The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously rejected former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis’s final appeal, affirming that she must pay $100,000 in damages for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015. The three-judge panel delivered the decisive ruling on March 6, 2025, effectively ending a legal battle that has spanned nearly a decade and become emblematic of the ongoing tension between religious liberty claims and constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ Americans.

Court Rejects Religious Freedom Defense

Davis, who became a conservative icon after refusing to issue marriage licenses following the Supreme Court’s landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, had argued that her actions were protected under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The 6th Circuit firmly rejected this reasoning, stating in their opinion that “Davis cannot raise a Free Exercise Clause defense because she is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect.”

The judges emphasized that as a public official, Davis had a constitutional obligation to uphold the law regardless of her personal religious convictions. This distinction between private religious beliefs and public duty establishes an important precedent for government officials nationwide who might otherwise consider similar refusals of service based on personal objections.

A Victory for Marriage Equality Plaintiffs

For David Ermold and David Moore, one of the couples who sued Davis after being denied a marriage license, the ruling represents the culmination of a long struggle for justice. The couple, along with others who were denied licenses, originally filed suit against Davis for violating their constitutional rights to marry—a right explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court in 2015.

“This ruling affirms what we’ve known all along—that no public official has the right to deny services based on who we love,” said Ermold in a statement following the decision. “While no amount of money can fully address the humiliation and discrimination we faced, this judgment establishes that there are consequences when government officials violate citizens’ constitutional rights.”

Broader Implications Amid Renewed Challenges

The 6th Circuit’s decision comes at a critical moment for marriage equality in America. Despite the seemingly settled nature of the issue following Obergefell, recent legislative efforts have sought to undermine these protections. Michigan Representative Josh Schriver’s recent resolution to overturn the Obergefell decision represents just one example of ongoing attempts to roll back LGBTQ+ rights.

“This ruling serves as a vital reinforcement of constitutional principles at a time when marriage equality faces renewed challenges,” explained LGBTQ+ legal advocate Sophia Martinez. “The court has sent a clear message that attempts to circumvent established rights through claims of religious liberty will not succeed when those claims infringe upon the fundamental rights of others.”

Legal experts note that the unanimous nature of the ruling—from a circuit with several conservative appointees—underscores the strong legal foundation supporting marriage equality, even as political opposition persists.

A Decade of Controversy

The case has its roots in the summer of 2015, when Davis, then serving as Rowan County Clerk in Kentucky, refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the Supreme Court’s June 26 decision in Obergefell. Davis cited her Apostolic Christian beliefs, claiming that signing marriage licenses for same-sex couples would violate her religious convictions.

Her refusal garnered national attention and polarized public opinion. Davis spent five days in jail for contempt of court after refusing a federal judge’s order to issue the licenses. Upon her release, she became a symbol for religious conservatives who opposed marriage equality, while simultaneously becoming the target of criticism from civil rights advocates who viewed her actions as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The Path Forward for Religious Liberty and Civil Rights

The case highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing religious liberty protections with civil rights guarantees—a tension that continues to play out in courts across the country. While the 6th Circuit’s ruling specifically addresses public officials’ obligations, similar conflicts have emerged in cases involving private businesses and religious organizations.

“This decision draws an important line,” noted constitutional law professor James Wilson. “It clarifies that while individuals are entitled to their religious beliefs, those serving in government positions cannot use those beliefs to deny services or rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The distinction between private action and state action remains crucial to our understanding of First Amendment protections.”

For LGBTQ+ advocates, the ruling represents not just a victory in this specific case, but a reaffirmation of principles that will help guide future conflicts between religious claims and civil rights protections.

The Bottom Line

Nearly ten years after the Supreme Court recognized marriage equality as a constitutional right, the 6th Circuit’s ruling against Kim Davis serves as a powerful reminder that public officials must uphold the law regardless of personal beliefs. By rejecting Davis’s appeal and affirming the $100,000 judgment, the court has reinforced that constitutional obligations cannot be set aside based on individual religious convictions.

As challenges to LGBTQ+ rights continue to emerge across the country, this case establishes an important precedent that will likely influence how courts approach similar conflicts between religious liberty claims and constitutional protections in the years to come. For couples like Ermold and Moore, the ruling represents a measure of justice that has been nearly a decade in the making—and a reassurance that their right to equal treatment under the law remains secure.