"By denying review, the Court let stand lower-court rulings that found Davis personally liable for violating the constitutional rights of same-sex couples she refused to serve after Obergefell was decided. The move leaves marriage equality intact, marking a quiet but significant moment in a decade-long legal battle over the scope of religious exemptions in public office. Davis, who rose to prominence for her defiance of the 2015 ruling, had asked the Court to revisit not only her liability but Obergefell itself."
"GLAD Law legal director Josh Rovenger, whose organization helped argue the original case, said the petition was always unlikely to succeed. "It would really be anomalous for the Court to take a case with such a narrow fact pattern and use it to revisit Obergefell," Rovenger told The Advocate before the court's announcement. This is a developing story. He described the legal questions in Davis's appeal - about emotional-distress damages and qualified immunity - as "technical" and disconnected from the broader constitutional right at issue."
The Supreme Court declined to hear Kim Davis's appeal, allowing lower-court rulings that held Davis personally liable for violating the constitutional rights of same-sex couples to stand. Davis had refused to issue marriage licenses after the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision. The refusal preserves marriage equality and concludes a decade-long legal conflict over religious exemptions for public officials. The petition sought review of both Davis's liability and Obergefell itself and was characterized as unlikely to succeed. The legal issues centered on emotional-distress damages and qualified immunity and were described as technical and separate from the core constitutional right.
Read at Advocate.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]