Supreme Court has 'good chance' of hearing Kim Davis' case urging same-sex marriage be overturned: lawyer
Kim Davis, a devout Christian, made national headlines in 2015 when she refused to sign the marriage licenses of same-sex couples over her religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. Davis' lawyer, Mat Staver, is helping her appeal a ruling that she must pay $360,000 in legal fees and expenses to plaintiffs David Ermold and David Moore.
"The First Amendment should be an absolute defense to Kim Davis. And secondly, we're asking the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell, the 2015 decision that ultimately caused this problem in the first place," Staver told Fox News Digital.
"For them not to review the matter I think is terrible for Kim Davis and also terrible for the country because they've damaged the Constitution and only the court can fix it," Staver added.
Staver also told Fox News Digital, "I think we have a good chance at having the Supreme Court take up this case because you have three of the justices still on the bench that were part of the four dissenters in 2015" in Obergefell v. Hodges, "including the chief justice, who gave a very strong dissent."
"There's only two justices still on the bench that were on the bench in the majority in 2015, and that would be Kagan and Sotomayor," Staver added. "This is the case with the most compelling facts that can challenge and overturn Obergefell."
The case, if it reaches the Supreme Court, would be heard by Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who dissented to Obergefell v. Hodges; Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagen, who affirmed the decision; and four newly appointed justices.
In March, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit wrote in a ruling that "As Davis sees it, issuing Plaintiffs a marriage license would have violated her own constitutionally protected religious beliefs; thus, she asserts, she cannot be held liable. We disagree."
"Davis cannot raise a Free Exercise Clause defense because she is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect," the ruling added.
A petition for writ of certiorari filed last month on behalf of Davis is appealing that decision.
"Obergefell was wrong when it was decided and it is wrong today because it was grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process," the filing said.
"Overturning Obergefell would not undo any marriage licenses in effect at the time. All marriage licenses, including those between same-sex couples, would continue to be recognized. They would be 'grandfathered.' Going forward, marriage would return to the states as it was prior to Obergefell. It would be up to each state to define marriage," it added.
William Powell, an attorney representing Ermold and Moore, and a Senior Counsel with the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, told Fox News Digital that "We are confident the Supreme Court, like the court of appeals, will conclude that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention.
"Marriage equality is settled law," he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court allows enforcement of Mississippi social media age verification law
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to block enforcement of a Mississippi law aimed at regulating the use of social media by children, an issue of growing national concern. The justices rejected an emergency appeal from a tech industry group that is challenging laws passed in Mississippi and other states that require social media users to verify their ages. NetChoice, which brought the lawsuit, argues the Mississippi law threatens privacy rights and unconstitutionally restricts the free expression of users of all ages. Mark Sherman, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Appeals panel declines Louisiana's invitation to gut Voting Rights Act
A federal appeals court panel declined Louisiana's invitation to gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) that has required the state to draw additional majority-minority districts, ruling Thursday that the argument is foreclosed by binding precedent. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision upholds a judge's ruling that blocked Louisiana's state legislative maps by finding they 'packed' and 'cracked' Black communities in violation of Section 2, the VRA's central remaining provision. The state urged the 5th Circuit, regarded as the nation's most conservative federal appeals court, to use the case to rule Section 2 unconstitutional by finding that conditions in the state no longer justify race-conscious remedies. The panel wrote that the Pelican State's position would 'eschew a clear mandate from the Supreme Court and disregard Congress's intent,' only briefly addressing the argument in the final three of the opinion's 54 pages. 'The State's challenge to the constitutionality of § 2 is foreclosed by decades of binding precedent affirming Congress's broad enforcement authority under the Fifteenth Amendment,' the ruling reads. Left unmentioned was the Supreme Court's case next term over Louisiana's congressional map, which raises overlapping questions about the VRA's future. The high court heard arguments this spring but will rehear the case Oct. 15. 'We strongly disagree with the Fifth Circuit panel's decision. We are reviewing our options with a focus on stability in our elections and preserving state and judicial resources while the Supreme Court resolves related issues,' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R) said in a statement. The 5th Circuit panel on Thursday also rejected Louisiana's separate argument that would broadly weaken the VRA: private parties have no right to sue under Section 2. It would take away the ability for cases to be brought civil rights groups like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which brought the underlying lawsuit, and leave any challenges to the Justice Department. Louisiana's case has attracted attention particularly after the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the position at the urging of other Republican-led states. But the 5th Circuit panel relegated the argument to a footnote, saying it 'is foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent.' The panel comprised James Dennis, nominated to the bench by former President Clinton, Catharina Haynes, nominated by former President George W. Bush, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, nominated by former President Biden. Most of the panel's unsigned opinion was dedicated to Louisiana's narrower arguments to overturn the lower ruling blocking its state legislative maps. Louisiana argued U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick improperly set an expedited trial date, she was required to transfer the case to a three-judge panel and she failed to correctly apply Supreme Court precedent on the VRA. The panel rejected all those arguments, leaving the Obama-nominated judge's block in place. Dick ruled in February 2024 that the designs disenfranchised thousands of Black voters in violation of Section 2. She was prepared to order the state to conduct a special election rather than wait for the next cycle in 2027, but the 5th Circuit declined to allow her to do so as they considered the case.
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court declines to block Mississippi social media age-verification law
The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to block Mississippi from enforcing its social media age-verification law against nine major platforms, for now. In an emergency ruling, the justices denied an internet trade group NetChoice's request to reinstate a lower court's order protecting social media giants like Meta, X and YouTube from the new requirements. The Supreme Court did not explain its order or disclose the vote count, as is typical in emergency cases. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, however, wrote a solo opinion cautioning that NetChoice is likely to ultimately succeed on its First Amendment claims even though he was siding against the group at this stage. 'In short, under this Court's case law as it currently stands, the Mississippi law is likely unconstitutional,' Kavanaugh's brief opinion reads. 'Nonetheless, because NetChoice has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time, I concur in the Court's denial of the application for interim relief,' the conservative justice continued. NetChoice had asked the court to intervene after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit lifted the district judge's decision shielding the platforms from the 2024 law without explanation. 'Neither NetChoice nor this Court can know why the Fifth Circuit believed this law satisfies the First Amendment's stringent demands or deviated from the seven other decisions enjoining similar laws,' NetChoice wrote in its request, contending it would face 'immediate, irreparable' injury should the law be allowed to go into effect. Mississippi's law establishes requirements for social media companies to confirm their users' ages. Minors must have express consent from a parent or guardian to use the platform, and covered websites must strive to eliminate their exposure to harmful material or face a $10,000 fine. U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden found the law unconstitutional as applied to NetChoice members YouTube, X, Snapchat, Reddit, Pinterest, Nextdoor, Dreamwidth and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram. In its Supreme Court papers, NetChoice argued that the law upended Mississippi citizens' right to access protected speech across social media, contending the 5th Circuit's lack of explanation is reason enough for the high court to step in. The state claimed the law targets predators by imposing 'modest duties' on the platforms and urged the justices to reject the application. 'NetChoice satisfies none of the vacatur criteria,' the state wrote. 'It has not shown that the stay order is demonstrably wrong, that this Court would likely review a Fifth Circuit decision rejecting the injunction, or that the equities support its extraordinary request. Tech and free speech groups submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in support of NetChoice's application, contending that the law puts an unfair bar on minors and burden on adults looking to engage in protected online expression. A group aimed at stopping child predators wrote in another amicus brief that the law fails to achieve its intended purpose of protecting children. NetChoice does not argue the law is unconstitutional in all circumstances, as it did in its challenge to Florida and Texas laws aimed at barring social media companies from banning users based on their political views, which was resolved by the Supreme Court last year. The Mississippi law was set to go into effect on the same day the justices handed NetChoice a win in those cases, sending them back to lower courts to analyze the Florida and Texas laws with new guidance.
