The Supreme Court from left, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan.

A former county clerk in Kentucky has officially filed a petition to the Supreme Court, asking it to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the ruling that found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

People should temper their reactions to this petition. There is no guarantee that this case will be heard, and there is no indication that the nation's highest court is likely to overturn the previous ruling.

The general public has a poor understanding of how the Supreme Court, and the judicial branch in general, actually works. The court is not a partisan machine that takes cases based on the whims of the Republican Party, but rather a process-oriented institution that is very restrained.

While I understand the fears that members of the LGBTQ+ community hold at the prospect of losing their right to marry, particularly in the context of the hostile cultural swing within the GOP against it, fearmongering coverage only stokes overreactions. This case is not likely to be heard by the court, nor is it anywhere close to ending the constitutional protections for gay marriage.

Petitions for review are many, but Supreme Court decides few cases

The Supreme Court has discretion over what cases it takes, so a petition for review does not necessarily mean that the panel will consider the issue. It takes the votes of four justices to eventually grant review in a case, which advances it to the court’s docket.

All of this is to say that just because a petition is filed with the Supreme Court, that doesn’t mean it will eventually be heard. The vast majority are never heard. Of the more than 7,000 cases filed each year, the Supreme Court grants review in only 100-150 of them.

In 2024, for example, the court ultimately ruled on just 59 cases.

While legislation is by no means a complete replacement for a constitutional amendment, the constitutional right to gay marriage is rendered somewhat obsolete by the Respect for Marriage Act, the 2022 piece of bipartisan legislation that requires states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The odds of that legislation being overturned are extremely low, given gay marriage’s popularity, even among conservatives. Thus, if the constitutional protections for gay marriage were to disappear, the practice still would most likely remain protected.

The fearmongering began almost immediately

But none of that stopped people from panicking at the prospect of the court considering such a case.

Obviously, the partisan hacks of X immediately latched onto this story to fearmonger, but even larger news sources like ABC couldn’t help themselves from dedicating feature-length articles to the topic.

“Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision,” said ABC News in an X post.

Despite acknowledging the fact that the case is a “long shot” in its own article on the matter, ABC News chose to frame this piece in this manner because it sensationalizes the potential for Obergefell to be overturned, with little indication that this is not an impending event.

Other news sources were far more honest in their framing, but ABC News’ post is irresponsible because it capitalizes on a massive problem in American civic education. Others, including USA TODAY, have tied it to President Donald Trump's position, while highlighting that the case is unlikely to succeed.

Supreme Court literacy is important, but it's currently lacking

At the moment, gay marriage is extremely safe going into the future. So, what is all the worry about?

As it stands, very few Americans understand the judicial processes that lead to a case being considered by the Supreme Court. Even many who are otherwise rather politically intelligent understand very little about how the Supreme Court operates.

The typical American comically knows little about the Supreme Court, from basic facts like the number of justices to the branch of government the court is housed within. Americans who have a limited understanding of this information naturally have little business understanding the meaning of a petition for certiorari or how precedent is overturned.

Partisan sources are aware of this and capitalize on it. Democratic groups have already begun to incorporate the mere fact that someone has petitioned the court to review such a decision.

I’ve written previously about how people's views of the court are far too simplistic, and that is an interconnected problem with this one. People do not understand the dynamic of the court well enough to actually make judgments beyond the partisan talking points. People naturally assume that the conservative majority Supreme Court will always rule in favor of conservative social outcomes, but the justices have proved that's not the case.

Sources like the ABC News article may not be malicious, but their potential for harm is still great. America has a problem with civic education when it comes to the Supreme Court, but an honest news media has a responsibility to be conscious of framing court stories in relation to the public's knowledge.

Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court isn't poised to end gay marriage, despite the media's fearmongering | Opinion

Reporting by Dace Potas, USA TODAY / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect