Former County Clerk Kim Davis Contests Damages Amount in Sixth Circuit

It was close to a decade ago when Kim Davis became the center of controversy over a decision to not perform her duties as the county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. Her refusal to obey the law, citing moral objections, brought down legal consequences that included settlements against her.
On Jan. 30, 2025, Davis once again found herself in court. In front of a three-judge panel from the Sixth Circuit, her lawyers argued for reversal of a jury trial awarding plaintiffs David Ermold and David Moore $100,000 in damages for emotional distress. She was also ordered to pay $260,000 in legal fees as well.
Getting this far was a pretty wild legal ride.
It's a Job
In 2015, Kim Davis was elected to the office of county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. She followed in the footsteps of her mother, who had held the position before her. A few days after Obergefell v. Hodgesmade same-sex marriage legal throughout the country, Davis refused to issue a marriage license to Ermold and Moore, a gay couple.
Davis contacted Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear, who had already ordered all Kentucky county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She asked him to issue an executive order allowing clerks to deny the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses on moral objections. Beshear declined to do so.
Despite this, Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses. She was sued by six couples she denied licenses to, including Moore and Ermold. Her attempt to claim qualified immunity as a county clerk was unsuccessful. A federal judge issued a stay against Davis continuing to refuse to issue marriage licenses. Her appeal was denied by the Sixth Circuit Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.
After refusing to follow the court order, Davis was found in contempt of court and imprisoned. In her absence, the deputy county clerks began issuing marriage licenses again, including to same-sex couples. Davis was released and returned to her job, leaving the issuance of licenses to same-sex couples to the deputy clerks. She created a new marriage license that didn't have her name on it.
This practice of removing the clerk's signature from the license went statewide later that year under new Governor Matt Bevin. Davis lost her bid for re-election in 2019.
Someone's Got To Pay
After a series of back-and-forth decisions, it was ruled in 2019 that Kentucky was responsible for the legal fees involving some of the couples who sued Davis. This was upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In 2022, a federal judge ruled in two cases against Davis that she had violated their constitutional rights in light of Obergefell. This opened the door for plaintiffs to sue Davis for damages and legal fees.
On September 13, 2023, a jury awarded Ermold and Moore $100,000 in damages. In December, a federal judge added over $245,000 in attorneys’ fees and almost $15,000 in attorneys' expenses to be paid by Davis. Her attorneys filed an appeal, which brings us to the present.
Dismissing Distress
Matthew Staver from Liberty Counsel, who represented Davis, attacked the amount awarded by the jury for the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiffs. He argued that the amount was "pulled out of thin air" and questioned whether any damages should have been awarded "based on their hurt feelings."
The attorney speaking for the plaintiffs, William Powell of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, noted the evidence presented of their emotional harm and the precedent set by similar cases.
The judges of the panel — U.S. Circuit Judges Helene White, Chad Readler, and Andre Mathis — will decide the case later this year. Despite the attempts of Davis to prevent the issuance of their constitutionally protected marriage license, David Ermold and David Moore tied the knot in October 2015 and are still together.
Related Resources
- How To Prove Emotional Distress (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Case Summary of Obergefell v. Hodges (FindLaw's Case Law)
- Wrongful Termination Laws: Illegal Reasons (FindLaw's Small Business Law)