Lawsuit Against Kentucky Clerk Who Denied Same-Sex Marriage Licenses to Continue
A federal appeals court has ruled that Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk who denied marriage licenses to a same-sex couple because she believed their relationship was immoral, could be held individually liable for her refusal.
August 23, 2019 at 05:10 PM
4 minute read
A federal appeals court has ruled that Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk who denied marriage licenses to a same-sex couple because she believed their relationship was immoral, could be held individually liable for her refusal.
Davis, formerly an employee of Rowan County, Kentucky, ignited controversy with her actions after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the right to same-sex marriage. She was sued by the couple, David Ermold and David Moore, but in defense claimed that she was immune from liability both as a government employee and as an individual.
"This case comes to us at a relatively early stage. The district court hasn't issued a final ruling, a trial hasn't occurred, and the parties haven't completed discovery. That means we don't look at evidence; we look at allegations. So we ask not whether Davis definitively violated plaintiffs' rights but whether they adequately allege that she did," Judge Richard Griffin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit wrote.
"The district court ruled that Davis, as an official, acted on Kentucky's behalf, meaning sovereign immunity protected her," he continued. "Plaintiffs dispute that ruling. The court also ruled that plaintiffs pleaded a plausible case that Davis, as an individual, violated their right to marry and that the right was clearly established, meaning qualified immunity didn't protect her. Davis disputes that ruling. We agree with the district court on both issues and therefore affirm."
Griffin said that because Davis acted on Kentucky's behalf when she was employed at Rowan County, she was shielded from liability by sovereign immunity.
The same could not be said of her as a defendant in her individual capacity, however.
The question turned to whether the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged claims against Davis sound enough to survive summary judgment.
"That they do. Plaintiffs allege that: (1) the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees them the right, as same-sex couples, to marry; (2) they sought marriage licenses from Davis, whom Kentucky tasked with issuing those licenses; (3) under Kentucky law, they qualified for licenses; and (4) Davis refused to license them," Griffin said. "Put differently, they identify the specific right they sought to exercise, what they did to exercise it, who thwarted their efforts, and how she did so. Plaintiffs therefore adequately alleged the violation of a constitutional right. And that right was clearly established when Davis acted. To be clearly established, the right's contours must have been so obvious that a reasonable official would have known that her conduct was out of bounds."
In a concurrence in part, Judge John Bush of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with the majority's holding but differed with its reasoning.
"I agree that Davis violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and is not entitled to qualified immunity. But, unlike the Majority, I don't find that Davis's actions constituted an outright ban of same-sex marriage, and I believe they should be reviewed using tiers-of-scrutiny analysis. Her conduct, however, does not survive even rational-basis review because of her antihomosexual animus," Bush said.
Religious liberty advocacy group Liberty Counsel represents Davis. Founder and chairman Mat Staver issued a statement.
"Regarding Kim Davis, this case is not over. Kim Davis sought a religious accommodation, and today every Kentucky clerk benefits from her efforts thanks to Governor Matt Bevin and the entire general assembly. I believe Kim Davis will prevail on the individual damages claim," said Staver.
Michael Joseph Gartland of Delcotto Law Group represented the plaintiff.
Of the court's sovereign immunity ruling ,Gartland said. "We don think the court got it right, we're seriously consideration filing a motion for en banc review," Gartlan said of the court's ruling regarding sovereign immunity."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readUS Judge OKs Partial Release of Ex-Special Counsel's Final Report in Election Case
3 minute read'Religious Discrimination'?: 4th Circuit Revives Challenge to Employer Vaccine Mandate
2 minute read11th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Snapshot Judgement: The Case Against Illustrated Indictments
- 2Texas Supreme Court Grapples Over Fifth Circuit Question on State Usury Law
- 3Exploring the Opportunities and Risks for Generative AI and Corporate Databases: An Introduction
- 4Farella Elevates First Female Firmwide Managing Partners
- 5Family Court 2024 Roundup: Part I
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250