In 2015 the Supreme Court's decision on Obergefell v. Hodges, won same-sex couples the right to marry nationwide. Following this decision, Kim Davis, a Kentucky clerk in Rowan County, refused to issue all marriage licenses due to her religious objection to same-sex marriages. In her role, Davis served as an elected official and worked for the state. Since she denied all marriage licenses, she was sued by gay and straight couples and spent a few days in jail. The plaintiffs are couples David Ermold and David Moore, and James Yates and Will Smith who are suing for damages against Davis. The Supreme Court declined to take the case in 2020, therefore letting the lawsuit move forward to a Kentucky federal district court.
 |
Kim Davis, the defendant. |
The issue is between the two sides both having claims to constitutional rights. Davis' Free Exercise of her religious beliefs versus the plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment right to marry. In defense of her violating the plaintiffs' Constitutional rights, Davis claims qualified immunity which "protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a 'clearly established' statutory or constitutional right."
On March 18, 2022 the Kentucky federal district court threw out Davis' claim of qualified immunity, saying, "Davis did not make a mistake. Rather, she knowingly violated the law." Therefore allowing the plaintiffs to seek damages with their civil rights argument. The Constitutional question at hand here is: Does Davis' Constitutional right to Free Exercise allow her to deny the plaintiffs' Constitutional right to marry in her role as a governmental official?
The Court's decision to deny Davis' claim of qualified immunity was discussed: "Ultimately, the Court's determination is simple- Davis cannot use her own constitutional rights as a shield to violate the constitutional rights of others while performing her duties as an elected official." The case could be appealed to the Supreme Court again, but it is interesting to note what Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted when the Court initially decided to not hear the Davis case. Thomas remake it was a "stark reminder of the consequences" of the Obergefell decision and because of that case, "those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul."
I agree with the decision made in the Kentucky federal district court that Davis was acting unconstitutionally in denying the couples' rights to marry. The most convincing argument is that Davis is a government elected employee who must adhere to the federal and state laws of the land. There is an extremely evident government interest in the state handing out marriage licenses, and since this is a key part of her role as the county clerk, the state interest is much larger than her own personal beliefs. Also, since she is an elected official, her job is to serve the citizens that elected her, rather than put her own beliefs before their interest. Davis could choose to not politically or personally support same-sex marriage, but to deny these couples marriage license is vehemently against the law and her role as clerk.
This case has key differences from the Masterpiece decision. Because the baker did not deny the couple the right to be married, but rather denied them a wedding cake which was argued to be the baker's right as a private individual. In this case, Davis' Free Exercise would directly deny the couple the right to be married since her governmental elected role is to give marriage licenses. In response to Justice Thomas' brief comments on the case saying that people who are religiously against gay marriage "will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul," I find this apply closer to the Masterpiece case. Davis is much different from the baker since she is not in a private business, but rather the key official handing out marriage licenses. Her denying the license is a clear and direct violation of the couples' constitutional right to marry, where the Masterpiece case did not have such an impactful violation.
Furthermore, in the Obergefell decision, the Supreme Court affirmed, "The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty." Therefore it is clear that the Obergefell recognizes the Plaintiffs' constitutional right to marry. Her role as a public government official denies her the right to clearly and purposefully refuse the rights of couples to obtain marriage licenses. Kentucky statue says that "no marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefore. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the [applicant] resides..." Since licenses must be given by the county clerk for a legal marriage, Davis' refusal to grant one denies the only path to legal marriage in Kentucky, clearly breaking the Fourteenth Amendment in connection to Obergfell. Therefore, her case for Free Exercise of her religious beliefs does not allow her to deny all the same-sex couples' right to marry due to her role as an elected clerk and the clearly defined right to marry under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Obergefell decision. To say that her right of Free Exercise of religion is greater than the couples' right to marry is a direct violation of the Obergefell decision and its established precedent in all fifty states.
Sources:
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2022/03/court-clerk-violated-rights-of-same-sex.html
5 comments:
This is an interesting case that assesses what happens when two constitutionally derived rights are violated. I began to question whether the First Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment was more important, but I do not think one will always win over the other. Instead, the facts of the case matter in deciding which constitutional right takes precedent. I agree with Sophia’s two main points pertaining to why Davis’ actions were unconstitutional. For one, Davis was an elected employee of the government who must abide by federal and state laws. She is not working in a private business, rather she is a publicly elected official. While she may not religiously support same-sex marriage, she was elected to objectively perform her job. Overall, she is not in a position to deny marriage licenses based on her own opinions. Secondly, she was directly burdening the plaintiffs right to be married. This is not an indirect denial (as seen in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission). The direct violation of the Fourteenth Amendment should take precedence over an indirect burden of Kim Davis’ First Amendment rights. After all, she is still allowed to believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, but taking action on this belief would lead to unreasonable harm upon others.
Sophia does an excellent job at analyzing the facts of the case and the importance of the Constitutional rights that are being questioned. Ultimately, I agree with Sophia's perspective on the case, and believe that Davis is unlikely to win the case. While she is guaranteed the right to belief that same sex marriage is not allowed under her religion, she is not promised the right to act on that. Like mentioned, previous cases have dealt with the indirect burdens or religious beliefs against same sex marriage. However, the distinction of her being a government official and providing a very direct burden is extremely important to make this case distinct. Furthermore, a separate issue that could come up is if her preventing same sex marriage, in her government role, on the grounds of religion, could be seen as an establishment of religion. I thus pose the question: can Davis' actions be seen as the government preventing same sex marriage on the grounds of religion?
I agree with the author's assessment of the case. Once someone accepts a job as a state employee and receives a paycheck from the government, they are bound to the constitution. Just as the police are barred from unreasonable searches and seizures, other state employees are bound by the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. When this woman accepted a job issuing marriage licenses, she became an agent of the government and therefore a representation of it. She is not a private individual like in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, and is required to follow the rulings issued by the Courts. This woman had no constitutional right to deny marriage licenses.
I agree with Sophia's perspective on the case, and also believe that the facts are very important here. For example, the job and job duties that Davis must follow are clear. It is her job (through the government) that she must provide marriage licenses. Additionally, it is a national law that same-sex marriage is legal. Davis cannot justify not completing her job duties by saying it is against her religion when she is a government employee. Like other commenters have pointed out, Davis may believe whatever she wants but she can't let that interfere with her job duties. Like we have said in class, there is no right to not be offended and even though Davis may be offended by what she has to do, that does not matter because that is her duty as a government employee.
I agree with most of the other people in that I believe Davis will lose the case. I believe the decision can be largely based on the notion that everyone who wants to apply for a marriage license must go to Davis. There is no less restrictive means that can be applied here, since the case has an all-or-nothing nature. In addition, Davis is a government employee, who cannot have their religious obligations interfere with their completion of a government job. In this way, the case is different from the Baker case, who owns a private business, and can send customers to some other place. because of these differences, the case should be decided the opposite way.
Post a Comment