Kim Davis Lawsuit: Jailing, $100K Verdict, and SCOTUS Appeals

The Kim Davis lawsuit ended in November 2025, when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear her final appeal and left in place a $100,000 jury verdict against her, along with more than $260,000 in attorney’s fees she was ordered to pay personally.¹² Davis, the former Rowan County, Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after Obergefell v. Hodges, now owes roughly $360,000 to the couple who sued her.

What Davis Did in 2015

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court held in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Within days, Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses to every couple in Rowan County, citing her religious beliefs as an Apostolic Christian, and she barred her deputy clerks from issuing them either.³ The blanket “no licenses” policy shut down the marriage-licensing function of her office rather than merely stepping aside as an individual.

The Lawsuits Filed Against Her

Two federal lawsuits mattered most, both filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky before Judge David L. Bunning.

Miller v. Davis was filed on July 2, 2015, by the ACLU and ACLU of Kentucky as a class action on behalf of four Rowan County couples, two same-sex and two opposite-sex, who had been denied licenses.⁴ The complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.⁵ Judge Bunning granted a preliminary injunction on August 12, 2015, ordering Davis to resume issuing licenses. The Sixth Circuit and the Supreme Court both refused to stay it.³

Ermold v. Davis was brought by David Ermold and David Moore, a couple Davis had turned away multiple times. It also alleged a § 1983 violation of their constitutional right to marry.⁶ This case produced the damages verdict Davis ultimately had to pay.

A third suit, Yates v. Davis, brought by James Yates and Will Smith, produced a liability finding but a jury award of $0, with jurors concluding the couple had suffered no compensable harm.⁷

The Contempt Order and Five Days in Jail

Davis refused to comply with Judge Bunning’s August 12 injunction. On September 3, 2015, Bunning held her in contempt and ordered her into the custody of the U.S. Marshal.⁸ At the hearing, her attorney would not represent that she would allow licenses to be issued, which closed off a compromise that could have avoided jail.⁹

Davis spent five days in the Carter County Detention Center. While she was jailed, deputy clerk Brian Mason began issuing licenses to same-sex couples, altering the forms to remove Davis’s name; at least seven licenses were issued in her absence.¹⁰ Bunning released her on September 8, 2015, on the condition that she not interfere with her deputies.¹¹

The $100,000 Verdict and $260,000 in Fees

Courts found Davis personally liable in Ermold v. Davis for violating the couple’s constitutional rights, and the district court then held a trial limited to damages. Ermold and Moore testified about the emotional toll of being repeatedly turned away, marital strain, and tainted wedding memories. Ermold also testified that the experience triggered his PTSD.¹²

The jury awarded $50,000 in compensatory damages to each plaintiff, for a total of $100,000.¹³ Judge Bunning separately ordered Davis to pay $260,104 in attorney’s fees and expenses, bringing her personal liability to roughly $360,000.²

A separate fee award in Miller v. Davis, totaling more than $200,000, was ordered against the Commonwealth of Kentucky rather than Davis personally, and a federal court affirmed it on August 23, 2019.³

The Defenses Davis Raised, and Why They Failed

Davis was represented throughout by Liberty Counsel, led by founder Mat Staver. Her lawyers raised three principal defenses, and courts rejected all of them.¹⁴

On qualified immunity, Davis argued Obergefell hadn’t given her sufficient notice that refusing licenses was unconstitutional. The Sixth Circuit disagreed in 2019, holding that “for a reasonable official, Obergefell left no uncertainty” and adding that “the message apparently didn’t get through” to Davis.⁶

On the Free Exercise Clause, Davis contended her refusal was protected religious exercise. The Sixth Circuit ruled her actions were “quintessential state action” performed under the authority of the state, and that the First Amendment protects private conduct, not a government official using her office to deny others’ constitutional rights.¹⁵

On the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Sixth Circuit held the statute does not apply in suits between a government official and private citizens, because it requires the government itself to prove a compelling interest and least restrictive means, which cannot happen when the state is not a party.⁶

Judge Chad Readler, concurring in the Sixth Circuit’s 2025 decision, wrote that Davis went “above and beyond” anything that might have been protected: instead of asking for a personal accommodation, she made denial the official policy of her office.¹⁵

Two Trips to the Supreme Court

Davis’s case reached the Supreme Court twice. In 2020, the Court denied an earlier petition, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito issued a statement calling Davis “one of the first victims of this court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision” and warning of “ruinous consequences for religious liberty,” while agreeing that the 2020 petition did not “cleanly present” the issues.¹⁶

After the Sixth Circuit unanimously affirmed the $100,000 judgment on March 6, 2025, and the full circuit declined to rehear the case on April 28, 2025, Liberty Counsel filed a second petition for certiorari.¹⁵ The petition asked the Court to overturn the judgment against Davis and to reconsider Obergefell itself, arguing the ruling “had no basis in the Constitution” and drawing on the reasoning of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to contend that other substantive due process precedents should fall.¹⁷ It was reportedly the first petition since 2015 to formally ask the Court to overturn same-sex marriage.¹⁸

On November 10, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the petition in a brief, unsigned order, with no noted dissents and no public statement from any justice.¹ The denial leaves the lower court judgment intact, and Davis’s legal options appear exhausted. She personally owes Ermold and Moore roughly $360,000.¹⁹

1
SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case on Constitutionality of Same-Sex Marriage
2
New York Times. Kim Davis Marriage Licenses Legal Fees
3
ACLU. Miller v. Davis
4
ACLU. ACLU of Kentucky Files Class Action Suit Against Rowan County and Its Clerk
5
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Miller v. Davis
6
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Ermold v. Davis, No. 24-5524
7
NPR. Kim Davis Same-Sex Marriage License Ordered to Pay Damages
8
NBC News. Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Held in Contempt of Court
9
U.S. Supreme Court. Davis v. Ermold, No. 19-926 Reply Brief
10
WHYY/AP. Kentucky Clerk Won’t Interfere With Gay Marriage Licenses
11
BBC News. Kim Davis: Kentucky Clerk Released From Jail
12
U.S. Supreme Court. Davis v. Ermold, No. 25-125 Brief in Opposition
13
Kentucky Lantern. Three-Judge Panel Unanimously Rejects Former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis Appeal
14
Kentucky Lantern. Kim Davis Legal Counsel Moves to Make Her Appeal a Springboard for Overturning Marriage Rights
15
Courthouse News Service. Sixth Circuit Upholds Damages for Gay Couple Denied Marriage License by Kim Davis
16
NPR. Justices Thomas, Alito Blast Supreme Court Decision on Gay Marriage Rights
17
U.S. Supreme Court. Davis v. Ermold, No. 25-125 Petition for Certiorari
18
ABC News. Supreme Court Denies Kim Davis Petition to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
19
New York Times. Supreme Court Declines to Revisit Same-Sex Marriage