Kim Davis will appeal to SCOTUS in marriage equality case
Kim Davis, then the Rowan county clerk, waved to supporters at a rally outside the Carter County Detention Center on Sept. 8, 2015 in Grayson. Davis was ordered to jail for contempt of court after refusing a federal court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (Photo by)
Former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis plans to ask the United States Supreme Court to weigh in on whether she was protected by the First Amendment when refusing same-sex marriage licenses a decade ago, her lawyer announced Monday.
This comes after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused a request to re-hear her case, saying the panel of judges who ruled against Davis in March already considered the case fully.
Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of conservative legal group Liberty Counsel, said in a statement that the nation's highest court is 'the next step to give Kim Davis justice in this case since the emotional distress damage award against her in her individual capacity is barred by the First Amendment.'
Davis is fighting a federal jury's decision that she should pay $100,000 to a couple she denied a marriage license in 2015. But her lawyers also want the case to result in same-sex marriage rights being revoked.
'This case underscores why the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, because that decision threatens the religious liberty of many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman,' Staver said. 'The First Amendment precludes making the choice between your faith and your livelihood.'
The move is expected. Staver, who argued on Davis' behalf in Cincinnati in January before a 3-judge panel in the 6th Circuit, said at that time he intended to use her case to try and overturn marriage equality.
Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that guaranteed same-sex couples marriage rights, is 'on the same shifting sand' that doomed Roe v. Wade, Staver said.
'I think … it's not a matter of 'if,' it's a matter of 'when' Obergefell will be overturned,' Staver told the Lantern in January. 'I have no doubt that Obergefell will be overturned, and the issue will be returned back to the states as it was before 2015.'
Davis, then the Rowan County clerk, made national headlines in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to several same-sex couples based on her religious beliefs.
In 2015, U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered Davis to jail for five days for contempt for refusing to comply with a court order.
In 2024, Bunning ordered Davis to pay $260,104 in fees and expenses to attorneys who represented one of the couples she refused a marriage license. Bunning earlier ordered Davis to pay the couple, David Ermold and David Moore, $100,000 in damages for violating their constitutional rights. Liberty Counsel has unsuccessfully fought Bunning's decisions.
Davis lost her bid for reelection as Rowan County clerk in 2018.
Her lawyers have argued she acted within her First Amendment rights when she refused to issue the licenses, though judges don't agree.
In March, the 6th Circuit refused to strike down the jury judgement against her on those grounds, saying she 'cannot raise a Free Exercise Clause defense because she is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect.'
Liberty Counsel said the case raises the question 'of whether a government official sued in an individual capacity and stripped of governmental immunity may assert a personal First Amendment defense to monetary damages.'
The group wants the Supreme Court to take up the case to 'answer the question of 'first impression,' resolve any conflicts with Supreme Court precedent, and ensure that former government defendants standing before the Court in their personal capacity do not lose First Amendment protections.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP senators express 'concerns,' 'skepticism' over Trump's spending bill after Musk rant
A cohort of Senate Republicans already troubled by the House GOP's version of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" found a common ally in Elon Musk, who again trashed the legislation on Tuesday. Musk, who just exited his tenure as Trump's efficiency bloodhound leading the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) last week, doubled down on his position that the House's reconciliation package was an "abomination." White House Stands By Tax Bill After Musk Calls It A 'Disgusting Abomination' "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore," Musk said on X. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination." "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong," he continued. "You know it." Senate Republicans have already vowed to make changes to the colossal bill, which includes the president's desires on tax, energy, immigration, defense and national debt policies. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., lauded Musk for his work with DOGE, but noted that the Senate GOP and the tech-billionaire had "a difference of opinion." Read On The Fox News App Elon Musk Criticism Of Trump Tax Bill Frustrates Some Republicans: 'No Place In Congress' He didn't believe that Musk's comments would derail the bill entirely in the upper chamber, either. Thune has pledged to get the bill to the president's desk by Independence Day. "The legislation, as passed by the House, can be approved here in the Senate, can be strengthened in the Senate, in a number of ways," Thune said. "We intend to do that, but when it's all said and done, we'll send it back to the House and hope that they can pass it and put it on the president's desk." Still, fractures have emerged among lawmakers, with some viewing the bill through the same lens as Musk. "Well, he has some of the same skepticism I have, you know, towards the big, beautiful bill," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Trump Criticizes Rand Paul Over Tax Bill Opposition: 'Votes No On Everything' Paul has vowed not to support the bill as is without a serious overhaul to the legislation that would nix a $5 trillion increase to the nation's debt ceiling — a stance that has gotten him into hot water with Trump. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., has similarly pledged not to support the bill unless much steeper spending cuts are achieved. The House's product includes $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, but Johnson would like to see a return to pre-pandemic spending levels, which would effectively amount to a roughly $6 trillion cut in spending. "I share his concerns," Johnson said of Musk. "I also appreciate what he and President Trump did with his DOGE effort." And Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a fiscal hawk whose views are closely aligned with Johnson's, argued in response to the tech billionaire's social media post that "federal spending has become excessive." "The resulting inflation harms Americans and weaponizes government," Lee said on X. "The Senate can make this bill better. It must now do so." Other Senate Republicans, including those with outstanding concerns with the current legislation, were much less receptive to Musk's tirade against the bill. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has remained steadfast in his position that he would not support the current Medicaid proposals in the House's bill, especially if they cut benefits to his constituents and people across the country. When asked his reaction to Musk's rant, he shrugged, "Well, he's entitled to his opinion, it's a free country." Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.V., who has expressed reservations on the contents of the megabill, was more blunt. "My reaction to that is just simply this — and y'all may like this or not like this — but you know, Donald Trump is our president, not Elon Musk," he article source: GOP senators express 'concerns,' 'skepticism' over Trump's spending bill after Musk rant
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
FEMA Is Not Prepared
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Who manages the disaster if the disaster managers are the disaster? That's a question that the people of the United States may have to answer soon. As hurricane season begins in the U.S., the Federal Emergency Management Agency is in disarray. Reuters reported yesterday that acting FEMA head David Richardson suggested during a meeting with employees that he was unaware of the very existence of a hurricane season. A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security dismissed the report: 'Despite meanspirited attempts to falsely frame a joke as policy, there is no uncertainty about what FEMA will be doing this Hurricane Season.' The spokesperson added, 'FEMA is shifting from bloated, DC-centric dead weight to a lean, deployable disaster force that empowers state actors to provide relief for their citizens.' FEMA employees, and Americans at large, might be forgiven for having doubts. Richardson has only been on the job since early May, when his predecessor was abruptly fired after telling Congress he did not believe that FEMA should be eliminated, as President Donald Trump has contemplated. Richardson is a Marine veteran who had been leading the DHS office that seeks to prevent attacks on the U.S. involving weapons of mass destruction, but he has no experience with disaster management. The Wall Street Journal reported that he had expressed surprise at how broad FEMA's remit is. (The last time FEMA was led by an administrator whose profession was not emergency management was the mid-2000s, under Michael Brown. If you don't know how that turned out, I recommend my colleague Vann R. Newkirk II's award-winning podcast on Hurricane Katrina, Floodlines.) But Richardson surely is aware of hurricane season. In mid-May, CNN obtained an internal document warning that FEMA was badly behind schedule. 'As FEMA transforms to a smaller footprint, the intent for this hurricane season is not well understood, thus FEMA is not ready,' it read. (DHS, which oversees FEMA, said the information was 'grossly out of context.') To calm worries at the agency, Richardson held a conference call. 'I would say we're about 80 or 85 percent there,' he told staff, according to ABC News. 'The next week, we will close that gap and get to probably 97 to 98 percent of a plan. We'll never have 100 percent of a plan.' That was not the most reassuring answer, and it looks worse now. The Journal reports that in the same meeting yesterday where Richardson suggested unfamiliarity with hurricane season, he also said the agency would return to its 2024 hurricane-preparedness strategy. How that will work is anyone's guess, given that FEMA has already slashed programs and staff since last year's hurricane season. (FEMA responded to my request for comment with DHS's statement, but did not answer specific questions or make any official available for an interview.) FEMA is not a large part of the federal government by budget or staff, but it is an important one because it directly affects the lives of ordinary Americans in their worst moments. Washington can seem distant and abstract, but disasters are not, and as Hurricane Helene last year demonstrated, even people living in supposed 'climate havens' are susceptible to extreme weather. In the aftermath of Helene, Trump grasped the widespread public fury at FEMA, which storm victims felt was not responsive enough, fast enough. (Major disasters are major, and even the best-managed response is going to be slower than anyone wants, but no one seems to think this was the best-managed response.) As a candidate, he was quick to say that the Biden administration should do more, but since becoming president again, he has taken steps to ensure that FEMA can and will do less. FEMA is also making recovery harder for the victims of past disasters. In April, the agency declined to declare a major disaster in Washington State, which would free up funding for recovery from a bomb cyclone in November 2024; the state's entire congressional delegation pleaded with him to reconsider. DHS also denied North Carolina more funding for cleanup after Helene, which Governor Josh Stein estimated would cost state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The president also refused individual federal assistance to nine Arkansas counties struck by tornadoes in March, only reversing the decision after Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who served as press secretary in Trump's first administration, called the president directly. In the post-FEMA future that Trump has floated, states would be responsible for all disaster recovery. Some conservatives have long argued that states need to shoulder more responsibility for smaller disasters, but most states (and territories such as Puerto Rico) simply don't have the resources to respond to large-scale disasters like Helene. This is, after all, one reason the 13 colonies united in the first place: for mutual aid and protection. The federal government has much greater resources and, unlike most states, is not required to balance its budget annually. That makes it a crucial financial backstop. As Brock Long, who led FEMA during Trump's first term, told me last year, 'All disasters are locally executed, state managed, and federally supported.' FEMA has not, generally, been a partisan agency. Administrators may have different political views, but they try to provide help without consideration for politics. I've spoken with several administrators over the years, and they are consistently professional, don't take wildly differing approaches to their work, and are dedicated to emergency response. When an employee at FEMA was caught telling workers not to help people with Trump signs in their yards, it was rightly a scandal. Yet in his first term, Trump himself reportedly withheld or delayed disaster funds in multiple cases based on partisanship. His reversal on assistance for Arkansas residents raises the specter of a future in which only states whose governors are close to Trump can hope to obtain relief. And yet if FEMA isn't prepared for hurricane season, doesn't have sufficient staff, and is laboring under a president who would like to see it gone, the problem may not be that only the president's allies can get help from the federal government—but rather that no one can. Related: Hurricane Helene through the eyes of a former FEMA chief David Inserra: There are too many federal disasters. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Feudalism is our future. Ukraine's warning to the world's other military forces The GOP's new Medicaid denialism Today's News DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the family of the man accused of Sunday's attack at a Colorado demonstration for Israeli hostages has been taken into ICE custody. Elon Musk posted on X calling President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act a 'disgusting abomination.' Mount Etna, an active volcano in eastern Sicily, erupted. No injuries resulted. Dispatches Work in Progress: Derek Thompson explains the No. 1 rule for understanding Donald Trump. The Weekly Planet: Our diets are awful for the planet. But we can't simply abandon food, Michael Grunwald writes. Explore all of our newsletters here. More From The Atlantic Diddy's trial is revealing a conspiracy, but it's not the one people expected. Dear James: 'I'm not very punk rock' Evening Read Nutrition Science's Most Preposterous Result By David Merritt Johns From 2023 Last summer, I got a tip about a curious scientific finding. 'I'm sorry, it cracks me up every time I think about this,' my tipster said. Back in 2018, a Harvard doctoral student named Andres Ardisson Korat was presenting his research on the relationship between dairy foods and chronic disease to his thesis committee. One of his studies had led him to an unusual conclusion: Among diabetics, eating half a cup of ice cream a day was associated with a lower risk of heart problems. Needless to say, the idea that a dessert loaded with saturated fat and sugar might actually be good for you raised some eyebrows at the nation's most influential department of nutrition. Read the full article. Culture Break Watch. Our writers and editors recommend five movies they could watch over and over again. Read. Susan Choi's new book, Flashlight, considers the evolution of rage. Play our daily crossword. P.S. Professional emergency managers are some of the most impressive people I've interviewed. To succeed, they have to be extremely practical, very creative, and totally unflappable. In 2015, while reporting an article on 'maximums of maximums'—the biggest hypothetical catastrophes the nation could face—I asked some sources what their nightmare was. 'What keeps me up is another form of a pandemic, respiratory transmitted, highly lethal virus,' Anthony Fauci told me. (Good prediction, doc.) But when I asked Craig Fugate, then FEMA's administrator, what kept him up at night, he answered in the way that only a veteran of many disasters could: 'Nothing.' — David Isabel Fattal contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump asked Congress to claw back funding for PBS and NPR. What now?
America's two big public broadcasters, PBS and NPR, have 45 days to salvage their federal funding — starting now. On Tuesday, the Trump administration sent Congress a long-awaited request for lawmakers to cancel more than $1 billion in federal funds earmarked for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that disburses taxpayer funds to local NPR and PBS stations across the country. The request, known as a 'rescission package,' starts a 45-day clock for Congress to either approve or ignore the proposal. Rescinding the funds only requires a simple majority, which means in this case that no Democratic votes are needed. However, Republicans only have slim majorities in both the House and Senate, and public media executives are cautiously hopeful that they can convince some Republican moderates to ignore the White House's proposal, thereby killing it. White House budget director Russ Vought said on Fox News Tuesday afternoon that the House will be 'putting this on the floor next week.' Vought also warned, 'If it doesn't pass, we have to then release the funds and it has to be spent.' The 45-day period will end on July 18. Until then, PBS and NPR officials will be lobbying lawmakers and counting votes. NPR said its lobbying efforts will start on the House side, 'where we expect the memo to be first taken up,' CEO Katherine Maher said in a statement. 'During this fight we will demonstrate our value to Congress, as we have over the last 50 years, in providing educational, enriching programs and critical services to all Americans every day for free,' PBS CEO Paula Kerger said in a separate statement. The funds being targeted now were allocated by the Republican-controlled Congress in a bill that Trump signed into law earlier this spring but haven't been spent yet because the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is budgeted two years in advance. Trump, tapping into long-held conservative beliefs that NPR and PBS are biased in favor of liberals, is now trying to strip away the future funding and score a political win. Kerger said it would be a loss for the public at large. 'The proposed rescissions would have a devastating impact on PBS member stations and the essential role they play in communities,' she said, 'particularly smaller and rural stations that rely on federal funding for a larger portion of their budgets. Without PBS member stations, Americans will lose unique local programming and emergency services in times of crisis.' The Trump White House has targeted public media on multiple fronts in recent weeks. The president signed an executive order in early May directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to stop funding PBS and NPR. He also tried to fire three of the corporation's board members. The corporation has essentially ignored him, however, because it is a private nonprofit entity set up by Congress and historically insulated from presidential interference. The entity has filed suit with the hopes that a federal court will affirm its independence. Both NPR and PBS have also filed separate lawsuits accusing the administration of violating the First Amendment. All three cases have been assigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss. Furthermore, the Federal Communications Commission is conducting a probe into NPR and PBS member stations, citing concerns that public media underwriting messages may be violating federal law. But of all the attempts to target public media this year, Tuesday's proposal stands out. 'This rescission proposal is the most serious threat ever faced by public broadcasting,' Maher wrote in her statement. 'We urge Congress to act in the interest of their constituents and save public broadcasting.'
