DAVID ERMOLD; DAVID MOORE v. KIM DAVIS - Articles

All Content

DAVID ERMOLD; DAVID MOORE v. KIM DAVIS

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Mar 6, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Mathew D. Staver, LIBERTY COUNSEL, Orlando, Florida, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: William Powell, INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Mathew D. Staver, Daniel J. Schmid, LIBERTY COUNSEL, Orlando, Florida, A.C. Donahue, DONAHUE LAW GROUP, P.S.C., Somerset, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: William Powell, Kelsi Brown Corkran, INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION, Washington, D.C., Michael J. Gartland, DELCOTTO LAW GROUP PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, Joseph D. Buckles, BUCKLES LAW OFFICE, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellee.

Judge(s): WHITE, READLER, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Ashland

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Kim Davis, in her capacity as the clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, refused to issue a marriage license to Plaintiffs-Appellees David Moore and David Ermold. Plaintiffs sued Davis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Davis violated their constitutional right to marry. After several interlocutory appeals, the district court entered judgment for Plaintiffs on liability and a jury awarded them compensatory damages. Davis now appeals, arguing that she is entitled to qualified immunity, that she has affirmative defenses to liability under the Free Exercise Clause and the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and that Plaintiffs’ evidence of their emotional distress was insufficient to support the jury’s award. We AFFIRM.

Attachments: