Court to Decide on Hearing Same-Sex Marriage Challenge Nov. 7
The court will deliberate on Kim Davis’ challenge to same-sex marriage at a private conference scheduled for November 7. This marks the first evaluation of her case. It is critical to understand that courts typically require consideration of a case at two consecutive conferences before granting review. If the court denies the challenge, the announcement could occur as soon as November 10.
Background of Kim Davis’ Case
Kim Davis, a county clerk from Kentucky, gained national attention in 2015. This was shortly after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in the landmark case of Obergefell v. Hodges. Davis refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, David Moore and David Ermold, citing her religious beliefs.
Official Directives
Following the Obergefell decision, then-Governor Steve Beshear ordered all clerks in Kentucky to comply with the new law. This directive mandated that officials license and recognize marriages of same-sex couples. Despite this, Davis ceased issuing marriage licenses to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
- Date of Obergefell Decision: June 26, 2015
- Governor: Steve Beshear
- Couples Involved: David Moore and David Ermold
After a lawsuit was filed against her by Moore and Ermold, U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered Davis to provide marriage licenses. However, when the couple returned for their license, Davis and her staff still denied them.
Subsequent Developments
In 2016, following a new law in Kentucky, Davis resumed issuing marriage licenses. This law allowed clerks who opposed same-sex marriage to remove their names from licenses. Meanwhile, Moore and Ermold’s legal battle continued and culminated in 2023, resulting in a jury awarding each $50,000 in damages.
Court of Appeals Ruling
Davis appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, arguing her religious rights were violated when she was compelled to issue licenses. However, the court dismissed her claims, stating that in her official capacity as a clerk, she could not invoke the First Amendment protections.
The appellate court emphasized that personal opposition to same-sex marriage does not allow officials to create laws that reflect their views. It underscored that the Bill of Rights would be undermined if personal beliefs could dictate official policy.
Current Proceedings
In July, Davis sought a Supreme Court review of the 6th Circuit’s ruling. She argued that she was acting as a private citizen when refusing to issue the license and should not be held liable as a state actor. Furthermore, she requested the Supreme Court to reconsider the Obergefell decision, claiming it lacked constitutional grounding.
Responses from Opponents
Moore and Ermold initially waived their right to respond but were later instructed by the Supreme Court to submit a response. Their legal team challenged Davis’ arguments, noting she delayed presenting her First Amendment claims until late in the appellate process. They asserted that this delay hindered a fair judicial evaluation.
Moore and Ermold also countered that Davis had previously indicated she would not attempt to relitigate Obergefell, urging the court to hold her to that commitment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear Davis’ case hinges on whether four justices support a review. There is speculation that even if four justices are inclined to hear it, they will only proceed if confident they can garner sufficient votes to overturn Obergefell.
