Latest news with #Staver
Fox News
5 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Supreme Court has 'good chance' of hearing Kim Davis' case urging same-sex marriage be overturned: lawyer
The former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed 10 years ago for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is now asking the Supreme Court to review its landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, with her attorney telling Fox News Digital there's a "good chance" it will end up on their docket. 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.
Yahoo
30-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kim Davis' lawyer eager for next step as he argues same-sex marriage case before appeals panel
Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver in the Potter Stewart Courthouse in Cincinnati, Jan. 30, 2025. (Kentucky Lantern photo by Sarah Ladd) CINCINNATI — A lawyer for former Rowan County clerk Kim Davis argued before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday in a case he hopes will help overturn federal same-sex marriage protections. The oral arguments focused on the question of whether Davis should pay $100,000 to David Ermold and David Moore for denying their marriage license a decade ago. After the hearing, Davis' lawyer, Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver, told the Lantern that his team's goal is for the appeal to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The case would provide the justices an opportunity to re-evaluate the decision that gave gay couples equal marriage rights on the same grounds that the court in 2022 overturned the federal right to abortion, Staver said. Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that guaranteed same-sex couples marriage rights, is 'on the same shifting sand' that doomed Roe v. Wade, said Staver. 'I think … it's not a matter of 'if,' it's a matter of 'when' Obergefell will be overturned,' Staver told the Lantern. 'I have no doubt that Obergefell will be overturned, and the issue will be returned back to the states as it was before 2015.' Each side argued for about 15 minutes before a three-judge panel at the Potter Stewart Courthouse in downtown Cincinnati. Davis' lawyers are asking that she not be required to pay $100,000 to Ermold and Moore for denying their marriage license in 2015 as ordered by a federal jury. Davis made national headlines in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to several same-sex couples based on her religious beliefs. Kim Davis' legal counsel moves to make her appeal a springboard for overturning marriage rights During Thursday's oral arguments, Staver focused his arguments on the First Amendment, which promises the freedom of speech, religion and the press, as a defense of Davis' actions. He also argued that emotional distress isn't quantifiable, therefore the $100,000 payment was 'pulled out of thin air' and Davis should pay out nothing. 'There's no lost wages, there's no treatment, there's no injury, there's no out of pocket expenses,' Staver told the judges. 'It's only based upon their hurt feelings that occurred when they went to the clerk's office to get the license, and they said that Kim Davis' words caused them the distress.' Because of that, he said, the amount in question is arbitrary. 'Just being upset when they came to the counter to get the marriage license and raising their voice is not sufficient for a jury to award emotional damages based solely upon that information,' Staver said. 'How in the world would the jury, for example, calculate $50,000 for each plaintiff when they had nothing before them on which to calculate it?' The judges pushed back on Staver's argument that Davis is now a private citizen and has full First Amendment rights. Senior Judge Helene N. White, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said the relevant question is what Davis did as a 'government actor.' Judge Chad A. Readler, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, said 'the problem there seems to be that she didn't try to avail herself of any of those rights she may have had under federal or state law, vis-à-vis her employer, to get an accommodation. She just refused, herself, to do this.' Judge Andre B. Mathis, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, posed this question twice: 'Are you saying she was not engaged in state action?' Staver replied, 'She was a state actor, and that's where she had sovereign immunity originally, but then they stripped her of the qualified immunity and came after her in her individual capacity.' Bill Powell, Ermold and Moore's attorney, argued that Davis violated his clients 14th Amendment rights while acting under the color of law. 'As long as my clients had enough testimony to support $1 in damages, then the argument that there should be zero should fail,' Powell said. Davis had the right to oppose the concept of gay marriage in her personal and private capacities, he said, but 'the state cannot continue to discriminate against same sex couples.' Powell also addressed the argument that Davis' actions are covered under the First Amendment. 'When a government official acts under color of state law, they do not have that kind of First Amendment protection. Even if you disagreed with that, and even if you thought that Miss Davis had some kind of First Amendment protections in her job, it would have to be for speech that she took in her private capacity outside of her official duties,' Powell argued. 'And that is not what happened here.' 'In this case,' he added, 'the accommodation that (Davis) gave herself was to make it the official policy of her entire office not to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, even her subordinates. And that kind of an accommodation … took the law into her own hands, and there was no possible justification for that.' Powell didn't speak to the press after Thursday's arguments, saying his comments in court would speak for themselves. Staver with Liberty Counsel said it was difficult to get a sense of where the judges stood based on their questions, but he's 'optimistic.' He expects a ruling in around 90 days, he said. Should the court rule against him, he intends to appeal to the Court. Should it rule in his favor, he expects an appeal from the other side as well. 'There's two arguments that we would present to the Supreme Court,' Staver explained. 'One, that the First Amendment is a defense in cases like Kim Davis' for other people who have sincere religious beliefs. But beyond that, that Obergefell should be overturned.' In a brief filed in June 2024, Liberty Counsel said the Supreme Court should reconsider Obergefell v. Hodges for the same reasons the high court rolled back federal abortion protections. Liberty Counsel's argument picks up on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion in the 2022 abortion ruling. Thomas wrote that the court could use the same rationale to overturn earlier decisions on same-sex marriage and access to contraception. 'Obergefell was wrong when it was decided and it is wrong today because it was based entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process, which lacks any basis in the Constitution,' Liberty Counsel said in court documents filed last year. Listen to an audio recording of the oral arguments here. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
