James Yates v. Kim Davis, 936 F.3d 429

Kim Davis, Rowan County Clerk, stopped issuing any marriage licenses after Obergefell recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage; two same-sex couples sued alleging denial of their right to marry.
Plaintiffs sued Davis in both her individual and official capacities and sought damages for past deprivation; a later injunction (in a separate suit) led to issuance of licenses and plaintiffs obtaining licenses.
District court held Davis (official capacity) was protected by sovereign immunity but denied her qualified immunity in her individual capacity; both rulings were appealed.
The Sixth Circuit considered whether Davis acted for the State (invoking sovereign immunity) or the County, and whether Obergefell clearly established that her refusal violated plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment right to marry.
The court affirmed: sovereign immunity bars official-capacity damages because Kentucky controls marriage licensing; qualified immunity was denied because plaintiffs plausibly alleged a violation of a clearly established right under Obergefell.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sovereign immunity bars official-capacity damages	Davis acted for Rowan County when refusing licenses, so sovereign immunity does not apply	Davis acted as a state actor implementing Kentucky law, so sovereign immunity applies	Sovereign immunity applies: marriage licensing is controlled by Kentucky, so Davis acted for the State
Whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded a constitutional violation	Plaintiffs pleaded they were eligible, sought licenses, and were denied by Davis, violating the Fourteenth Amendment right to marry	Davis says no violation: she stopped issuing licenses to all, and Obergefell doesn’t clearly apply to her conduct	Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a violation of the right to marry; pleadings sufficient
Whether Davis is entitled to qualified immunity in her individual capacity	Obergefell clearly established the right to same-sex marriage, so a reasonable official would know denial was unconstitutional	Davis contends Obergefell didn’t govern her conduct, cites KRFRA and argues rational-basis review should apply	Qualified immunity denied: Obergefell clearly established the right and Davis should have known her conduct violated it
Whether district court had subject-matter jurisdiction	Plaintiffs sued under §1983 for federal constitutional violations	Davis argued lack of constitutional violation divested jurisdiction	Court held jurisdiction proper: §1983 claims arise under federal law regardless of merits

Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (recognized fundamental Fourteenth Amendment right of same-sex couples to marry)
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (official-capacity suits are suits against the State)
McMillian v. Monroe Cty., 520 U.S. 781 (1997) (determine whether an official acts for State or local government by state law and function)
Brotherton v. Cleveland, 173 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 1999) (when statutory language leaves method to local official, official may act for county rather than state)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework: violation and clearly established law)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent or knowing violators)
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (laws motivated by moral disapproval of homosexuals fail rational-basis review)
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (moral disapproval of homosexuality is not a legitimate state interest)