, the role of judges, and perceived threats to the Constitution.