Judge David Bunning of the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ruled Friday that former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples when she denied them marriage licenses during the summer of 2015.
Davis became infamous in 2015 for refusing to issue same-sex couples marriage licenses despite the Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges. This ruling established the Constitutional right of same-sex couples to be married. Davis stated that she was refusing to issue licenses “under God’s authority.”
In 2015, the US Supreme Court denied Davis’s bid to continue refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples pending an appeal. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion to hold her in contempt, and a US district court judge held Davis in contempt of court for her continued refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In the wake of her refusal, two of the impacted couples began the litigation which was resolved Friday. The two couples sued Davis for a constitutional violation and motioned for summary judgement. In defense, Davis stated that the Obergefell ruling raised serious issues of First Amendment rights to religious expression. She also argued that, under the First Amendment, she was immune to litigation.
Judge Bunning disagreed with Davis’s argument, writing:
It is . . . readily apparent that Davis made a conscious decision to violate Plaintiffs’ right . . . The explicit holding in Obergefell was that states could not exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage. The logical next step is clear. Davis, an elected county official who was tasked by her constituents to manage marriage licensing in Rowan County, could not exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage.
A jury will now decide what damages to award to the affected couples.
The Liberty Counsel, which represented Davis in this litigation, has stated a plan for appeal. In a press release, Liberty Counsel President Mat Staver stated that: “Davis is entitled to protection to an accommodation based on her sincere religious belief. This case raises serious First Amendment free exercise of religion claims and has a high potential of reaching the Supreme Court.”
