Joe.My.God. LGBT News
Courthouse News reports:
The Sixth Circuit ruled late Thursday to uphold an award of damages against former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who was sued after refusing to issue two gay men a marriage license. The three-judge panel unanimously rejected Davis’ arguments that she was immune to the lawsuit and upheld a jury award of $100,000 in emotional damages to plaintiffs David Ermold and David Moore.
The damages were awarded after a federal judge ruled that Davis violated the plaintiffs’ rights when she denied them a marriage license. Davis was also ordered to pay an additional $260,000 in legal fees. The denial came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 landmark ruling that guaranteed same-sex couples the right to get married. Davis appealed to the Sixth Circuit, arguing her then position of clerk for Rowan County granted her immunity.
The Kentucky Lantern reports:
The judges furthermore called Davis’ actions while a county clerk a “quintessential state action.” “The First Amendment shields Davis where she ‘functioned as a private citizen,’ but not where she “engaged in state action,’” the opinion states.
Davis’ lawyer, Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver, also argued the $100,000 Davis was ordered to pay was arbitrary because one could not quantify emotional damage. The judges rejected that, pointing to case law as a basis and citing testimony from the men about feeling frightened and humiliated.
Staver also argued that Ermold and Moore could have gotten their license elsewhere, which the judges said “only compounded the stigma.” Staver previously told the Lantern that his team’s goal is for the appeal to reach the U.S. Supreme Court and that, should the appeals panel rule against him, he would appeal to the higher court.
Mat Staver has his usual spin on the verdict:
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict against her, but did so in a way that provides Davis with excellent grounds to appeal the decision to the full Sixth Circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States.
As Judge Chad Readler noted in his concurring opinion, “right or wrong,” Obergefell is “the law of the land.” However, Judge Readler acknowledged the legal precedents on the matter were “not entirely settled” and that public employees like Davis still retain some First Amendment protections.
Since the Sixth Circuit majority noted that the Free Exercise Clause provides Davis with an affirmative defense to a damages award and presents a novel question of constitutional law, Liberty Counsel intends to seek further review of that issue.
Liberty Counsel intends to present at least three significant questions: (1) the Free Exercise defense for individual capacity claims against government officials; (2) whether Obergefell was wrongly decided, and (3) even if the Court does not want the Obergefell question, whether it created a clearly established right to obtain a marriage certificate from a specific government official.
There’s much more at the first link above.