David Ermold v. Kim Davis
855 F.3d 715
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- After Obergefell, two Rowan County residents, David Ermold and David Moore, applied for a marriage license from County Clerk Kim Davis and were denied based on her religious beliefs.
- Ermold and Moore filed a damages-only 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Davis in her individual and official capacities alleging violation of their Fourteenth Amendment right to marry.
- A related putative class action (Miller v. Davis) sought injunctive and declaratory relief; the district court entered a preliminary injunction in Miller and Davis appealed.
- Kentucky issued an executive order and later enacted Senate Bill 216 revising the marriage-license form so clerks’ names/signatures no longer appeared; licenses were thereafter issued without incident.
- The district court dismissed Ermold and Moore’s case as moot after SB 216’s enactment; the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding the damages-only claim preserved a live case or controversy and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 216 and the Executive Order mooted the damages-only § 1983 claim | Ermold & Moore: damages for past denial survive because they seek retrospective relief for a completed constitutional violation | Davis: changed legal framework and subsequent statutes removed any live controversy and foreclose relief | Reversed district court: damages claim is retrospective and SB 216 did not moot the case |
| Whether a damages claim can preserve jurisdiction after the underlying injunctive relief is no longer needed | Plaintiffs: damages claims are not moot because they compensate past harm and preserve a case-or-controversy | Defendant: repeal/changes can render claims insubstantial or foreclosed | Held: damages claims generally avoid mootness; only insubstantial or clearly foreclosed damages would be moot — no such showing here |
| Whether the exception that forecloses damages (insubstantial or foreclosed by precedent) applies | Plaintiffs: exception inapplicable; their damages are neither insubstantial nor foreclosed | Defendant: (argued implicitly) legislative changes remove basis for damages | Held: exception did not apply on this record; damages claim remains viable |
| Whether prior appellate instruction (vacating injunction in Miller) affected this separate damages suit | Plaintiffs: Miller’s procedural history does not moot a separate damages action | Defendant: interlocutory orders and legislative action together remove live controversy | Held: Miller order did not moot the damages-only action; remand required for merits/other defenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (same-sex couples have a right to marry under the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013) (case-or-controversy requirement persists through all stages of litigation)
- Demis v. Sniezek, 558 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of jurisdictional dismissal)
- Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (damages/back pay claims survive even when injunctive relief becomes moot)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (principles governing mootness and change in defendant conduct)
- Midwest Media Prop., L.L.C. v. Symmes Twp., 503 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2007) (damages claims preserve challenge to an earlier law and prevent mootness)