- Netflix announces Samurai version of ‘Game of Thrones’ 2 Years Ago
- The 8-Bit Guy: Why retro tech and restoration isn’t just for ‘old white guys’ Today 7:00 AM
- How to watch the 2019 MTV Awards for free Today 7:00 AM
- Why Hillary Clinton is getting blamed for a recent spate of unconnected deaths Today 6:30 AM
- How to watch Nick Jr. online for free Today 5:30 AM
- People are not falling for these ICE ‘propaganda’ photos Sunday 4:23 PM
- CLIF Bar and KIND Snacks are in a bizarre social media war Sunday 2:55 PM
- Caillou is how tall? Sunday 1:32 PM
- No, that video of a Boston Dynamics robot attacking its creators is not real Sunday 12:40 PM
- Alex Jones places $1 million bounty on culprit who planted child porn on his InfoWars server Sunday 12:03 PM
- ‘Stranger Things’ star’s new Netflix prank show is receiving backlash Sunday 9:04 AM
- How to watch ‘City on a Hill’ for free Sunday 8:00 AM
- How to watch ‘Euphoria’ for free Sunday 7:00 AM
- Meet the home brewer turning beer into a case for net neutrality Sunday 6:30 AM
- How to watch the U.S. vs. Chile at the World Cup for free Sunday 6:15 AM
Court rules same-sex couples refused licenses by Kim Davis can sue her for damages
Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples citing religious reasons, can now be sued for damages, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
After the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2015, Davis denied several same-sex couples marriage licenses, including David Ermold and David Moore of Rowan County. They, along with two other couples, sued Davis, but the cases were all dismissed by a U.S. District judge on the grounds that Kentucky had changed its licensing policy to remove clerks’ names from marriage licenses, a request Davis had made.
Ermold and Moore, though, appealed the decision, and today the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that even though Kentucky changed its policies in 2016, it does not excuse the harm Davis caused the couples in 2015. Furthermore, it is “not a general challenge to Davis’ policy, but rather seeks damages for a particularized harm allegedly suffered by a specific set of plaintiffs,” the court wrote.
Now the case will circle back to the U.S. District judge. Should he choose to favor the couple, Davis could be held liable for damages.
Davis recently dropped her case against Kentucky, in which she claimed the state was violating her First Amendment rights. However, she is still appealing a ruling requiring her to issue licenses.
H/T the Cut
Anastassia Gliadkovskaya is a lifestyle and politics reporter. Her work has been published by Empire State Tribune and Urban Watch magazine.