Conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett downplayed fears about the courts 6-3 conservative majority overturning Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, in a CBS interview that aired yesterday. The court is currently deciding whether to hear a long-shot challenge to the decision.You know, what the court is trying to do is see what the American people have decided, Barrett told CBS News. And sometimes the American people have expressed themselves in the Constitution itself, which is our fundamental law; sometimes in statutes. But the court should not be imposing its own values on the American people. Thats for the democratic process. Related The Supreme Court conversion therapy case: Heres what you should know Barrett added that the Courts decisions are not just an opinion pollof the nine justices outlooks. Recent decisions, split entirely along the courts ideological lines, suggest otherwise.Barrett who spoke to CBS about her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution was one of the five conservative justices who, in 2022, voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision granting the right to an abortion. Never Miss a Beat Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights. Subscribe to our Newsletter today In her book, Barrett wrote, The court has held that the rights to marry, engage in sexual intimacy, use birth control, and raise children are fundamental, but the rights to do business, commit suicide, and obtain abortion are not.During her 2020 confirmation hearing, Barrett repeatedly refused to state how she would rule on a challenge to Roe v. Wade. She stated that it would be inappropriate to pre-commit to an outcome in any case that might come before the Court. When senators asked about her past, public anti-abortion statements, she said those views were separate from her role as a judge. Judges cant just wake up one day and say I have an agenda, and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world, she said. She committed to following the doctrine ofstare decisis(respect for precedent), noting that it includes considering factors like reliance and workability.Nevertheless, she voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. She and her fellow conservative justices argued that neither the Constitution nor the nations history or tradition protected a right to abortion, adding that such issues should be left to individual states. The decision has resulted in increased infant and pregnancy-associated deaths in states with abortion bans. The long-shot bid to overturn marriage equality at the Supreme CourtWhile the Court is considering whether to hear a challenge to the decision, LGBTQ+ legal experts said its far more likely that the court will use free speech and religious freedom claims to roll back queer civil rights.Kim Davis the four-times-married, conservative Christian former Kentucky county clerk who infamously refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple following the courts 2015 ruling recentlyasked the Supreme Court to take her case, which argues that people should be able to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages based on religious beliefs.Anti-LGBTQ+ advocates hope Davis case could be the one to lead the justices to overturn marriage equality. After all, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomasargued in 2022that the same legal reasoning used to overturn abortion access could also be used to overturn marriage equality. Some worry that, because of the Courts 6-3 conservative majority and its habit of favoring Christian religious liberties, the Court could vote to overturn marriage equality. But the Supreme Court gets about 10,000 petitions a year asking it to deliberate on various cases the court agrees to hear only 75 to 85 of these cases,according to The Judicial Learning Center. Even Bill Powell, the lawyer representing the same-sex couple in Davis case, thinks the Supreme Court wont hear her case.Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis arguments do not merit further attention, Powell said.Even if the Supreme Court did take the case, Chris Geidner, the gay publisher and author ofLaw Dork,toldLGBTQ Nationin Januarythat he didnt think a case like Davis would provide sufficient legal reasoning to overturn same-sex marriage entirely. Rather, he said that a successful religious freedom or free speech challenge toObergefellwould do other bad things, like hollow out civil protections or public accommodations for same-sex couples, essentially inconveniencing or endangering LGBTQ+ couples but not outright denying them the right to a marriage license.Gay legal journalist Joseph Mark Stern agrees somewhat with Geidners take. In recent Bluesky posts about Davis case,At this Supreme Court, the biggest realistic threat to gay rights isnt outright reversal of Obergefell, but the ongoing abridgment of gay equality in the name of religious liberty and free speech, Sternadded. The Supreme Court has also weaponized the First Amendment to legalize discrimination against same-sex couples in public accommodations, a project that will expand in the coming years.Subscribe to theLGBTQ Nation newsletterand be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.