The United States Supreme Court is deciding whether to take up an appeal from Kim Davis. She is the infamous former Kentucky county clerk who gained notoriety in 2015 when she was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This case could have significant implications for the legal status of same-sex marriage established by the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized such unions nationwide.
In 2015, then‐county clerk Kim Davis refused to issue a marriage license to David Ermold and David Moore. Her actions ignited a national firestorm, pitting religious freedom against LGBTQ rights as she had invoked her religious beliefs to justify the refusal. When she refused, the couple fought back, taking Davis to court. Ultimately, they prevailed in the suit, and the jury awarded them $100,000 in damages. Davis is currently represented by the Liberty Counsel, a legal organization that has backed anti-abortion activists. As a defense, she argues her actions are protected under the First Amendment religion protections, which guarantee free exercise of religion.
In 2016, Davis was sentenced to five days jail for contempt of court. In rejecting public records requests one too many times, she acted as a government official. Her case sparked a national debate over where personal religious convictions end and the constitutional rights of citizens begin. In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit handed down a blistering decision against Davis. Instead, they claimed that she was not entitled to First Amendment protections while carrying out her official duties.
“When an official’s discharge of her duties according to her conscience violates the constitutional rights of citizens, the constitution must win out,” – Judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The appellate court stressed that letting personal beliefs trump others’ constitutional rights would have a chilling effect. The judges stated, “The Bill of Rights would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates.” Davis made the decision to appeal for a new review from the Supreme Court. She hopes to upend the legal underpinnings of Obergefell v. Hodges with this latest attempt.
Davis argues that the state’s religious beliefs shouldn’t come into play in this case. She puts the entirety of her argument on the line with this claim. In a brief submitted by her legal team, she contended that “Anything less would leave the first amendment’s promises hollow to those who agree to public service and are sued for exercising their religious beliefs during that time.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court is now considering whether to hear this explosive case. Legal experts caution that overruling Obergefell would have tremendously negative effects on all same-sex marriages formed nationwide. The possible consequences are profound. They threaten the very stability and potential constitutional recognition of unions already existing under our own federal law.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear Davis’s case, it could revisit the principles established in Obergefell and redefine the boundaries between religious freedom and civil rights. Such an outcome would surely determine how courts would interpret first amendment rights in future similar cases regarding the privilege of public officials expressing their personal beliefs.