Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 1 No. 15-5880 __________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT __________________________ APRIL MILLER, Ph.D; KAREN ANN ROBERTS; SHANTEL BURKE; STEPHEN NAPIER; JODY FERNANDEZ; KEVIN HOLLOWAY; L. AARON SKAGGS; and BARRY SPARTMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. KIM DAVIS, Individually, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________ On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District of Kentucky In Case No. 15-cv-00044 Before The Honorable David L. Bunning __________________________ APPELLANT KIM DAVIS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT’S SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 INJUNCTION ORDER PENDING APPEAL __________________________ A.C. Donahue DONAHUE LAW GROUP, P.S.C. P.O. Box 659 Somerset, Kentucky 42502 (606) 677-2741 ACDonahue@DonahueLawGroup.com Horatio G. Mihet, Counsel of Record Roger K. Gannam Jonathan D. Christman LIBERTY COUNSEL P.O. Box 540774 Orlando, Florida 32854 (800) 671-1776 hmihet@lc.org / rgannam@lc.org / jchristman@lc.org Counsel for Appellant Kim Davis Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 2 Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2) and 27, Appellant Kim Davis (“Davis”) hereby moves this Court, on an emergency basis, for a stay pending appeal of the district court’s September 3, 2015 injunction order. (R.74.) INTRODUCTION This appeal began with the district court’s entry of its August 12, 2015 preliminary injunction ordering Davis to issue marriage licenses to the named Plaintiffs. (R.43 (the “Injunction”).) Davis immediately filed a notice of appeal of the Injunction, bringing it within this Court’s jurisdiction, and depriving the district court of jurisdiction to alter or expand the Injunction’s scope.1 (R.44 (Injunction and notice of appeal attached hereto as Exhibit A).) But the district court did just that, without fair notice or hearing, by entering a new injunction order that materially expanded the original Injunction while it was already on appeal to this Court. (R.74 (the “Expanded Injunction”).) The district court’s Expanded Injunction lays waste to well-established principles of jurisdiction and due process in the federal court system while an appeal is pending. And, under color of the Expanded Injunction, the district court has coopted a supervisory role over the operations of the Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk’s Office. 1 Davis presented substantial arguments against the merits of the Injunction in its motion to stay the Injunction pending appeal filed herein. (Doc. 15-1.) Davis will fully address the merits of the Injunction in her opening brief on the merits, to be filed with this Court at the appropriate time. 1 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 3 Davis timely appealed the Expanded Injunction. (R.82 (Expanded Injunction and notice of appeal attached hereto as Exhibit B).) Quite apart from Davis’ religious liberty interests involved in her appeal of the original Injunction on the merits, her appeal of the Expanded Injunction, and this request for stay, involve only the issue of the district court’s acting without jurisdiction. The district court’s far-reaching expansion of the original Injunction must be reversed, and should be stayed pending this Court’s decision on the merits. STATEMENT OF FACTS The Injunction On July 2, 2015, less than one week after the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges and the Kentucky Governor issued a directive ordering all county clerks to personally authorize the issuance of Kentucky marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit demanding that Davis authorize and approve their Kentucky marriage licenses, despite widespread availability of licenses and Davis’ undisputed religious conscience objection to same-sex “marriage.”2 (R.1, Compl.) 2 Expressly to avoid disparate treatment of any couple, Davis discontinued the issuance of all marriage licenses after Obergefell. (R.26, Prelim. Inj. Hr’g Tr. July 20, 2015, PgID 259:6-16.) 2 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 4 Plaintiffs filed the action on behalf of themselves and a putative class consisting of “all present and future individuals who, though legally eligible to marry in Kentucky, will be denied a marriage license pursuant to the Defendant’s policy.” (R.1, Compl., PgID 9.) “Named Plaintiffs” also moved for a preliminary injunction to bar Davis “from enforcing the challenged policy of refusing to issue marriage licenses against them” (R.2, Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj., PgID 34 (emphasis added)), and submitted a proposed Order enjoining Davis “from enforcing the policy of refusing to issue marriage licenses to any future marriage license applications submitted by the Named Plaintiffs” (R.2-2, Proposed Prelim. Inj. Order (emphasis added)). The district court hastily scheduled a full evidentiary hearing on the injunction motion, to occur on July 13, 2015—just eleven days after the motion was filed. (R.5, Order.) Plaintiffs did not, however, obtain service of process on Davis prior to the hearing. (R.21, Prelim. Inj. Hr’g Tr. July 13, 2015, PgID 105:15-107:7.) Thus, Davis’ counsel appeared specially and objected to the district court’s proceeding with the hearing, without having obtained jurisdiction over Davis through service of process. (R.21, Prelim. Inj. Hr’g Tr. July 13, 2015, PgID 102:19-24, 105:15-106:2, 117:1-10.) Deeming the fundamental jurisdictional defects mere “Road blocks to getting to the merits,” the district court overruled counsel’s objection to proceeding without Davis, took evidence, and heard argument on Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion. (R.21, Prelim. Inj. Hr’g Tr. July 13, 2015, PgID 117:1-119:7.) 3 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 5 After allowing all of Plaintiffs’ evidence and hearing argument, the district court “continued in progress” the July 13, 2015 hearing (R.21, Prelim. Inj. Hr’g Tr. July 13, 2015, PgID 207:2-4), and concluded the hearing on July 20, 2015 (R.26, Prelim. Inj. Hr’g Tr. July 20, 2015). Plaintiffs’ evidence at both hearings was limited exclusively to the named Plaintiffs’ claims.3 On August 12, 2015, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction by its Memorandum Opinion and Order (R.43 (the “Injunction”).) Exactly as requested by Plaintiffs in their motion and proposed order (R.2, 2-2), the Injunction enjoins Davis “from applying her ‘no marriage licenses’ policy to future marriage license requests submitted by Plaintiffs.” (R.43, Inj., PgID 1173 (emphasis added).) Thus, there was complete agreement between what Plaintiffs requested and what the district court ordered.4 3 Because the relief sought by Plaintiffs in their preliminary injunction motion was personal to them, no evidence was presented on their Complaint’s class allegations or request for class-wide relief. Plaintiffs did not file their motion for class certification until August 2, 2015. 4 In contrast to the expedited treatment of Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion against Davis, the district court brushed away any urgency regarding Davis’ own motion for preliminary injunction against Third-Party Defendant Governor Beshear (R.39), and effectively denied the motion by ordering a stay (on the court’s own motion) of all proceedings on Davis’ motion pending this Court’s decision on the merits of Davis’ appeal of the Injunction against her. (R.58, Order Aug. 25, 2015, PgID 1289.) Davis appealed to this Court the district court’s effectual denial of her preliminary injunction motion (R.66, Notice of Appeal), which appeal is docketed at Case No. 15-5961. 4 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 6 Plaintiffs’ Request For Class Certification On August 2, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. (R.31, Pls.’ Mot. Class Cert.). On August 11, 2015, Davis filed a motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ class certification motion, requesting that the Court set a response date for ninety (90) days after the district court ruled on all of the motions pending before the district court at that time.5 (R.42, Mot. Ext. Time Respond.) Plaintiffs filed no written opposition to this motion in the time allotted under the Local Rules. On August 24, 2015, Davis filed a reply brief after Plaintiffs’ time to oppose expired, showing that “Plaintiffs’ failure to file a timely written opposition constitutes a waiver of any opposition to Davis’ motion for extension of time.” (R.56, Reply Br. Supp. Mot. Ext. Time Respond, PgID 1289.) On August 25, 2015, the district court granted Davis’ motion for extension of time. (R.57, Virtual Order Aug. 25, 2015 (“Plaintiffs having filed no opposition to the MOTION, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Davis’ response to said motion is due 30 days after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals renders its decision on the appeal of the Court's granting of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.”).) These pending motions included Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction (R.2), Davis’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (R.32), and Davis’ motion for preliminary injunction (R.39). 5 5 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 7 The effect of this order was to stay all proceedings on Plaintiffs’ class certification motion until this Court decides the appeal of the Injunction on the merits. Plaintiffs’ Motion to “Clarify” the Injunction and the “Hearing” Despite the unambiguous agreement between what Plaintiffs requested in their motion for preliminary injunction and what the district court granted in the Injunction, Plaintiffs manufactured a disingenuous motion to “clarify” the Injunction to encompass a class of persons not covered by the Injunction. (R.68, Pls.’ Mot. “Clarify” Prelim. Inj.) Specifically, Plaintiffs moved: for an order to clarify or, in the alternative, to modify the preliminary injunction to state unambiguously that the preliminary injunction applies not only to future marriage license requests submitted by the four named Plaintiff couples in this action, but also to requests submitted by other individuals who are legally eligible to marry in Kentucky. (R.68, Pls.’ Mot. “Clarify” Prelim. Inj., PgID 1488 (emphasis added).) Thus, rather than a motion to “clarify,” Plaintiffs actually sought to convert the Injunction’s relief, which was limited and personal to them by their own request, into a classwide preliminary injunction even though (1) they had never previously requested a class-wide injunction (R.2-2, Proposed Prelim. Inj. Order), (2) they presented no actual evidence regarding the purported “other members of the putative class” (R.68, Pls.’ Mot. “Clarify” Prelim. Inj., PgID 1489); and (3) their actual motion for class certification was stayed. (R.57, Virtual Order Aug. 25, 2015.) 6 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 8 Plaintiffs filed their motion to “clarify” the Injunction on September 1, 2015, three weeks after the district court entered its Injunction. (R.68, Pls.’ Mot. “Clarify” Prelim. Inj., PgID 1488-91.) Moreover, Plaintiffs’ motion to “clarify” was filed on the heels of, or “contemporaneously with” (Plaintiffs’ words), their motion to hold Davis in contempt of court for violating the Injunction by failing to authorize a marriage license for one Plaintiff couple. (R.67, Pls.’ Contempt Mot.) Within minutes of Plaintiffs’ filing the contempt motion, the district court scheduled a contempt hearing to occur two days later, ordered Davis and all of her deputy clerks to be present at the hearing, and limited Davis to filing a five-page opposition by close of business the next day (which Davis did).6 (R.69, Order Sept. 1, 2015, PgID 1496; see also R.72, Contempt Resp., PgID 1540-46.) Approximately forty-eight hours later, on September 3, 2015, the district court commenced the hearing it had exclusively noticed for Plaintiffs’ contempt motion. (R.69, Order Sept. 1, 2015, PgID 1496 (“IT IS ORDERED that this matter be, and is, hereby set for a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Hold Defendant Kim Davis in Contempt of Court DE[67] on Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. in Ashland, Kentucky.”); R.78, Contempt Hr’g (the hearing transcript, attached hereto In her response brief opposing Plaintiffs’ contempt motion, Davis specifically stated that she opposed Plaintiffs’ thinly-veiled motion to “clarify” the Injunction, and intended to file a written opposition in accordance with the Local Rules (21 days after service). (R.72, Contempt Resp., PgID 1542.) 6 7 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 9 as Exhibit C).) Before taking up the contempt motion, however, and without any advance notice to Davis, the district court called up Plaintiffs’ motion to “clarify” the Injunction. (R.78, Contempt Hr’g, PgID 1570:21-1571:22, 1572:19-1573:19.) Davis’ counsel objected to proceeding on the motion to “clarify” due to lack of fair notice, and due to the district court’s lack of jurisdiction to expand the Injunction because it was already on appeal. (R.78, Contempt Hr’g, PgID 1573:20-1580:19.) The district court acknowledged that the motion to “clarify” was not noticed for hearing. (R.78, Contempt Hr’g, PgID 1571:18-20 (“The case wasn’t noticed for that hearing.”).) The district court also acknowledged that the so-called “clarification” sought by Plaintiffs was, in fact, to add relief to the Injunction which was not sought by Plaintiffs in their motion for preliminary injunction. (R.78, Contempt Hr’g, PgID 1578:20-25 (“I recognize they did not request it in the original motion.” (emphasis added)).) Nonetheless, over Davis’ objection, and without taking any evidence to support this class-wide relief, the district court granted the expansion of the Injunction. (R.78, Contempt Hr’g, PgID 1580:3-15.) After expanding the Injunction, the court immediately passed the issue to this Court. (R.78, Contempt Hr’g, PgID 1580-81 (“We’ll just include that as part of the appeal. . . . And the Sixth Circuit can certainly decide if that’s appropriate.”).) Having expanded the Injunction, the district court then proceeded with hearing the only motion the court noticed for hearing, Plaintiffs’ contempt motion. 8 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 10 (R.78, Contempt Hr’g, PgID 1581:18-19 (“Let me now turn to the actual merits of the matter that’s before the Court.”).) The court ordered Davis to jail as a contempt sanction for Davis’ refusal to issue a marriage license, in violation of her conscience, to one Plaintiff couple.7 (R.78, Contempt Hr’g, PgID 1659:22-1661:25.) The condition for Davis’ release would be her compliance with the Expanded Injunction, not the original Injunction (R.78, Contempt Hr’g, PgID 1661:18-1662:16.) The district court then appointed criminal defense counsel for each of Davis’ deputy clerks—all of whom had been summoned in advance to the hearing—and interrogated each deputy clerk as to whether each of them would issue marriage licenses without Davis’ authorization. (R.78, Contempt Hr’g, PgID 1667:19- 7 The district court memorialized this most severe of contempt sanctions against Davis by a mere “minutes” order (R.75 (the “Contempt Order”)); no formal written order has been entered. (R.78, Contempt Hr’g, PgID 1651:21-24 (“I haven’t decided if I’m going to enter a written order or not. I probably will enter some sort of written order following up the Court’s decision.”).) Davis separately appealed the Contempt Order to this Court (R. 83, Contempt Order Notice of Appeal), which appeal has been docketed as Case No. 15-5978. Davis also filed therein, on September 8, 2015, an emergency motion to stay the Contempt Order pending appeal. As shown in Davis’ emergency motion to stay the Contempt Order, and as will be more fully developed in Davis’ brief on the merits of that order at the appropriate time, the district court failed to provide Davis requisite due process in the contempt proceedings. Among other fundamental errors, the district court provided no notice that it would significantly expand and alter its Injunction at the contempt hearing, while the Injunction was already on appeal, and then confine Davis to prison based upon the ultra vires and expanded preliminary injunction. 9 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 11 1730:6.) All but one (Davis’ son) were coerced by the threat of contempt sanctions to answer “yes.”8 (Id.) On September 8, 2015, the sixth day of Davis’ incarceration, Plaintiffs filed a status report, showing the district court that the Plaintiffs had received marriage licenses from the deputy clerks.9 (R.84, Status Report.) Following the status report, the district court ordered Davis released, stating in its order the court was “satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk’s Office is fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses” under the Injunction. (R.89 (the “Release Order”), PgID 1827-28.) The Release Order commands, however, “Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly 8 One deputy clerk, Kristie Plank, has the primary responsibility within the Rowan County Clerk’s Office for servicing automobile dealers, a critical position within the office which does not include the issuance of marriage licenses. (R.78, Contempt Hr’g, PgID 1698:25-1705:5.) She expressed concern with assenting to the issuance of marriage licenses to the extent it would interfere with her legitimate existing responsibilities. (Id.) Another deputy clerk, Melissa Thompson, tearfully agreed to issue licenses under the court’s order, but was clearly under duress, stating, “I don’t really want to, but I will comply with the law. I’m a preacher’s daughter, and this is the hardest thing I’ve ever done in my life . . . . None of us hate anybody. It’s just hard.” (R.78, Contempt Hr’g, 1692:17-1697:8.) 9 The status report showed that three of the four Plaintiff couples had received marriage licenses. (R.84, Status Report, PgID 1798.) Plaintiffs had previously shown the court, however, that as of August 13, 2015, Plaintiffs Burke and Napier were “making new wedding arrangements.” (R.46, Pls.’ Resp. Mot. Stay Prelim. Inj., PgID 1235.) This fourth couple has never testified in this case or otherwise supplied verified proof that they are qualified to obtain a marriage license, or that they have not received one, both prerequisites to injunctive relief. (R.29, Resp. Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj., PgID 359.) Moreover, based on the status report, the district court found, “Plaintiffs have obtained marriage licenses . . . .” (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1827.) 10 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 12 or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses,” on pain of new sanctions for contempt. (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1828.) The order also requires the deputy clerks, through their appointed criminal defense counsel, to file status reports with the district court every fourteen days. (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1828.) Emergency Motion to Stay Davis now moves this Court for an order staying the September 3, 2015 Expanded Injunction pending appeal. Seeking a ruling from the district court on a stay request is “impracticable” under Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2)(A)(i), due to the extraordinary doggedness of the district court to expand the Injunction, without jurisdiction or fair notice and opportunity to be heard, and the district court’s haste to pass the matter to this Court for determination—“the Sixth Circuit can certainly decide if that’s appropriate” (R.78, Contempt Hr’g, PgID 1580-81). Accordingly, Davis now seeks a stay from this Court. ARGUMENT In deciding a motion for stay pending appeal, this Court balances the same four factors that are traditionally considered in evaluating a motion for preliminary injunction: “(1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail on the merits of the appeal; (2) the likelihood that the moving party will be irreparably harmed absent a stay; (3) the prospect that others will be harmed if the court grants 11 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 13 the stay; and (4) the public interest in granting the stay.” Mich. Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir. 1991). I. Davis has a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of her appeal to warrant an immediate stay of the Expanded Injunction. The district court had no jurisdiction to enter the Expanded Injunction. Thus, it is a nullity. There is no doubt as to Davis’ likelihood of success in obtaining reversal of the Expanded Injunction on the merits. “[A] a district court may not alter or enlarge the scope of its judgment pending appeal . . . .” N.L.R.B. v. Cincinnati Bronze, Inc., 829 F.2d 585, 588 (6th Cir. 1987). “The standard for jurisdiction after the filing of the notice of appeal . . . is that a district court may enforce its judgment but not expand upon it.” Am. Town Ctr. v. Hall 83 Associates, 912 F.2d 104, 110-11 (6th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added); cf. United States v. State of Mich., Nos. 94-2391, 95-1258, 1995 WL 469430, *18 (6th Cir. 1995) (“[S]ince the district court's . . . orders were already on appeal, the district court lacked jurisdiction . . . to reduce the number of mental health beds which it had required defendants to provide in its . . . orders.” (emphasis added)). Any amendment of an order without jurisdiction is a “nullity.” Workman v. Tate, 958 F.2d 164, 168 (6th Cir. 1992) (“Since the district court was without jurisdiction to amend its order . . . the Amended Order . . . is a nullity.”); United States v. Holloway, 740 F.2d 1373, 1382 (6th Cir. 1984) (“In the present case, the 12 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 14 district court's order is ‘null and void since that court was without jurisdiction . . . after the appeal had been taken.’”). Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction expressly, and only, sought to enjoin Davis to issue licenses to the “Named Plaintiffs.” The resulting Injunction enjoined Davis to issue licenses, expressly and only, to the “Plaintiffs.” The scope of the Injunction could not be clearer. There is no “confusion as to the Order’s scope,” as Plaintiffs facetiously allege in their thinly-veiled motion to “clarify.” (R.68, Pls.’ Mot. “Clarify” Prelim. Inj., PgID 1489.) Thus, expanding the class of persons entitled to licenses pursuant to the Injunction—to include anyone in the world who wants a marriage license in Rowan County—can in no way be described as a clarification. The expansion of the class is an expansion of the Injunction, which the district court had no jurisdiction to do. Thus, the Expanded Injunction is a nullity, and unquestionably is due to be reversed on the merits. II. Davis is substantially more harmed than the named Plaintiffs absent a stay of the Expanded Injunction pending appeal. In weighing the harm that will occur as a result of granting or denying a stay, this Court generally considers three factors: “(1) the substantiality of the injury alleged; (2) the likelihood of its occurrence; and (3) the adequacy of the proof provided.” Michigan Coal., 945 F.2d at 154. The “key word” in this consideration 13 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 15 is “irreparable,” and the harm must be “both certain and immediate, rather than speculative or theoretical.” Id. Given the strength of Davis’ position on the merits, her required showing on irreparable injury is reduced. “The probability of success that must be demonstrated is inversely proportional to the amount of irreparable injury [the moving party] will suffer absent the say. Simply stated, more of one excuses less of the other.” Mich. Coal., 945 F.2d at 153 (internal citation omitted). In other words, “a stay may be granted with either a high probability of success and some injury or vice versa.” State of Ohio v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 812 F.2d 288, 290 (6th Cir. 1987). Nonetheless, Davis’s harm from the denial of a stay will be both real and irreparable. Pursuant to the Release Order, the district court is now supervising the operations and personnel of the Rowan County Clerk’s Office, including Davis as the Clerk, and her deputy clerks. (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1828.) Far from being straightforward, however, the Release Order’s command that “Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses” substantially and ambiguously interferes with Davis’ ability to manage the legitimate affairs of her office which are unrelated to her individual position on marriage licensing. For example, Davis’ management judgment to assign a particular deputy clerk or clerks exclusively to non-marriage-licensing duties—based on the needs of the 14 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 16 office10—could be deemed “interfere[nce] . . . in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses . . . .” (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1828.) Furthermore, the Release Order’s directive conflicts with Davis’ own legal duty, as an employer, to consider and grant as appropriate any deputy clerk’s request for religious accommodation relating to marriage licenses11 under laws like Title VII and the Kentucky RFRA. These ambiguous burdens on Davis’ management of the affairs of her office all carry the specter of new (and presumably, more severe) contempt sanctions, and the threat is indefinite because the Expanded Injunction opens the Injunction’s relief to everyone (in the world) who may desire a Kentucky marriage license issued in Rowan County. The harm from having to operate under this constant threat is irreparable, for even success on the merits of Davis’ appeals cannot restore the months of constant strain imposed on Davis, her office, and her employees by the district court’s intrusive supervision. The foregoing burdens and threats of contempt sanctions are more than hypothetical; Davis has already spent six days in jail that Plaintiffs could obtain the relief ordered by the original Injunction (while its merits are still on appeal). But, such burdens and threats are unnecessary and improper. As an order of enforcement, the Release Order serves no purpose with respect to the original Injunction because 10 11 See supra, n. 8. See supra, n. 8. 15 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 17 only the Plaintiffs were granted relief in the original Injunction, and the district court is already “satisfied” that Plaintiffs have received their ordered relief. (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1827-28.) Thus, the district court only has an enforcement interest under the Expanded Injunction which, as shown herein, is null and void as exceeding the district court’s jurisdiction. Only a stay of the Expanded Injunction pending Davis’ appeal will avoid this onerous and improper exercise of enforcement power. In stark contrast to the threat of sanctions hanging over Davis each day she enters her office while waiting for relief from an impartial audience in this Court on her appeals, Plaintiffs will suffer no harm if the Expanded Injunction is stayed pending appeal. Plaintiffs have already received the benefits of the Injunction, to the “satisfaction” of the district court. (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1827-28.) Plaintiffs received no additional relief from the Expanded Injunction; staying its enforcement pending Davis’s appeal cannot harm them. III. The public interest favors granting a stay. No public interest is served by upholding an order exceeding a district court’s jurisdiction. To the contrary, the public is only served by the disregard of any such order, which is “null and void.” See Holloway, 740 F.2d at 1382. Furthermore, the federal court supervision over Davis’ office imposed by the Release Order, in enforcement of the Expanded Injunction, violates established principles of federalism and comity, usurping the role of a publicly elected official 16 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 18 in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and invading the province, discretion, and affairs of her office. It is also contrary to contempt principles, for in devising enforcement remedies, federal courts are to “take into account the interests of state and local authorities in managing their own affairs, consistent with the Constitution.” Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280-81 (1977). Indeed, it is incumbent upon federal district courts that sanctions imposed against state officials should be the “least intrusive” remedy available. See Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432, 438 (6th Cir. 1984); Spallone v. U.S., 493 U.S. 265, 276 (1990). The public is not served by the violation of such principles for any length of time. As shown herein, from the commencement of this case, Plaintiffs have received procedural preferences, notwithstanding even fundamental jurisdictional defects. Davis has received the opposite, culminating in incarceration for conscience, and the threat of more severe sanctions under an invalid order which the district court had no jurisdiction to enter. For all of the foregoing reasons, Davis requests the following: 17 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 19 RELIEF REQUESTED Appellant Kim Davis respectfully requests that this Court: (1) grant immediate consideration and (2) enter an order staying the district court’s September 3, 2015 Expanded Injunction pending final resolution of the appeal in this Court. DATED: September 10, 2015 Respectfully submitted: /s/ Roger K. Gannam A.C. Donahue Horatio G. Mihet, Counsel of Record Donahue Law Group, P.S.C. Roger K. Gannam P.O. Box 659 Jonathan D. Christman Somerset, Kentucky 42502 Liberty Counsel, P.O. Box 540774 (606) 677-2741 Orlando, Florida 32854 ACDonahue@DonahueLawGroup.com (800) 671-1776 hmihet@lc.org / rgannam@lc.org / jchristman@lc.org Counsel for Appellant Kim Davis 18 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 11th day of September, 2015, I caused the foregoing document to be filed electronically with the Court, where it is available for viewing and downloading from the Court’s ECF system, and that such electronic filing automatically generates a Notice of Electronic Filing constituting service of the filed document upon the following: William Ellis Sharp ACLU of Kentucky 315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300 Louisville, KY 40202 sharp@aclu-ky.org Daniel J. Canon Laura E. Landenwich Leonard Joe Dunman Clay Daniel Walton Adams, PLC 462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101 Louisville, KY 40202 dan@justiceky.com laura@justiceky.com joe@justiceky.com Daniel Mach Heather L. Weaver ACLU Foundation 915 15th Street, NW, Suite 6th Floor Washington, DC 20005 dmach@aclu.org hweaver@aclu.org James D. Esseks Ria Tabacco Mar ACLU Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 jesseks@aclu.org rmar@aclu.org Counsel for Appellees William M. Lear, Jr. Palmer G. Vance II Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC 300 West Vine Street, Suite 2100 Lexington, KY 40507-1380 william.lear@skofirm.com gene.vance@skofirm.com Counsel for Third Party Defendants-Appellees Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 21 /s/ Roger K. Gannam Roger K. Gannam Liberty Counsel P.O. Box 540774 Orlando, Florida 32854 (800) 671-1776 rgannam@lc.org Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 22 EXHIBIT A Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 44 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 1 of 4Page: - Page23ID#: 1174 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY ASHLAND DIVISION APRIL MILLER, ET AL., : : : : : : : : : : Plaintiffs, v. KIM DAVIS, ET AL., Defendants. KIM DAVIS, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. STEVEN L. BESHEAR, in his official capacity as Governor of Kentucky, and WAYNE ONKST, in his official capacity as State Librarian and Commissioner, Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives, Third-Party Defendants. CIVIL ACTION 0:15-CV-00044-DLB DISTRICT JUDGE DAVID L. BUNNING : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Kim Davis (“Davis”), by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the August 12, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (D.E. 43). A copy of the August 12, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order from which Davis appeals is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 44 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 2 of 4Page: - Page24ID#: 1175 Davis has paid by ECF online payment in the amount of $505.00 for the notice of appeal fee specified by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky’s Fee Schedule. The parties to the order appealed from and the names and addresses of their attorneys are as follows: Plaintiffs: April Miller, Karen Ann Roberts, Shantel Burke, Stephen Napier, Jody Fernandez, Kevin Holloway, L. Aaron Skaggs, and Barry Spartman Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Daniel J. Canon L. Joe Dunman Laura E. Landenwich CLAY DANIEL WALTON ADAMS, PLC 462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101 Louisville, KY 40202 William Ellis Sharp ACLU OF KENTUCKY 315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300 Louisville, KY 40202 Defendant: Rowan County Attorneys for Rowan County: Jeffrey C. Mando Claire Parsons ADAMS, STEPNER, WOLTERMANN & DUSING, PLLC 40 West Pike Street Covington, KY 41011 Third-Party Defendants: Steven L. Beshear, Governor of Kentucky and Wayne Onkst, Commissioner of Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives Attorneys for Gov. Beshear and Commr. Onkst: No appearances have yet been filed. 2 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 44 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 3 of 4Page: - Page25ID#: 1176 DATED: August 12, 2015 A.C. Donahue Donahue Law Group, P.S.C. P.O. Box 659 Somerset, Kentucky 42502 Tel: (606) 677-2741 Fax: (606) 678-2977 ACDonahue@DonahueLawGroup.com Respectfully submitted: /s/ Jonathan D. Christman Roger K. Gannam Jonathan D. Christman Liberty Counsel P.O. Box 540774 Orlando, Florida 32854 Tel: (800) 671-1776 Fax: (407) 875-0770 rgannam@lc.org jchristman@lc.org Attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Kim Davis 3 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 44 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 4 of 4Page: - Page26ID#: 1177 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed via the Court’s ECF filing system and therefore service will be effectuated by the Court’s electronic notification system upon all counsel or parties of record: Daniel J. Canon L. Joe Dunman Laura E. Landenwich CLAY DANIEL WALTON ADAMS, PLC 462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101 Louisville, KY 40202 dan@justiceky.com joe@justiceky.com laura@justiceky.com Jeffrey C. Mando Claire Parsons ADAMS, STEPNER, WOLTERMANN & DUSING, PLLC 40 West Pike Street Covington, KY 41011 jmando@aswdlaw.com cparsons@aswdlaw.com Attorneys for Rowan County William Ellis Sharp ACLU OF KENTUCKY 315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300 Louisville, KY 40202 sharp@aclu-ky.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs I also hereby certify that two (2) true and correct copies of the foregoing will be sent via U.S.P.S. first class mail to the Attorney General of Kentucky on behalf of Third-Party Defendants Steven L. Beshear, Governor of Kentucky, and Wayne Onkst, Commissioner of the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives, at the following location: Attorney General Jack Conway OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 118 Frankfort, KY 40601-3449 DATED: August 12, 2015 /s/ Jonathan D. Christman_______ Jonathan D. Christman Attorney for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Kim Davis 4 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880Doc Document: #: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 1 of 29 Page: - Page 27 ID#: 1178 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880Doc Document: #: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 2 of 29 Page: - Page 28 ID#: 1179 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880Doc Document: #: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 3 of 29 Page: - Page 29 ID#: 1180 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880Doc Document: #: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 4 of 29 Page: - Page 30 ID#: 1181 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880Doc Document: #: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 5 of 29 Page: - Page 31 ID#: 1182 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880Doc Document: #: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 6 of 29 Page: - Page 32 ID#: 1183 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880Doc Document: #: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 7 of 29 Page: - Page 33 ID#: 1184 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880Doc Document: #: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 8 of 29 Page: - Page 34 ID#: 1185 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880Doc Document: #: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 9 of 29 Page: - Page 35 ID#: 1186 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 10 of 29 Page: - Page 36 ID#: 1187 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 11 of 29 Page: - Page 37 ID#: 1188 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 12 of 29 Page: - Page 38 ID#: 1189 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 13 of 29 Page: - Page 39 ID#: 1190 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 14 of 29 Page: - Page 40 ID#: 1191 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 15 of 29 Page: - Page 41 ID#: 1192 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 16 of 29 Page: - Page 42 ID#: 1193 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 17 of 29 Page: - Page 43 ID#: 1194 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 18 of 29 Page: - Page 44 ID#: 1195 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 19 of 29 Page: - Page 45 ID#: 1196 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 20 of 29 Page: - Page 46 ID#: 1197 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 21 of 29 Page: - Page 47 ID#: 1198 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 22 of 29 Page: - Page 48 ID#: 1199 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 23 of 29 Page: - Page 49 ID#: 1200 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 24 of 29 Page: - Page 50 ID#: 1201 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 25 of 29 Page: - Page 51 ID#: 1202 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 26 of 29 Page: - Page 52 ID#: 1203 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 27 of 29 Page: - Page 53 ID#: 1204 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 28 of 29 Page: - Page 54 ID#: 1205 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc #: Document: 44-1 Filed: 43 08/12/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 29 of 29 Page: - Page 55 ID#: 1206 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 56 EXHIBIT Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 82 Filed: 43 09/08/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 1 of 4Page: - Page57ID#: 1785 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY ASHLAND DIVISION APRIL MILLER, ET AL., : : : : : : : : : : Plaintiffs, v. KIM DAVIS, ET AL., Defendants. KIM DAVIS, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. STEVEN L. BESHEAR, in his official capacity as Governor of Kentucky, and WAYNE ONKST, in his official capacity as State Librarian and Commissioner, Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives, Third-Party Defendants. CIVIL ACTION 0:15-CV-00044-DLB DISTRICT JUDGE DAVID L. BUNNING : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Kim Davis (“Davis”), by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the September 3, 2015 Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion Pursuant to Rule 62(c) to Clarify the Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal (D.E. 74). A copy of the September 3, 2015 Order from which Davis appeals is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 82 Filed: 43 09/08/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 2 of 4Page: - Page58ID#: 1786 Davis has paid by ECF online payment in the amount of $505.00 for the notice of appeal fee specified by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky’s Fee Schedule. The parties to the order appealed from and the names and addresses of their attorneys are as follows: Plaintiffs: April Miller, Karen Ann Roberts, Shantel Burke, Stephen Napier, Jody Fernandez, Kevin Holloway, L. Aaron Skaggs, and Barry Spartman Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Daniel J. Canon L. Joe Dunman Laura E. Landenwich CLAY DANIEL WALTON ADAMS, PLC 462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101 Louisville, KY 40202 William Ellis Sharp ACLU OF KENTUCKY 315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300 Louisville, KY 40202 Third-Party Defendants: Steven L. Beshear, Governor of Kentucky and Wayne Onkst, Commissioner of Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives Attorneys for Gov. Beshear and Commr. Onkst: William M. Lear, Jr. Palmer G. Vance II. STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC 300 West Vine Street, Suite 2100 Lexington, KY 40507-1380 DATED: September 8, 2015 A.C. Donahue Donahue Law Group, P.S.C. P.O. Box 659 Somerset, Kentucky 42502 Tel: (606) 677-2741 Respectfully submitted: /s/ Jonathan D. Christman Roger K. Gannam Jonathan D. Christman Liberty Counsel P.O. Box 540774 Orlando, Florida 32854 2 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 82 Filed: 43 09/08/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 3 of 4Page: - Page59ID#: 1787 Fax: (606) 678-2977 ACDonahue@DonahueLawGroup.com Tel: (800) 671-1776; Fax: (407) 875-0770 rgannam@lc.org / jchristman@lc.org Attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Kim Davis 3 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 82 Filed: 43 09/08/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 4 of 4Page: - Page60ID#: 1788 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed via the Court’s ECF filing system and therefore service will be effectuated by the Court’s electronic notification system upon all counsel or parties of record: Daniel J. Canon L. Joe Dunman Laura E. Landenwich CLAY DANIEL WALTON ADAMS, PLC 462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101 Louisville, KY 40202 dan@justiceky.com joe@justiceky.com laura@justiceky.com Jeffrey C. Mando Claire Parsons ADAMS, STEPNER, WOLTERMANN & DUSING, PLLC 40 West Pike Street Covington, KY 41011 jmando@aswdlaw.com cparsons@aswdlaw.com Attorneys for Rowan County William Ellis Sharp ACLU OF KENTUCKY 315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300 Louisville, KY 40202 sharp@aclu-ky.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs William M. Lear, Jr. Palmer G. Vance II STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC 300 West Vine Street, Suite 2100 Lexington, Kentucky 40507-1380 Attorneys for Governor Steven L. Beshear and Commissioner Wayne Onkst DATED: September 8, 2015 /s/ Jonathan D. Christman Jonathan D. Christman Attorney for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Kim Davis 4 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 82-1 Filed: 43 09/08/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 1 of 2 Page: - Page 61ID#: 1789 Case: Case:0:15-cv-00044-DLB 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880Doc Doc Document: #:#:82-1 74 Filed: Filed: 43 09/03/15 09/08/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: Page:12ofof12 Page: - -Page Page 62ID#: ID#:1557 1790 Case: 15-5880 Document: 43 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 63 EXHIBIT Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 1 of 181 Page: - Page 64 ID#: 1563 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT ASHLAND 1 2 3 APRIL MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 VS. KIM DAVIS, et al., Defendants. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING ON MOTION BEFORE DAVID L. BUNNING UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiffs: 13 14 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hon. William Ellis Sharp ACLU of Kentucky 315 Guthrie Street Suite 300 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 (502) 581-9746 Hon. Daniel J. Canon Hon. Laura E. Landenwich Clay Daniel Walton Adams, PLC 462 South Fourth Street Suite 101 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 (502) 561-2005 15 19 Docket No. 0:15-CV-44 At Ashland, Kentucky Thursday, September 3, 2015 10:59 a.m. For the Defendant, Kim Davis: Hon. Roger K. Gannam Hon. Jonathan D. Christman Liberty Counsel P. O. Box 540774 Orlando, Florida 32854 (407) 875-0770 Hon. Anthony Charles Donahue Donahue Law Group, PSC 410 South Main Street P. O. Box 659 Somerset, Kentucky 42502-0659 (606) 677-2741 SANDRA L. WILDER, RMR, CRR, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 330 Broadway, John C. Watts Federal Building, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 (859) 516-4114 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 2 of 181 Page: - Page 65 ID#: 1564 2 1 2 3 For the Defendant, Rowan County: 4 5 Hon. Claire E. Parsons Adams Stepner Woltermann & Dusing, PLLC 40 West Pike Street P. O. Box 861 Covington, Kentucky 41012-0861 (859) 394-6200 6 7 8 9 10 11 For the Third-Party Defendants, Beshear and Onkst: 12 13 14 Hon. Cecil R. Watkins Rowan County Attorney 600 West Main Street Morehead, Kentucky 40351 (606) 784-4640 For Amicus Curiae, Robert Stivers: 15 16 Hon. Palmer G. Vance, II Stoll Keenon Ogden, PLLC 300 West Vine Street Suite 2100 Lexington, Kentucky 40507 (859) 231-3000 Hon. David Earl Fleenor Stoll Keenon Ogden, PLLC 300 West Vine Street Suite 2100 Lexington, Kentucky 40507 (859) 231-3087 17 Other Parties 18 For Nathaniel Davis: Hon. Michael R. Campbell Campbell, Rogers & Hill, PLLC 154 Flemingsburg Road Morehead, Kentucky 40351 (606) 783-1012 For Kristie Plank: Hon. Michael B. Fox Fox Law Office 185 Tom T. Hall Boulevard P. O. Box 1450 Olive Hill, Kentucky 41164-1450 (606) 286-5351 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 3 of 181 Page: - Page 66 ID#: 1565 3 1 2 3 For Brian Mason: Hon. Richard A. Hughes P. O. Box 1139 Ashland, Kentucky 41105 (606) 325-3399 For Kim Russell: Hon. Sebastian M. Joy Joy Law Office 2710 Louisa Street P. O. Box 411 Catlettsburg, Kentucky (606) 739-4569 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For Melissa Thompson: 11 12 13 14 15 For Roberta Earley: Hon. Andy Markelonis 2706 Louisa Street P. O. Box 464 Catlettsburg, Kentucky (606) 739-8616 Hon. Jeremy L. Clark 2706 Louisa Street P. O. Box 532 Catlettsburg, Kentucky (606) 739-6774 41129 41129 41129 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript produced by computer. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 4 of 181 Page: - Page 67 ID#: 1566 4 1 [IN OPEN COURT] 2 THE COURT: All right. Madam Clerk, if you 3 would call the matter set for 11, please. 4 DEPUTY CLERK: Yes, Your Honor. Ashland 5 Civil Action 15-44, April Miller, et al. versus Kim 6 Davis, et al., this being called for a hearing on 7 motion. 8 THE COURT: Okay. Why don't we go ahead and 9 start with entries of appearance first, and then we'll 10 proceed to address the matters pending. 11 MR. SHARP: Counsel. Your Honor, William Sharp on 12 behalf of the plaintiffs. 13 MR. CANON: Judge, Dan Canon here for the 14 plaintiffs. 15 MS. LANDENWICH: Laura Landenwich for the 16 plaintiffs. 17 THE COURT: 18 MR. GANNAM: All right. Good morning, Your Honor. Roger 19 Gannam, Liberty Counsel, for defendant, Kim Davis. 20 MR. CHRISTMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. 21 Jon Christman, also for Ms Davis. 22 MR. DONAHUE: Good morning, Your Honor. 23 C. Donahue on behalf of the defendant, Kim Davis. 24 MS. PARSONS: 25 THE COURT: Claire -- Go ahead. A. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 5 of 181 Page: - Page 68 ID#: 1567 5 1 MS. PARSONS: Claire Parsons on behalf of 2 defendant, Rowan County. 3 THE COURT: All right. 4 MR. WATKINS: Cecil Watkins on behalf of 5 Rowan County. 6 MR. VANCE: Good morning, Your Honor. Gene 7 Vance on behalf of the third-party defendants, 8 Governor Beshear and Commissioner Onkst. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 from the Kentucky Senate. Now, we did have someone Robert Stivers had made a 11 motion for -12 MR. FLEENOR: 13 THE COURT: 14 seats. Yes, Your Honor. Yes. I -- we didn't have enough I apologize for you sitting in the back, but I 15 just wanted to make sure that you were recognized. 16 MR. FLEENOR: David Fleenor representing 17 Kentucky Senate President Robert Stivers. 18 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Well, 19 Mr. Donahue, I'm glad you're wearing your bow tie. 20 MR. DONAHUE: 21 THE COURT: Thank you, Your Honor. I don't feel like I'm out of 22 place now. 23 All right. Well, I want to just kind of set 24 the tone for this hearing. 25 Before we get started with the contempt Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 6 of 181 Page: - Page 69 ID#: 1568 6 1 hearing, this is a civil contempt hearing pursuant to 2 18 U.S. Code, Section 401, I feel like a couple of 3 brief comments are necessary, given the large volume 4 of folks that are here this morning. 5 As you know, this case has seemed to generate 6 a lot of interest both locally and nationally, and has 7 kind of galvanized a number of organized interest 8 groups. 9 In the past two days, the Court's received 10 about 2,000 calls, give or minus a thousand, in the 11 Covington chambers. In fact, I've had to turn the 12 phone off to voice mail to make sure I can actually 13 get other work done. 14 I've got three lawyers that work in my 15 office, and the phone was ringing off the hook for and 16 against everyone in this case, so we just decided that 17 it would be best not to listen to those calls. We 18 started to, but it actually just took up too much of 19 the Court's time. 20 So apparently, according to my staff, who's 21 much more socially media savvy than I, someone posted 22 the office number on some social media site, which 23 caused all the volume to probably increase. 24 So while the Court appreciates the public 25 interest in the case and the issues raised, public Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 7 of 181 Page: - Page 70 ID#: 1569 7 1 opinion and someone's personal opinion, including my 2 own, simply aren't relevant today. 3 The contempt issue will be decided on the 4 law, and will be designed to obtain compliance with 5 the Court's lawfully issued order. Because after all, 6 that's what this hearing is about, to gain compliance 7 with the Court's order. 8 Both sides of the debate are somewhat -- and 9 I -- when I say both sides, I'm referring to the 10 parties and the lawyers. And I'm not including you, 11 Mr. Vance, or counsel for the Senate President because 12 I don't believe there's been a whole lot from you in 13 the public arena, but the primary parties, the 14 plaintiffs and the defendant, Ms. Davis, and to a 15 lesser extent, Rowan County, have tried to keep this 16 debate going in the public arena. 17 As I stated, the Court cannot and will not be 18 swayed by what is happening outside court or outside 19 the court record. There's a lot of things that are 20 part of the public record that are not part of the 21 court record, and I'm speaking now of lawyers know 22 what the difference is. 23 Many of the individuals who perhaps are in 24 the gallery or will be reading about this 25 instantaneously or tomorrow. Some of us still get a Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 8 of 181 Page: - Page 71 ID#: 1570 8 1 newspaper and read it, but I understand that's behind 2 by about 24 hours today. The court record is what the Court's deciding 3 4 the issues on, not the public record. There's a reason why the individual woman 5 6 holding the scales is blindfolded. We've got to 7 consider the case based upon the law and the facts as 8 set forth here in the courtroom. And then finally, I'm going to expect all 9 10 litigants and supporters of both sides to exhibit 11 proper decorum during the hearing. 12 court. We're in federal Whether or not you're down at -- in 13 Catlettsburg at the Boyd Circuit Court or here in this 14 court, every judge and the proceedings that go on in 15 his or her courtroom expects the parties and the 16 public to exhibit proper decorum, so I will not 17 tolerate any outbursts. And if there are any 18 outbursts, one way or the other, I'll be asking you, 19 with the assistance of some marshals, to escort you 20 from the courtroom. 21 22 pending. Okay. We have several motions that are The motion that we're here to decide is 23 Docket 67, the motion to hold Ms. Davis in contempt. 24 There was a response filed yesterday. 25 a motion filed on Tuesday. There was also Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 9 of 181 Page: - Page 72 ID#: 1571 9 1 Today's the 3rd, right, Madam Clerk? Is that 2 right? 3 DEPUTY CLERK: 4 THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. Okay. Tuesday of this week, a 5 motion pursuant to Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of 6 Civil Procedure to clarify the preliminary injunction 7 pending appeal. 8 And then just yesterday there was a motion 9 filed by defendant, Davis for an injunction pending 10 appeal, as well as a motion by Senate President Robert 11 Stivers, which I've mentioned earlier, for leave to 12 file a brief as an amicus. 13 Mr. Gannam, Mr. Christman, I know you had 14 indicated in your response in a footnote -- I think 15 it's footnote 2 to Docket 72, that you want to file a 16 written response to the motion filed by plaintiffs on 17 Tuesday. 18 We're here today. 19 for that hearing. The case wasn't noticed However, I think it makes sense to 20 take that motion up today. So whatever you would file 21 in a written response, I'm going to go ahead and let 22 you be heard on that today. 23 One other thing I want to mention, there was 24 a footnote -- I think it's also in that same 25 response -- where you objected to the page limitation. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 10 of 181 Page: - Page 73 ID#: 1572 10 1 I'm not going to hold you to the page limitation. 2 not just going to consider the first five pages. 3 filed seven pages in your response. 4 pages in their motion. I'm You They filed seven I'm considering the seven 5 pages of the motion, as well as the seven pages of 6 your response. So your objection as it relates to the 7 length of the pages is sustained. 8 So I know you had objected formally to that, 9 but I read through that, and I just want to make sure 10 that you appreciate I'm going to consider your entire 11 response. 12 And I have read your response. 13 just filed yesterday. And it was There's been a lot of paperwork 14 filed in a very short amount of time, and we have been 15 meeting, I don't want to say around the clerk, as some 16 of us have to have a little bit of sleep, but we have 17 been trying to prepare for this hearing as best we 18 can. 19 So I want to go ahead and hear you from now 20 on Docket 6 -- I think it's 68, which, in essence, for 21 everyone in attendance, as you know, procedurally, the 22 Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for the 23 preliminary injunction back on August 12th, enjoining 24 Ms. Davis from applying her "no marriage licenses" 25 policy to future marriage licenses requested by the Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 11 of 181 Page: - Page 74 ID#: 1573 11 1 plaintiffs in this case. 2 The motion itself seeks to clarify pursuant 3 to Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 4 to have that injunction include any future marriage 5 license requests submitted by plaintiffs or any other 6 individuals who are legally eligible to marry. That 7 was filed on the 1st. 8 There are a couple of companion cases, 46 and 9 I think 49? 51? I can't remember the numbers, but 10 there are three cases now pending with various 11 plaintiffs. 12 You represent the defendant on all those 13 other cases; do you not, Mr. Gannam? 14 MR GANNAM: We do, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: Okay. So I want to just let 16 you -- I want to give you a chance to be heard, and 17 then I'll give you a chance, Mr. Sharp. Because I 18 want to take up this issue, and then we'll move on to 19 the contempt issue. 20 MR. GANNAM: Thank you, Your Honor. We 21 object to proceeding on the motion to clarify or 22 modify the injunction that's already been issued. 23 First of all, just because of the timing. 24 hearing was called quickly. This That motion was filed, 25 and we simply haven't had adequate time to prepare Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 12 of 181 Page: - Page 75 ID#: 1574 12 1 to -- to argue against that motion. 2 THE COURT: Well, I've had very little time 3 to prepare myself, so I'm -- the issues are the same. 4 All the issues you've raised in 1544, the defenses 5 that your client has raised, the responses, I'm sure, 6 would all be the same. It's the same issue for each 7 case. 8 If I were to -- for instance, if the order 9 only applies to the four plaintiffs -- I guess eight 10 plaintiffs in this case -- it would be -- it would not 11 be a violation perhaps of the Court's order dated 12 8-12-2015, if your client, or any of the deputies, did 13 not issue a marriage license to anyone eligible to 14 marry who aren't these plaintiffs because that's not 15 covered under the order. 16 MR. GANNAM: Would you agree with that? I agree that would not be a 17 violation of the order, yes, Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: Okay. So why would there be -- 19 why should I parse this out? And I realize from the 20 very beginning, and you have in your written 21 pleadings, seemed to take issue with the Court's 22 attempt to try to expeditiously take up its docket in 23 this case. Why doesn't it make sense to consider all 24 of the cases together, at least as it relates to the 25 other plaintiffs who would be eligible to marry? Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 13 of 181 Page: - Page 76 ID#: 1575 13 1 MR. GANNAM: 2 THE COURT: Your Honor, first of all, the -Well, your objection to not 3 taking it up today will be overruled because I really 4 want to hear you on this. 5 MR. GANNAM: The plaintiffs moved for 6 preliminary injunctive relief against -- with respect 7 to themselves only. 8 THE COURT: 9 MR. GANNAM: 10 THE COURT: They have -I understand that. And the -At that time, I think they were 11 the only plaintiffs that had been potentially 12 identified. 13 MR. GANNAM: They have a -- a pending motion 14 for class certification -15 THE COURT: 16 MR. GANNAM: That I stayed. -- which has been stayed. 17 They're essentially seeking a class-wide -18 THE COURT: I don't think -- I'm not going to 19 certify a statewide class. I'm -- I'm interested in 20 the Rowan County Clerk because she's a defendant in 21 all three of the cases that have been filed on my 22 docket here in Ashland. 23 MR. GANNAM: Well, their class that they've 24 alleged is the class consisting of Rowan County 25 residents. And so to grant the injunction, it would Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 14 of 181 Page: - Page 77 ID#: 1576 14 1 apply to all Rowan County residents would essentially 2 be granting a class-wide injunction based on the facts 3 that they've alleged here. 4 THE COURT: Well, why shouldn't -- wouldn't 5 it seem rather odd to only have an injunction that 6 applies to four couples versus -- if you had John Doe 7 and someone other than John Doe who would be eligible 8 to marry Jane Roe, or what have you, same-sex, 9 opposite-sex, why wouldn't they -- doesn't it seem a 10 little bit unusual to have an order that would apply 11 to some, but not others? 12 MR. GANNAM: Your Honor, that's the motion 13 that the plaintiffs filed. 14 THE COURT: I understand, but they're not 15 seeking to amend that. 16 MR. GANNAM: And, Your Honor, our objection 17 is not only on the timing, but also as to the fact 18 that the prior order is on appeal. And what they're 19 essentially seeking to do is to change that order and 20 to do something else, to expand it. And this Court 21 does not have jurisdiction to -- to do anything with 22 respect to that prior injunction while it's on appeal, 23 so this would have been treated as a new injunction. 24 THE COURT: Would you prefer that I order 25 that my 8-12-2015 order, change the caption and just Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 15 of 181 Page: - Page 78 ID#: 1577 15 1 enter a preliminary injunction as it relates to those 2 plaintiffs without -- it's not my intention to do 3 that, but the issues are exactly -- well, seem to be 4 fairly consistent throughout the three cases, this one 5 and the two companion cases. 6 MR. GANNAM: Well, the difference, Your 7 Honor, is in the plaintiffs' case, they could each 8 allege and put on evidence as to their eligibility to 9 marry, for example. 10 THE COURT: And I think they have done that. 11 MR. GANNAM: Whereas they're now seeking to 12 expand an injunction to cover unnamed members of the 13 putative class -14 THE COURT: Who would otherwise be eligible 15 to marry. 16 MR. GANNAM: But we have -- unless it's a 17 class-wide injunction, they're essentially asserting 18 rights that haven't been established yet in this 19 court. 20 THE COURT: Okay. All right. What's your 21 response? 22 MR. SHARP: Your Honor, 62(c) specifically 23 contemplates and authorizes this Court to modify the 24 injunction while an interlocutory appeal from the 25 preliminary injunction ruling is pending. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 16 of 181 Page: - Page 79 ID#: 1578 16 1 The Court is correct that it does retain 2 jurisdiction to actually grant plaintiffs' motion. The 3 Court is also correct insofar as the legal issues and 4 the relevant facts regarding the disposition of 5 plaintiffs' motion to modify or amend that preliminary 6 injunction ruling are identical, not only as to the 7 plaintiffs in this case, but to any other individuals 8 who would otherwise be qualified to marry. 9 We're not asking the Court to compel the 10 Rowan County Clerk's office to issue marriage licenses 11 on request, but rather upon certification that other 12 legal requirements are met. 13 As the Court's aware, prior to Obergefell, 14 the Rowan County Clerk's office issued 99 marriage 15 licenses this year, 214 last year. Obviously, we're 16 talking about hundreds of people who are affected and 17 are continuing to be denied marriage licenses because 18 of the "no marriage license" policy. 19 THE COURT: 20 MR. GANNAM: All right. A brief reply. Your Honor, essentially, they're 21 seeking to get relief that they didn't request in the 22 original motion and -23 24 now. THE COURT: I know. They're requesting it I recognize they did not request it in the 25 original motion. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 17 of 181 Page: - Page 80 ID#: 1579 17 1 MR. GANNAM: And so it can't be a 2 clarification or a modification of that prior order 3 because it would be -- it would be an expansion of 4 that prior order, which is -- which is improper while 5 it's on appeal, so this must be treated as a new 6 motion for preliminary injunction. And we would 7 maintain our objection that it would be improper to 8 proceed on that today with the -- the little notice 9 that we've had and without the opportunity to -- to 10 again, put on evidence as we deem necessary to 11 establish our defense to it. 12 THE COURT: All right. And I want to give 13 you all an opportunity to be heard, to the extent you 14 wish to be heard on this. 15 MS. PARSONS: Ms. Parsons? The County has no position on 16 this, Judge. 17 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Watkins? 18 MR. WATKINS: 19 THE COURT: Mr. Vance? 20 MR. VANCE: No, Your Honor. 21 THE COURT: All right. No, Judge. I must apologize -- 22 I'm -- you've cited Rule 62(c) in your motion. I may 23 have an older version, and I have to apologize; I have 24 a cataract, so my right eye is not as good as it could 25 be. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 18 of 181 Page: - Page 81 ID#: 1580 18 1 All right. Thank you. I did have an older All right. Over the plaintiffs' objection -- 2 version. 3 4 defendant's objection, I'm going to grant the motion, 5 finding that the prior injunction be modified to 6 reflect that it preliminarily enjoins Ms. Davis in her 7 official capacity from applying her "no marriage 8 license" policy to any future marriage license 9 requests submitted by the named plaintiffs in this 10 case, or -- and this is the modification -- or by any 11 other individuals who are legally eligible to marry in 12 the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 13 And here's the order. 14 enter the order. 15 Clerk. We'll go ahead and I have signed it dated today. Madam Thank you. 16 DEPUTY CLERK: 17 THE COURT: 18 MR. GANNAM: 19 THE COURT: 20 MR. GANNAM: Thank you, Your Honor. And I'll rely upon on Rule 62(c). Your Honor, may I make a -And your objection's overruled. May I make a request for a 21 certification for immediate appeal of this order? 22 THE COURT: 23 part of the appeal. You can appeal that, yes. We'll just include that as part 24 of the appeal. 25 That's Any objection to that? Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 19 of 181 Page: - Page 82 ID#: 1581 19 1 MR. SHARP: No objection, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Okay. 3 include that. Very well. So you can And I'm sure someone has already 4 requested the transcript of this proceeding. And the 5 Sixth Circuit can certainly decide if that's 6 appropriate. I do find, in granting that relief that's 7 8 requested at Docket 68, the Court finds that given the 9 fact that it does have two companion cases that 10 involve, in essence, the very same allegations with 11 the same lawyers, it just makes judicial sense to have 12 the Circuit review the decision for all three of them. 13 I'm not granting a class certification 14 motion. But I do believe that allowing the injunction 15 as it currently exists to apply to some, but not 16 others, simply doesn't make practical sense, so that's 17 the Court's ruling. 18 All right. Let me now turn to the actual 19 merits of the matter that's before the Court. 20 Well, let me take up one additional thing. 21 Unfortunately, we have other motions. 22 I am going to grant -- first of all, is there 23 any objection to -- let me find it here -- to Docket 24 73? 25 That's the motion -- the amicus motion. I know the Sixth Circuit, when it was Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 20 of 181 Page: - Page 83 ID#: 1582 20 1 reviewing the Court's -- the motion to stay, the order 2 pending appeal had an amicus brief filed, and they 3 went ahead and granted that. Mr. Fleenor had filed a 4 motion for leave of Senate President Robert Stivers to 5 file an amicus brief. 6 I, just this morning, since this was filed 7 late yesterday, I've just this morning had an 8 opportunity to review this. I read it on my phone 9 last night, small print, though. I was able to print 10 it out and read it earlier this morning. Any 11 objection to that? 12 MR. SHARP: No objection, Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: Any objection -- they favor your 14 side, so I wouldn't think you would object. 15 MR GANNAM: No, Your Honor. 16 MR. WATKINS: 17 MR. VANCE: No, Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: Okay. No, Your Honor. Mr. Fleenor, I'll go ahead 19 and grant your motion and -20 MR. FLEENOR: 21 THE COURT: Thank you, Your Honor. -- have it filed as the -- the 22 attachment, which is 73-1, Madam Clerk, will be the 23 amicus brief of Senate President Robert Stivers. 24 All right. 25 MR. GANNAM: Now -Your Honor, may I ask one more Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 21 of 181 Page: - Page 84 ID#: 1583 21 1 question? 2 THE COURT: 3 MR. GANNAM: Yes. Will the Court take up our 4 emergency motion, pending appeal time? 5 THE COURT: Well, I am going to take that up 6 as well, actually right now. 7 MR. GANNAM: 8 THE COURT: Okay. I'm not sure if I'm going to rule 9 on it today because it seems to raise many of the same 10 things that were raised previously. 11 filed yesterday. This is Docket 70 The defendant Davis's motion for an 12 injunction pending appeal seeks to have several of the 13 same issues that were previously raised adjudicated 14 again. 15 You haven't had a chance to respond to that, 16 but this seems to be more substantive than Docket 68. 17 Now, you, of course, will disagree with that, 18 and I recognize that, and I've given my rulings 19 granting 68. 20 But 70 itself -- Mr. Gannam, I don't know if 21 you or Mr. Christman's going to be arguing this one, 22 but why isn't this simply her attempt to have another 23 bite at the same apple? It seems like many of the 24 arguments you raised in your response to the 25 substantive preliminary injunction motion are raised Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 22 of 181 Page: - Page 85 ID#: 1584 22 1 here again. 2 MR. GANNAM: Your Honor, Mr. Christman will 3 argue that motion. 4 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Christman. I'm 5 sorry. 6 MR. CHRISTMAN: 7 THE COURT: 8 MR. CHRISTMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Thank you, sir. The motion to ask for an 9 injunction pending appeal against Governor Beshear and 10 Commissioner Onkst, the issues and substance are 11 certainly intertwined and interrelated with what the 12 Court has already decided on the plaintiffs' motion 13 for preliminary injunction, but not entirely 14 overlapping. 15 Ms. Davis asked for her own affirmative 16 preliminary injunction against the third-party 17 defendants. That was a motion that was effectively 18 and practically denied by this Court in its August 19 25th, 2015 order, which has now been taken up on 20 appeal, and that -21 THE COURT: And that order being the motion 22 to the stay -- the motion to hold those motions in 23 abeyance; which one are you referring to? 24 MR. CHRISTMAN: Correct. The August 25th 25 order that -- the practical effect of that order was Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 23 of 181 Page: - Page 86 ID#: 1585 23 1 to deny Ms. Davis the preliminary injunctive relief 2 against the third-party defendants. 3 THE COURT: Right. And frankly, my reason -- 4 and I'll explain that for the parties. The issue -- 5 it seems as if the Sixth Circuit's decision on the 6 review of this Court's August 12, 2015 order -7 memorandum, opinion and order -- the resolution of 8 that will have, whether the parties agree or disagree 9 with this statement, at least in this Court's view, 10 will have some impact on the resolution of that 11 motion, of perhaps other motions. 12 So it made sense to the Court -- this, of 13 course, isn't the Court's only case -- to give the 14 Circuit, and you have -- you immediately appealed, I 15 think, the same day it went on, that order, which you 16 have a right to do under the rule. But I really 17 thought it was appropriate to have the Circuit look at 18 that because that will have a very real impact on the 19 Court's adjudication of these other issues. And if we 20 get a resolution of that by the Circuit, that will -21 the decision will be germane to these other motions, 22 so that's why I stayed that. 23 Do you think -- and I understand you want to 24 be heard on that today, but some of the issues raised 25 in that -- in your Docket Entry 70, and it's 30 pages. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 24 of 181 Page: - Page 87 ID#: 1586 24 1 I am impressed with the ability to crank out very 2 substantive briefs, and I appreciate the table of 3 contents; I really do. It does help in reviewing the 4 pleadings that are filed. But unlike a two-page 5 order, which is relatively straightforward, this is a 6 30-page motion with -- involving the third-party 7 defendant. 8 Mr. Vance, you, of course, haven't had a 9 chance to respond at all. But would you 10 acknowledge -- I think you have acknowledged that some 11 of the issues are intertwined? 12 MR. CHRISTMAN: Your Honor, the reason -- 13 respectfully, the reason that the motion was first 14 filed in front of Your Honor, rather that filing that 15 motion for injunction pending appeal and the appeal 16 that we took up, that second notice of appeal that was 17 filed, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure say 18 that ordinarily and generally, you ask for the relief 19 first -20 THE COURT: Oh, I completely agree, 21 completely agree. 22 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- first from the district 23 court, unless it would be impracticable to obtain it. 24 We decided that under these general circumstances that 25 rather than first going to the Sixth Circuit, we would Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 25 of 181 Page: - Page 88 ID#: 1587 25 1 seek the injunction pending appeal in her claims 2 vis-a-vis the third-party defendants in this case. 3 The original appeal that was taken up of the 4 August 25th, 2015 order is Ms. Davis's rights and 5 claims and defenses vis-a-vis the plaintiffs in this 6 case. The governor and Commissioner Onkst are not 7 parties to that first appeal. 8 THE COURT: Correct. 9 MR. CHRISTMAN: Ms. Davis, on the same day 10 that she filed her motion to dismiss plaintiffs' 11 complaint in its entirety, the arguments of which have 12 not been taken up, also brought a third-party 13 complaint against Governor Beshear and Commissioner 14 Onkst essentially arguing that any liability that 15 Ms. Davis has in this case is really the liability of 16 the third-party defendants. And so asserted those 17 claims, and then within three days filed a motion for 18 preliminary injunction against Governor Beshear and 19 Commissioner Onkst, again, raising certainly many of 20 the same substantive arguments and issues, but it's 21 from a different approach as her as an individual. 22 That motion was filed and her third-party complaint 23 was filed before this Court even entered its original 24 injunction order. 25 THE COURT: That's correct. And the Court Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 26 of 181 Page: - Page 89 ID#: 1588 26 1 worked as quickly as it could to resolve that. 2 I -- I recognize that. I don't think I'm 3 prepared to make a ruling on that today. I want to 4 give Mr. Vance's client an opportunity to respond to 5 that, as well as the plaintiffs, if they wish to. 6 Mr. Vance? 7 MR. VANCE: Judge, thank you. On behalf of 8 the governor and Commissioner Onkst, we would say, as 9 the Court has noted, the motion's not ripe for 10 consideration. We have not filed a responsive 11 pleading as yet, and it is not due, per agreement of 12 the parties, until September the 11th. 13 We're in the process of preparing a motion to 14 dismiss because we believe the third-party complaint 15 is wholly without merit as per the Eleventh Amendment, 16 among other reasons. And certainly we believe that 17 the request for injunctive relief against the governor 18 and Mr. Onkst is likewise without merits, and we will 19 respond to that at the appropriate time, and respond 20 further on the merits now, if you wish. 21 THE COURT: No, I don't -- I have some other 22 things we need to take up today, and I don't want to 23 be here all afternoon. 24 But as far as the responsive pleading that 25 you have to file, and I do think that I have Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 27 of 181 Page: - Page 90 ID#: 1589 27 1 continuing jurisdiction to address these other issues 2 while the other case is on appeal. Does everybody 3 agree with that? 4 MR. SHARP: Yes, Your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Everybody's nodding 6 affirmatively. 7 Mr. Christman? MR. CHRISTMAN: Your Honor used the phrase 8 "these issues", and I'd just ask for clarification of 9 what issues. 10 THE COURT: Okay. This motion, your motion, 11 your motion Docket 70. 12 MR. CHRISTMAN: Certainly, Your Honor, we 13 filed it in front of you so we believe you have 14 jurisdiction. 15 THE COURT: Okay. I figured you would since 16 you filed it here. 17 Here's what we're going to do. If you would, 18 you can file the Rule 12 motion that you believe is 19 appropriate on behalf of your clients. If you think 20 that the response to Docket 70 is otherwise covered, 21 if you will, by your motion, you can file a response 22 indicating such. If there are certain things in the 23 motion itself that you believe need to be specifically 24 addressed in the response, you can address them that 25 way. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 28 of 181 Page: - Page 91 ID#: 1590 28 1 I'm not going to take that motion up on the 2 merits today because it has some things in it -- while 3 there is some intertwined issues, clearly, and I think 4 it would be perhaps -- the Court would be served by 5 getting a decision by the Circuit on the appeal of the 6 preliminary injunction that was granted, and I think 7 it would be helpful to do it in that way. 8 Would you be able to do that? 9 MR. VANCE: Yes, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: To file your -- file your motion 11 by the 11th, I think, by agreement -12 MR. VANCE: Yes. 13 THE COURT: -- and then any response you 14 would have to Docket 70, you can file by that date as 15 well? 16 MR. VANCE: We will do that, Your Honor. And 17 I suspect you're exactly right; we should be able to 18 incorporate it a little bit by reference and limit the 19 amount of paper -20 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 21 MR. VANCE: -- or electronic material that is THE COURT: Yes. 22 filed. 23 And if you want to file a 24 written response to that, you can, by the same date, 25 the 11th. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 29 of 181 Page: - Page 92 ID#: 1591 29 1 MR. SHARP: Thank you, Your Honor. 2 MR. CHRISTMAN: 3 THE COURT: 4 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- if I could ask for a slight Your Honor -- Yes, sir? 5 clarification. 6 THE COURT: All right. 7 MR. CHRISTMAN: By -- by what you've just 8 ordered and directed, does that mean that you will not 9 have an order on the motion for injunction pending 10 appeal prior to September 11th? 11 THE COURT: 12 MR. CHRISTMAN: 13 pending appeal. On your motion? On the motion for injunction I mean, you absolutely will not rule 14 on the motion for injunction? 15 THE COURT: No. I will make not a ruling 16 until I get a response, clearly. 17 And I think -- this motion was filed 18 yesterday. That would give me nine days. 19 last motion took 45 days to adjudicate. I think the So I'm not 20 planning on ruling on Docket 70 before the 11th. Is 21 that what you're asking? 22 MR. CHRISTMAN: Yes. Just wanted to ask for 23 that clarification for the record. 24 THE COURT: I'm not going to rule on the 25 motion Docket 70 until it becomes ripe. And I'll give Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 30 of 181 Page: - Page 93 ID#: 1592 30 1 -- how much time would you like to respond? 2 3 Honor. 4 MR. CHRISTMAN: We filed the motion, Your You're asking for -THE COURT: Well, but you can file a reply. 5 I mean ... 6 MR. CHRISTMAN: Correct. It's -- Your Honor, 7 to be honest, it's to clear up the record. As I said 8 earlier, that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 9 ordinarily direct you to file in the district court, 10 but if it's deemed impractical to get the relief that 11 you're asking for, which we believe is emergent, that 12 then we are -13 THE COURT: Well, I will do my level best 14 to -- I understand that anything filed under Rule 65 15 takes precedence over any other case, other than a 16 case of similar nature, I think is what the law says. 17 So I will work on that as expeditiously as I can. 18 I know you have an expedited briefing 19 schedule at the Circuit on the underlying substance of 20 the merits of the appeal. 21 modified. Perhaps that may need to be I'll try to get that order out as soon as 22 you -- if you want to file a reply within seven days, 23 is that ... 24 MR. CHRISTMAN: 25 THE COURT: That's fine, Your Honor. Okay. Seven days, Mr. Vance, or Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 31 of 181 Page: - Page 94 ID#: 1593 31 1 any other interested party, can file a response by the 2 11th of September. Any reply would be due on the 3 18th. 4 MR. CHRISTMAN: And in light of these 5 rulings, Your Honor, we would also move to reconsider 6 the Court's prior order not giving us an opportunity 7 to respond to plaintiffs' motion filed under Rule 65 8 to modify and enlarge this Court's prior order. 9 We would ask for the same amount of time that 10 the governor will have to respond to our motion for 11 injunction pending appeal. 12 THE COURT: I'm going to deny that. 13 MR. CHRISTMAN: 14 THE COURT: Thank you, Your Honor. I think you've been heard here 15 for that. 16 Okay. Let's see. We have -- oh. We're 17 going to go now -- turn to -- all right. 18 All right. As everyone knows, the Court 19 denied Ms. Davis's motion to stay the Court's August 20 12th, 2015 preliminary injunction pending appeal, but 21 did stay that order until August 31st, to give her an 22 opportunity to ask the Sixth Circuit to review the 23 motion to stay. 24 And a little clarification. 25 not put a deadline in the order. I initially had And then after Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 32 of 181 Page: - Page 95 ID#: 1594 32 1 speaking with my law clerks, I realized that the 2 practical impact of that would be, it's just a 3 definite. And you probably all realized that. If 4 there's no other order, we're not in violation of 5 that. 6 So I felt like a -- approximately a two-week 7 window to give the appellate courts an opportunity to 8 take that up, kind of a period of time, let the 9 appellate judges, three of them, review it, and then 10 as everyone knows, there was a petition to the Supreme 11 Court as well on the stay issue. 12 On August 26th of this year, a panel of the 13 Sixth Circuit unanimously denied her motion to stay. 14 In its decision, the Court of Appeals stated that 15 there was little to no likelihood that Ms. Davis in 16 her official capacity will prevail on appeal. And 17 that's the language of three appellate judges, not 18 mine. 19 She then filed an emergency petition with the 20 Supreme Court seeking a stay. And as everyone knows, 21 on Monday of this week, Justice Kagan referred that 22 petition to stay to the entire court, and the petition 23 was denied. 24 So the procedural options that she has to 25 stay the prior order have now been exhausted, at least Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 33 of 181 Page: - Page 96 ID#: 1595 33 1 those that I think are available. 2 We're here on the plaintiffs' motion to hold 3 her in contempt for not complying with the Court's 4 prior order. 5 Contempt proceedings, for those of you who 6 are not of a legal mind, are brought under 18 U.S. 7 Code, Section 401. 18 U.S. Code is the federal 8 criminal code, although it does contain in various 9 provisions and some civil directions on civil cases as 10 well, and this case falls within that example. It 11 does give the Court the power to enforce compliance 12 with its lawful orders. 13 Now, I'm sure there are some that think that 14 the Court's order wasn't lawful. Well, here in 15 America when a judge issues an order, it's -- unless 16 it's otherwise illegal -- and I think most of us 17 district judges like to avoid issuing illegal 18 orders -- lawful orders are orders signed by judges. 19 State court judges sign lawful orders all the time. 20 "Courts do have the power to punish or 21 fine -- punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at 22 its discretion, such contempt of its authority and 23 none other as disobedience or resistance to its lawful 24 orders." 25 So at this point, both sides have filed a Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 34 of 181 Page: - Page 97 ID#: 1596 34 1 motion and a response. I'm going to waive the time 2 for filing and reply because I went ahead and set this 3 matter today at the request of counsel. 4 In your response -- I don't know who's going 5 to take this one, Mr. Christman or Mr. Gannam? 6 MR. GANNAM: 7 THE COURT: Mr. Christman. Mr. Christman. You state that 8 she has a present inability to comply with the Court's 9 order -- and again, I'm paraphrasing, trying to keep 10 it -- kind of summarizing the argument -- that she has 11 a present inability to comply due to her religious 12 beliefs. I mean, that's kind of -- and there's more 13 to it than that, but that's kind of in a generic 14 sense, that's what you're arguing. 15 The law in the Sixth Circuit -- and frankly, 16 there's not a whole lot of law on civil contempt. And 17 if you think about it, the reason for that is most of 18 the time when an order goes on, there is compliance 19 with the order. So it's probably a good thing in our 20 society that there's not a lot of law in this area. 21 Because most of the time you get compliance and you 22 don't have to compel the action of a party, or perhaps 23 a non-party, who's acting as an agent of a party, to 24 comply with an order. 25 But doesn't the Sixth Circuit, Mr. Christman, Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 35 of 181 Page: - Page 98 ID#: 1597 35 1 seem to require more than just someone's statement 2 that they don't wish to comply? 3 I've got this First Amendment right, I've got 4 this Kentucky constitutional right to exercise my 5 religion, and I'm -- I can't comply because of that. 6 Doesn't it require more like a physical or a factual 7 impossibility to not comply? 8 MR. CHRISTMAN: If so, why not? Your Honor, it does. It is a 9 factual impossibility -10 THE COURT: Okay. Why is it factually 11 impossible here? 12 MR. CHRISTMAN: It's factually impossible for 13 Ms. Davis to authorize the union of a same-sex couple 14 and place her name and approval by that on that union. 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 MR. CHRISTMAN: What -- go ahead. She cannot do it in her 17 conscience. 18 THE COURT: Okay. What -- what would prevent 19 -20 MR. CHRISTMAN: It's factually impossible 21 that she's unable to do. 22 THE COURT: What would prevent -- I'm from 23 northern Kentucky, and I know Kentucky is a melting 24 pot of religions. There's a lot of Baptists, there's 25 a lot of Catholics in northern Kentucky and this area, Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 36 of 181 Page: - Page 99 ID#: 1598 36 1 and down in Owensboro, a lot of other religions. 2 I'm Catholic. Part of Catholicism says that 3 if you're married and get divorced and you want to get 4 married in the Catholic church, you need to get an 5 annulment before you get remarried. I mean, that's 6 how -- some Catholics follow that, some don't. 7 Whether they do or they don't, that's really not 8 relevant. But the question is, what would prevent a 9 Catholic clerk from -- if I were to not -- if I were 10 to agree with your client's position on this contempt 11 motion, what would prevent a Catholic clerk from, when 12 two, let's say, same-sex or opposite-sex couples come 13 in, and they're gathering the information, what's your 14 name, how old are you, have you been married before? 15 Yes, I've been married before. Has that -- are you -- 16 he's Catholic and he asks, or she asks, "Well, has 17 that marriage been annulled?" And either they refuse 18 to answer or they say, "No, it hasn't." 19 That clerk may say, "Well, gosh, I'm not 20 going to issue that because I'm -- in my Catholic 21 beliefs, I can't issue a marriage license because that 22 individual has been -- that marriage hasn't been 23 annulled, and you can't get married. In essence, it's 24 still a marriage in the eyes of the -- some Catholics. 25 How is that any different than this? Or it Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 37 of 181 Page: - Page 100 ID#: 1599 37 1 may not be different, I ... 2 MR. CHRISTMAN: The difference, Your Honor, 3 is that if someone would step up and assert that and 4 make that argument, which -5 THE COURT: You would defend them? 6 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- there is no -- there is no 7 evidence that anybody has. I'm sure if there were 8 discovery in this case on that issue, that we could 9 find Catholic clerks who have served in the role who 10 have been faced with those situations, and maybe 11 they've said, "I believe one thing, but I'm -- I'm 12 willing to issue this license." 13 THE COURT: So in that case, it wouldn't be 14 factually impossible because they're willing to do it? 15 MR. CHRISTMAN: 16 impossible. It wouldn't be factually Because what person is saying is they 17 might believe one thing, but what -- their conscience 18 is not directing upon them that they are unable to 19 issue the license. 20 What's different for Ms. Davis is she's not 21 just willy-nilly spur of the moment saying, "I just 22 don't want do it, Judge, and I just -- it's no big 23 deal. 24 I don't -- I just don't want to do it." We would not -- we would not be where we are 25 today and be through everything that we've been Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 38 of 181 Page: - Page 101 ID#: 1600 38 1 through, Your Honor, with all the different 2 proceedings and the different hearings. And as this 3 Court has been inundated with calls, that is, you 4 know, just scraping the surface of what Ms. Davis has 5 had to personally endure because of her compulsion to 6 follow her conscience. That this is not a matter of, 7 "I just don't want to issue a license to a couple 8 that's been divorced because I have a problem with 9 divorce." That's not the -- that's not the religious 10 belief, that's not the conscience issue that's -11 THE COURT: So it's -- there's certain things 12 that are -- there's certain things that are 13 conscious-driven and certain things that aren't from 14 her perspective? Like someone who's previously 15 divorced is not that important? 16 MR. CHRISTMAN: Correct. We don't have that 17 here. 18 THE COURT: Okay. 19 MR. CHRISTMAN: What we have here is a 20 request -- and as we've said and tried to articulate 21 before, is that Ms. Davis does not have a religious 22 conscience objection to an opposite-sex couple being 23 married. She has no problem giving that 24 authorization, putting her name on that license. 25 reason to date that she's yet been able to -- The Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 39 of 181 Page: - Page 102 ID#: 1601 39 1 THE COURT: Well, that's been 2 well-established; she doesn't want to violate their 3 equal protection rights, she's -- I understand. 4 MR. CHRISTMAN: Right. But I'm putting that 5 out there to say she is not factually unable to issue 6 that license for conscience reasons. She's factually 7 unable to issue the license to the opposite-sex couple 8 right now because her conscience prevents her from 9 issuing a license to a same-sex couple. And her 10 understandings and applications and adherence of the 11 law coming down saying "same-sex couples have to be 12 treated the same as opposite-sex couples," then her 13 interpretation and understanding of Kentucky marriage 14 law as it exists in the statutes now and as is being 15 applied is that as she's operating and acting through 16 that scheme and those requirements, that she has to 17 treat couples the same, and so she's factually 18 prevented from doing it. 19 In a lot of cases in the contempt world, what 20 arises on the factual impossibility side is -- is a 21 bank account that has zero dollars. 22 THE COURT: 23 comply with it. Right, but they can't actually And I've read pretty much every Sixth 24 Circuit case on civil contempt in the last 24 hours, 25 so I recognize that. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 40 of 181 Page: - Page 103 ID#: 1602 40 1 MR. CHRISTMAN: And by analogy, Your Honor, 2 we're not in the -- this case is not about money, at 3 all. Her bank account of conscience, she -- she 4 cannot -- that it is as if asking -- you know, 5 ordering somebody to write a $1,000 check from a bank 6 account that has no money. She has no ability, no 7 conscience -- no money in her conscience bank to write 8 the check that would come from the order. 9 10 THE COURT: All right. MR. CHRISTMAN: And yes, Your Honor's 11 correct, you know, out of the Sixth Circuit cases that 12 are out there to date, you know, they're -- we're not 13 going to be able to point you to a Sixth Circuit case 14 that says -15 THE COURT: Neither side is. 16 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- because Obergefell just 17 came down months ago and has redefined the institution 18 of marriage. And as was actually argued by the amicus 19 party, that the -- the legislators need to look at the 20 entire scheme because the entire scheme has been 21 rewritten and overturned by what the Supreme Court 22 did. 23 THE COURT: Right. And I'll say that -- 24 civics lesson -- we've got executive and legislative 25 branches and you've got -- and you have our branch -- Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 41 of 181 Page: - Page 104 ID#: 1603 41 1 thank you. If you would escort someone. Thank you. 2 Thank you. 3 [INTERRUPTION IN THE COURTROOM] 4 THE COURT: As I was saying, the other 5 branches are designed for that type of thing. The 6 other branches generally, having seen it firsthand for 7 many years, generally have to be responsive to those 8 types of changes by their constituencies because they 9 have to -- if they aren't, perhaps they don't get 10 re-elected. 11 This Court acts by motion. 12 limited jurisdiction. This Court has This Court does not engage in 13 social policy. 14 December of 2001, I took an oath to the 15 Senators that I would follow the law and not let my 16 personal opinions impact my decisions. 17 generally do that every day. And I It's not every day I get 18 to do it in such a public forum with so much people 19 watching, but frankly, that's part of what is 20 happening today. 21 The law does change. If the -- as 22 Mr. Stivers indicates in his amicus brief, if there 23 are legislative fixes, if you will, I use that term 24 loosely, which would enable someone to apply for -- I 25 don't think the plaintiffs necessarily have an issue Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 42 of 181 Page: - Page 105 ID#: 1604 42 1 with the legislative fix which would allow them in 2 Rowan County to get their marriage license from 3 another entity, if that entity would be available to 4 issue the license going forward. If there's a change 5 in the law by the legislature, I'm sure they wouldn't 6 care about that. In fact, they probably would applaud 7 that because that ultimately -- the Court would like 8 that too because it would perhaps resolve this 9 litigation, to some extent. 10 I'm sure there'll be corollary motions that 11 are filed at some point for various relief, but that's 12 not the Court's job. 13 This issue of willfulness in a civil contempt 14 proceeding, I mean, do you agree that it's not an 15 element under the Sixth Circuit law? 16 MR. CHRISTMAN: Willfulness is not an element 17 to the finding of contempt itself -18 THE COURT: Correct. It would be to the 19 sanction perhaps. 20 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- but it is a consideration 21 in terms of the -- the extent or the breadth of -- if 22 a contempt finding is made and in determining what the 23 -24 THE COURT: Appropriate sanction would be. 25 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- the appropriate sanction Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 43 of 181 Page: - Page 106 ID#: 1605 43 1 -2 THE COURT: I agree with that. That's what 3 that Rolex Watch case says in the Sixth Circuit. 4 MR. CHRISTMAN: Intent and willfulness is a 5 consideration that the Court can -- can make. 6 And on the issue of willfulness and intent, I 7 think the Court would recall the testimony that 8 Ms. Davis has -- has already given and is prepared to 9 give in her defense to establish the factual 10 impossibility that -- you know, there is certainly no 11 intent here whatsoever to harm or injure or burden the 12 plaintiffs in this case. 13 THE COURT: All right. 14 MR. CHRISTMAN: And I know that there may be 15 characterizations and say, you know, that that is 16 exactly what she wants to do, but ... 17 THE COURT: I haven't made any of those 18 characterizations. 19 MR. CHRISTMAN: No. 20 have come from elsewhere. Those characterizations That -- that is not her 21 intent in any way. 22 It's also not her intent to violate or 23 disregard or ignore or disobey the Court's orders, 24 that that is not her intent. 25 Her intent is to adhere and follow what her Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 44 of 181 Page: - Page 107 ID#: 1606 44 1 conscience is commanding and compelling that she must 2 do. That here I stand, I can do no other. That she 3 cannot do anything but what she is doing, faithfully 4 applying her duties and obligations and understanding 5 of the law, Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration 6 Act, a Kentucky marriage scheme that's been 7 obliterated. And then Governor Beshear comes over the 8 top and says, "Legislature's not in session. 9 calling them. I'm not Here's what you must do, clerks. 10 Without any exception, you must issue this license on 11 a form I'm going to revise, but I'm not going to 12 revise it in a way that accommodates any religious 13 beliefs or concerns." 14 And so again, that dovetails and goes back to 15 why Ms. Davis -- part -- also part of her defense is 16 that she has not been given due process fully for 17 contempt because any liability that she is claiming, 18 she's saying, "I have a claim against the governor. 19 And the governor has issued this directive." The 20 legislature's ready to act and solve the problems, but 21 the governor says, "No." 22 THE COURT: 23 MR. CHRISTMAN: 24 THE COURT: 25 yet. Are they ready to act? They are, Your Honor. Okay. Well, they haven't acted Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 45 of 181 Page: - Page 108 ID#: 1607 45 1 MR. CHRISTMAN: Because they can't because it 2 requires a special session by which Governor Beshear 3 exercises the unilateral authority to call. 4 THE COURT: Well, maybe he's waiting for the 5 new governor. 6 MR. CHRISTMAN: He may very well may be. And 7 both gubernatorial candidates, both Mr. Bevin and 8 Attorney General Conway have indicated an intent to do 9 something to protect the religious liberties and 10 objections. 11 In fact, Attorney General Conway, in response 12 to the Kentucky Clerks Association's proposal to 13 remove the name, said he's fine with that. 14 So there is -- and again, it goes to this 15 idea this is premature to take an action to hold her 16 in contempt when she's filed a motion to dismiss her 17 complaint in its entirety. She's filed preliminary 18 injunctive relief against the governor seeking relief. 19 Her conscience does not allow it. She's entitled to 20 due process to be heard on all of those claims before 21 the Court could reach a conclusion that says, "You're 22 in contempt. 23 You're disobeying my order." THE COURT: Well, again, this -- due process 24 in this contempt proceeding. That's -- she's had 25 notice of this hearing, and she's being given an Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 46 of 181 Page: - Page 109 ID#: 1608 46 1 opportunity to be heard by you. 2 I mean, the motion to dismiss you've raised, 3 and I guess I'll -- he brought it up, so I'll raise it 4 with you, Mr. Sharp, Mr. Cannon. Many of the issues 5 raised in the motion to dismiss were intertwined with 6 the decision the Court made on the preliminary 7 injunction order. 8 We have all these various motions raising a 9 number of things. Again, the Sixth Circuit's decision 10 on the issue before the Sixth Circuit, the substantive 11 merits appeal, that decision will have some -12 hopefully, will be instructive on other issues before 13 the Court. 14 I appreciate your -- I -- you're -- I know 15 you want to put your client on as a witness -- or in 16 defense of the contempt issue, and I'm going to give 17 her a chance to do that. But let me ask you, what's 18 your response about this present -- you can sit down. 19 Thank you. What's your response to this present 20 inability to comply, because you really didn't have a 21 chance to file a reply. I want to give you a chance 22 to be heard on that. 23 MR. SHARP: Thank you, Your Honor. Despite 24 their arguments to the contrary, what they're really 25 trying to do is redefine factual impossibility as Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 47 of 181 Page: - Page 110 ID#: 1609 47 1 unwillingness. I mean, it's analogous to the free 2 speech realm in which an individual self-censors their 3 speech because of some anti-harassment policy. 4 You know, whether or not the speech would 5 actually violate the policy, you know, the Court would 6 need specific facts in that regard. Here, it -- 7 there's not a factual impossibility to comply with the 8 Court order. It's an unwillingness to comply because 9 of sincerely-held religious beliefs. 10 As Ms. Davis testified during the preliminary 11 injunction hearing, she was specifically asked on 12 cross-examination, "If the preliminary injunction 13 hearing in this case were issued, what would you do?" 14 Ms. Davis testified at that time, "I'll cross that 15 bridge when I get to it." 16 After the Supreme Court denied the 17 application for a stay, Ms. Davis was noted as saying 18 that she was going to pray about what she was going to 19 do the following day, given the exhaustion of stay 20 requests. 21 And when she went to work on Tuesday morning, 22 we think the evidence will clearly show that she made 23 a choice, and the fact that that choice was motivated 24 by a sincerely-held belief does not render it anything 25 other than a choice. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 48 of 181 Page: - Page 111 ID#: 1610 48 1 It's not a factual impossibility for someone 2 to choose a course of action because of a 3 sincerely-held religious belief, but that is 4 insufficient as a defense to contempt. 5 THE COURT: All right. Now, in your motion, 6 you seem to ask for fines in this case. The statute 7 gives the Court the discretion, depending on the 8 circumstances, what the Court believes is necessary to 9 gain compliance by the defendant herself or perhaps 10 agents of the defendant. 11 Do you expect her to comply with your order 12 if the Court imposes a fine only? 13 MR. SHARP: Your Honor, it's our hope that 14 the Court can fashion a remedy that would secure 15 compliance in ways -16 THE COURT: Because that -- frankly, that's 17 what this hearing is about -18 MR. SHARP: Exactly. 19 THE COURT: -- to coerce compliance -- this 20 is a civil contempt hearing. We wanted to -Nobody's seeking 21 remedial -- we have coercion of the party to comply, 22 or a remedial contempt. Remedial contempt's not what 23 we're -- no one's asking for money here; they're 24 asking for compliance. This is not -- this is civil 25 contempt, not criminal contempt. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 49 of 181 Page: - Page 112 ID#: 1611 49 All right. 1 2 proceed now? Do you want -- how do you wish to Do you wish to call her as a witness or 3 -- MR. GANNAM: 4 Yes, Your Honor. We'd like to 5 put her on the stand. THE COURT: 6 7 do that. 10 You can [KIM DAVIS, having been first placed under oath, was examined and testified as follows:] 11 THE COURT: 12 THE WITNESS: 13 THE COURT: 14 THE WITNESS: 15 THE COURT: 16 Here we go. 17 need that. 18 That's fine. Come around, please. 8 9 All right. Here's a water, ma'am. I don't want any. Are you sure? All right. Do you have any tissues? No, I don't have they of those. Here, take this just in case. There you go. MR. GANNAM: You might Thank you. And for clarification, Your 19 Honor, will the Court be relying on the entire record 20 that's already been developed in this case for 21 purposes of today? 22 THE COURT: I -- I will, yes. Anything that 23 was previously testified to at the hearing or was part 24 of the record, you all can rely upon it freely in 25 making your positions known. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 50 of 181 Page: - Page 113 ID#: 1612 50 1 Good afternoon, ma'am. 2 THE WITNESS: 3 THE COURT: 4 MR. GANNAM: Good afternoon. All right. You may proceed, sir. Thank you, Your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION 5 6 BY: 7 Q. MR. GANNAM: Ms. Davis, what is your -- your current 8 religious denomination? 9 A. I'm Christian Apostolic. 10 Q. And when did you become a Christian? 11 A. 2011 is when I had dedicated my life to 12 God, January, 2011. 13 Q. Do you remember the day that you became a 14 Christian? 15 A. Yes. January 23rd. 16 mother-in-law passed away. It was the day my She died about 6:00 that 17 morning, and she wanted all of her family to go to 18 church that night. She's a Godly woman. And we went 19 -- all went that evening. 20 Q. At the time that you went to church that 21 night, was there any reason, other than her request, 22 her dying wish, that you went to church that night? 23 MR. SHARP: Objection, relevance. 24 THE COURT: Overruled. 25 A. It was out of respect for her. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 51 of 181 Page: - Page 114 ID#: 1613 51 1 Q. Did you wake up that day and simply 2 decide, "I'm going to become a Christian tonight?" 3 A. No. 4 Q. When you became a Christian, can you -- 5 describe as best you can, you know, why you believed 6 at that moment, if you can remember it. 7 A. I haven't always been a very good person. 8 I did a lot of vile and wicked things in my time. And 9 it was through my mother-in-law's death, seeing the 10 way God's people just surrounded her with loving 11 kindness and -- God's mercy touched me that night. 12 And I know it will never be the same. I promised to 13 love Him with my whole heart, mind, body and soul, 14 because I want to make heaven my home. 15 Q. Ms. Davis, when you experienced what you 16 experienced that night and believed what you believed 17 that night, could you make a decision to unbelieve 18 that? 19 A. You can't be separated from something 20 that's in your heart and in your soul. 21 Q. And that belief that you acquired that 22 night that you became a Christian, is that the same 23 belief that motivates your -- your actions today? 24 A. Every day. 25 Q. And as part of that belief, do you have a Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 52 of 181 Page: - Page 115 ID#: 1614 52 1 belief about what marriage is? 2 A. Yeah. 3 Q. And what is marriage, according to that 4 belief? 5 A. Marriage is a union between one man and 6 one woman. 7 Q. Do you have the ability to believe that 8 marriage is anything else? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Is there anything preventing you from 11 issuing marriage licenses currently, other than that 12 belief as to what marriage is? 13 A. No. 14 Q. And is that belief, to be clearer, is it a 15 religious belief? 16 A. It is. 17 Q. Ms. Davis, if I asked you the question: 18 Do you -- do you approve of same-sex marriage, what 19 would your answer be? 20 A. No. It's not of God. 21 Q. And are you able to -- to change your mind 22 about that? 23 A. No. 24 Q. And is there any circumstance that you can 25 envision where you could authorize a marriage of a Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 53 of 181 Page: - Page 116 ID#: 1615 53 1 same-sex couple based on your religious belief? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Can you change your conscience on this 4 matter? 5 A. I cannot. 6 Q. Ms. Davis, if there were any way for a 7 Rowan County marriage license to be issued that did 8 not depend on your authorization and did not bear your 9 name, would you have any objection to that? 10 MR. SHARP: Objection. Relevance. 11 THE COURT: Overruled. I don't think it 12 matters, but -- go ahead. You may answer. 13 A. Ask the question again, please. 14 Q. If there were a way to issue a marriage 15 license from Rowan County that did not depend on your 16 authorization and bear your name, would you have any 17 objection to that? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Do you -- apart from those things, your 20 authorization and your name being on the license, do 21 you have any objection to the plaintiffs obtaining a 22 marriage license anywhere? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Ms. Davis, are you aware of any change by 25 the legislature in the marriage licensing statutes Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 54 of 181 Page: - Page 117 ID#: 1616 54 1 that, at least prior to the Obergefell decision, 2 controlled your duties and your authority to issue 3 marriage licenses? 4 A. Can you restate -- can you ask that again. 5 I'm sorry. 6 Q. Are you aware of any action by the 7 Kentucky General Assembly, Kentucky Legislature, to 8 change the marriage laws in effect at the time the 9 Supreme Court issued its Obergefell decision? 10 A. No. 11 Q. And are you aware of any executive orders 12 issued by the Governor of Kentucky that dictate what 13 the marriage laws and policies are in Kentucky since 14 the Obergefell decision? 15 A. No. 16 Q. And as you sit here today, apart from the 17 existing Kentucky law at the time the Obergefell 18 decision came down and the Obergefell decision itself, 19 are you aware of any other controlling law on the 20 issuance of marriage licenses in Kentucky? 21 22 A. No. MR. GANNAM: I have no further questions, 23 Your Honor. 24 THE COURT: Any cross? 25 MR. SHARP: Thank you, Your Honor. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 55 of 181 Page: - Page 118 ID#: 1617 55 CROSS-EXAMINATION 1 2 BY: MR. SHARP: 3 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Davis. 4 A. Good afternoon. 5 Q. You are, of course, aware of the 6 preliminary injunction ruling that was issued in this 7 case? 8 A. I am. 9 Q. You testified at a hearing about that in 10 Covington a few weeks ago? 11 A. I did. 12 Q. And after that preliminary injunction 13 ruling was entered on August the 12th, you and your 14 attorneys sought to have its execution stayed, 15 correct? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. First in this court? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Then in the Court of Appeals? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And then finally, in the United States 22 Supreme Court? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And on each occasion, your request to stay 25 that injunction was denied? Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 56 of 181 Page: - Page 119 ID#: 1618 56 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. I'm sorry? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. When you testified on July the 20th, in 5 connection with that preliminary injunction motion, 6 you were asked what you would do if the Court issued a 7 preliminary injunction? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you recall your response? 10 A. I think you said earlier that I said I 11 would have to wait until that time came, pretty much. 12 Q. Was that an accurate recitation of how you 13 testified? 14 A. I don't have the transcript in front of 15 me, but I believe that you wouldn't say something that 16 was not on it. 17 Q. And after the Supreme Court's decision was 18 handed down on Monday, did you make a statement about 19 what you would do then? 20 A. You mean on the first? 21 Q. Yes, ma'am. 22 A. Did I make a statement of what I was going 23 to do? 24 Q. Were you asked by the media what you were 25 going to do after the Supreme Court issued its Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 57 of 181 Page: - Page 120 ID#: 1619 57 1 decision? 2 A. I've been inundated with media and stuff. 3 I can't recall. 4 Q. Let me refresh your recollection. Do you 5 recall telling the press that after the Supreme 6 Court's decision, you were going to have to pray about 7 what to do following the stay denial? 8 A. I pray every day, Mr. Sharp. 9 Q. Do you recall telling the press that? 10 A. I don't know if I -- if you said I did, I 11 probably did. 12 Q. So after the Supreme Court denied the stay 13 application, did you have to think about what you were 14 going to do when you went to work the next day about 15 the "no marriage license" policy? 16 A. Did I have to think about it? 17 Q. Yes, ma'am. 18 A. I didn't have to think about it. There 19 was no choice there. 20 Q. When you denied the marriage licenses on 21 Tuesday, you said that no marriage licenses would be 22 issued, pending your appeals in this case, correct? 23 A. Correct, yes. 24 Q. Did you really mean to say that no 25 marriage licenses would issue unless you won this Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 58 of 181 Page: - Page 121 ID#: 1620 58 1 case? 2 A. No, sir. 3 Q. Well, then if you lose this case, will you 4 go back to issuing marriage licenses? 5 A. Hopefully, our legislator will get 6 something -- legislature will get something taken care 7 of, sir. 8 Q. On July 20th then, did you know then that 9 if a preliminary injunction ruling was issued, that 10 you would not comply with it? 11 A. No, because it hadn't happened. 12 Q. On Tuesday, you went to work, correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And you met with your deputy clerks? 15 A. We probably did meet. I don't know if 16 they -- if all of them got there early or not. 17 Q. You notified them about the Supreme 18 Court's decision? 19 A. They all knew. 20 Q. And you told them that notwithstanding the 21 Supreme Court's decision, your office was not going to 22 issue any marriage licenses? 23 A. We are not issuing marriage licenses. 24 Q. I'm sorry? 25 A. We are not issuing marriage licenses. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 59 of 181 Page: - Page 122 ID#: 1621 59 1 Q. You told them that irrespective of the 2 Supreme Court's decision, your "no marriage license" 3 policy remained in place? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Despite the fact that the preliminary 6 injunction contradicted that? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. When one of the couples was denied a 9 marriage license on Tuesday, you told them that you 10 were denying the marriage license or not issuing them 11 under God's authority? 12 A. That's right. 13 Q. Because to your religious beliefs, God's 14 authority supersedes this Court's authority? 15 A. He supersedes everything, sir. 16 Q. And that includes this Court's authority? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 Q. You interpret the Court's preliminary 19 injunction ruling as contrary to God's will? 20 A. I do. 21 Q. As contrary to God's law? 22 A. I do. 23 Q. As contrary to what you've described as 24 natural law? 25 A. I do. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 60 of 181 Page: - Page 123 ID#: 1622 60 1 Q. But you chose to disobey this Court's 2 order because of your sincerely-held religious 3 beliefs? 4 A. I have. 5 Q. On Tuesday morning, two of the plaintiffs 6 in this case, Dr. April Miller and Karen Roberts, went 7 to your office to get a marriage license, correct? 8 A. They said they were there. 9 didn't see them. I don't -- I That doesn't mean they weren't 10 there. 11 Q. The deputy clerks that were there that day 12 continued to follow your directive of not issuing 13 marriage licenses? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. This may seem like an obvious question, 16 Ms. Davis, but other than your religious beliefs, are 17 there any other reasons why your office cannot issue 18 marriage licenses? 19 A. Not presently, no. 20 Q. Your office was certainly capable of doing 21 so before the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. Your office issued 99 marriage licenses 24 this year alone before that decision was handed down? 25 A. You're correct. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 61 of 181 Page: - Page 124 ID#: 1623 61 1 Q. And issued 214 last year? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. You've got the equipment to issue marriage 4 licenses? 5 A. We do. 6 Q. You've got the personnel? 7 A. I do. 8 Q. So there's nothing physically preventing 9 you from -- or your office, from issuing marriage 10 licenses as to eligible applicants? 11 A. Presently you are correct. 12 Q. Am I correct that you have six deputy 13 clerks? 14 A. There are eight that work in -- or seven 15 that work in my office, and six that are front line -16 five that are front line. 17 Q. And of those, how many are able and 18 qualified to issue marriage licenses? 19 A. The five that work the front line. 20 Q. Those five deputy clerks, when they issue 21 a marriage license, do you physically have to sign or 22 otherwise handle the marriage license application 23 itself? 24 A. No. 25 Q. You've previously indicated that you Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 62 of 181 Page: - Page 125 ID#: 1624 62 1 object to your name as the Rowan County Clerk 2 appearing on those licenses, right? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. If you're not handling or signing the 5 licenses yourself, is your name being populated on 6 those forms by the software? 7 A. It is. 8 Q. Ms. Davis, of course, you're aware that 9 we're here today on plaintiffs' motion to hold you in 10 contempt? 11 A. I am. 12 Q. You are aware that if found in contempt, 13 the Court could impose fines or other relief against 14 you? 15 A. I am. 16 Q. Based on your earlier testimony, am I 17 correct that your religious beliefs have not changed 18 since Tuesday? 19 A. They have not. 20 Q. And you continue to refuse to comply with 21 the Court's preliminary injunction ruling? 22 A. My conscience will not allow me. 23 Q. Ms. Davis, if the Judge were to order the 24 imposition of fines, what's your understanding of who 25 would be responsible for paying those? Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 63 of 181 Page: - Page 126 ID#: 1625 63 MR. GANNAM: 1 Objection, Your Honor. It calls 2 for a legal conclusion from the witness. 3 THE COURT: Overruled. 4 THE WITNESS: 5 THE COURT: That means I have to answer it? You need to answer, ma'am. 6 A. I guess me. 7 Q. In the three weeks since the Court issued 8 its preliminary injunction ruling, have you talked 9 with anyone about obtaining financial assistance to 10 pay for any contempt fines that may result in this 11 case? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Are you aware if anyone has offered or 14 agreed to provide financial assistance to you in the 15 event that you incur contempt fines in this case? 16 A. There's people calling the office all the 17 time wanting to know where we can -- where they can 18 send money. 19 Q. And what do you tell them? 20 A. Send them to my counsel. 21 Q. Liberty Counsel? 22 A. There's funds set up through the Family 23 First Foundation and -- I don't know. People want to 24 set up Go Funds, and I don't know what to tell them. 25 It's not my -- I don't have anything to do with that. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 64 of 181 Page: - Page 127 ID#: 1626 64 THE COURT: 1 Those Go Funds, I've seen those 2 before like for individuals who -- like I know I've 3 had situations where individuals have children who are 4 killed and put money into a bank, and it's raised for 5 funeral expenses, et cetera. Is that kind of what we're talking about 6 7 here, something like that? 8 THE WITNESS: 9 THE COURT: 10 A. Uh-huh (affirmatively), yeah. Okay. I've heard of that before. I, myself, have not solicited any money 11 from anybody. 12 Q. How much money has been raised on your 13 behalf? 14 A. I couldn't tell you. 15 Q. How'd you find out about the efforts to 16 raise money for you? 17 A. People calling, people coming in. 18 Q. Do you expect that the county's insurance 19 carrier would pay any fines associated that you might 20 incur as a result of this contempt hearing? 21 A. No. I was told that KaCO has dropped me 22 like a hot potato. 23 Q. And who told you that? 24 A. County Attorney. 25 Q. Ms. Davis, has there been a change in your Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 65 of 181 Page: - Page 128 ID#: 1627 65 1 staffing since you testified in July within the 2 clerk's office? 3 A. No. I have a little part-time girl I 4 hired to help with the preparation of elections. 5 Q. Did you count her in the total today? 6 A. Let me see, 1, 2, 3 -- 5, 6, 7, and I 7 guess there's eight. But she doesn't wait the front, 8 or she just simply files and helps, but she is a 9 part -- she is a part-time deputy. 10 Q. Thank you. Ms. Davis, as an elected 11 county clerk, your salary is a matter of public 12 record? 13 A. Sure it is. 14 Q. I'm sorry? 15 A. I said, sure it is. 16 Q. You make approximately $80,000 a year? 17 A. About that. 18 Q. Ms. Davis, in your verified complaint in 19 this case, you stated that in order to be -20 THE COURT: Her third-party complaint? 21 MR. SHARP: Yes, sir. 22 THE COURT: All right, sir. 23 Q. In order to be a county clerk, you swore 24 an oath to support the Constitution and laws of the 25 United States and the Commonwealth of Kentucky? Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 66 of 181 Page: - Page 129 ID#: 1628 66 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. You also said that you understood that 3 those oaths meant that you also would uphold the moral 4 law of God? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And natural law? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And your sincerely-held religious beliefs 9 and convictions? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. You decide when your job duties conflict 12 with God's moral law, correct? 13 A. No. It's more like God's moral law 14 convicts me when it conflicts with my job duties. 15 Q. But you were the -- you were the 16 decision-maker about when your job duties conflict 17 with God's moral law? 18 A. My conscience is. 19 Q. And you're also the decision-maker about 20 when your job duties conflict with what you've 21 described as natural law? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. I'm sorry. 24 answer. 25 A. I said yes. We're going to need an audible Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 67 of 181 Page: - Page 130 ID#: 1629 67 THE COURT: 1 If we don't have the air 2 conditioning on in here at all, it's going to get an 3 oven, so everybody has to try to keep their voices up. 4 Thank you. 5 Q. And when, in your judgment, a statute or 6 constitutional provision or job duty conflicts with 7 God's moral law or natural law, God's moral law or 8 natural law trumps, correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. As it did in this instance when your 11 belief about God's law conflicted with the Court's 12 preliminary injunction ruling? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And is it your contention that each and 15 every government employee has the same right that you 16 do? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Regardless of what their religion may be? 19 A. Yes. 20 MR. SHARP: Nothing further, Your Honor. 21 THE COURT: All right. Anything else 22 redirect-wise -- or I didn't ask you. 23 anything? 24 MS. PARSONS: 25 THE COURT: No, Judge. Mr. Vance? Ms. Parsons, Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 68 of 181 Page: - Page 131 ID#: 1630 68 1 MR. VANCE: No, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Mr. Gannam? 3 MR. GANNAM: 4 THE COURT: May I have a moment, Your Honor? Sure. REDIRECT EXAMINATION 5 6 BY: 7 Q. MR. GANNAM: Ms. Davis, does your office receive any 8 money from marriage licenses that your office does not 9 issue? 10 A. No. THE COURT: 11 Now, the testimony at the 12 preliminary injunction hearing was it was just a small 13 amount of her entire budget. I remember we talked 14 about that. 15 MR. GANNAM: 16 THE COURT: It was one-tenth of one percent. Yeah, a very small amount, very 17 small. 18 Q. But just so I'm clear, but if your office 19 isn't issuing a marriage license, it's not receiving 20 any funds from marriage licenses, correct? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. And, Ms. Davis, does any deputy clerk in 23 your office have any authority to issue a marriage 24 license that doesn't come from your authority as the 25 county clerk? Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 69 of 181 Page: - Page 132 ID#: 1631 69 1 A. No, they do not. MR. GANNAM: 2 No further questions, Your 3 Honor. THE COURT: 4 All right. I just have a couple 5 of follow-ups, and I will try to be as specific as I 6 can. Given your testimony today, it's not your 7 8 intention on complying with the Court's August 12th, 9 2015, order which enjoined you from applying your "no 10 marriage license" policy; is that correct? 11 THE WITNESS: 12 THE COURT: Yes? Yes. All right. And have you 13 instructed your deputy clerks not to comply with the 14 order as well? 15 THE WITNESS: 16 THE COURT: 17 well. Yes. All right. You may step down. 18 THE WITNESS: 19 MR. GANNAM: All right. Very Thank you. Thank you. Your Honor, may I have just a 20 brief follow-up on that issue? THE COURT: 21 Sure. I mean, I just asked two 22 questions, so ... REDIRECT EXAMINATION 23 24 BY: 25 Q. MR. GANNAM: Ms. Davis, as the clerk who employed eight Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 70 of 181 Page: - Page 133 ID#: 1632 70 1 employees in your office, do you have an obligation to 2 consider any religious objection that an employee 3 might make to any job duty in your office? 4 A. 5 Yes. MR. GANNAM: No further questions, Your 6 Honor. 7 THE COURT: All right. And you testified 8 previously, ma'am, in July that -- and I have my 9 notes; I know the transcript reflects the actual 10 language that was used, but I didn't realize you had 11 seven or eight. You may have hired someone part time 12 in the interim to help with the elections, as you've 13 stated, but several of the deputies shared your 14 belief, and at least one had indicated that they would 15 issue the licenses if you would allow it; is that 16 still the case? 17 THE WITNESS: 18 THE COURT: It is. All right. 19 You may step down now. Okay. Anything else? Thank you. I don't mean 20 to -- did you have any follow-up? 21 22 Honor. 23 MR. SHARP: No follow-up with her, Your We did intend to call one of the plaintiffs. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. Thank you. 24 Any further proof with respect to the defense of the 25 civil contempt charge here? Mr. Gannam? Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 71 of 181 Page: - Page 134 ID#: 1633 71 1 MR. CHRISTMAN: No, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: 3 MR. CHRISTMAN: 4 THE COURT: Mr. Sharp. 5 MR. SHARP: Thank you, Your Honor. No? No, Your Honor. The 6 plaintiffs call Dr. April Miller. THE COURT: 7 10 Come around, ma'am. [APRIL MILLER, having been first 8 9 That's fine. placed under oath, was examined and testified as follows:] THE COURT: 11 You're welcome to a water, ma'am, 12 if you need it. 13 THE WITNESS: 14 THE COURT: 15 voice up, please. Okay. Thanks. Good catch. Awesome. Try to keep your You may proceed. DIRECT EXAMINATION 16 17 BY: MR. CANON: 18 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Miller. 19 A. Good afternoon. 20 Q. Would you please state your full name for 21 the record. 22 A. April Miller. 23 Q. And, Ms. Miller, do you live in Rowan 24 County? 25 A. I do. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 72 of 181 Page: - Page 135 ID#: 1634 72 1 Q. How long have you lived there? 2 A. Nine years and one month. 3 Q. Do you work in Rowan County? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. What do you do for a living? 6 A. I'm a university professor at Morehead 7 State University. 8 Q. What do you teach? 9 A. My courses are focused on special 10 education, and also some that are relevant for 11 elementary education teachers as well. 12 Q. Very good. And how long have you held 13 that position? 14 A. Nine years. 15 Q. And do you pay taxes in Rowan County? 16 A. I do. 17 Q. And do you vote for elected officials in 18 Rowan County? 19 A. I do. 20 Q. And did you vote in the last county clerk 21 election? 22 A. Yes, I did. 23 Q. Who'd you vote for? 24 A. I actually voted for Kim Davis. 25 Q. Are you currently in a relationship? Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 73 of 181 Page: - Page 136 ID#: 1635 73 1 A. Yes, I am. 2 Q. And can you describe that relationship to 3 the Court. 4 A. It's a long-term, mutually exclusive 5 partnership with Karen Roberts. We've been together 6 as a family for 11 years with our daughter. THE COURT: 7 The record will reflect 8 Ms. Roberts just raised her hand in court. 9 Q. Now you said "long-term," that was -- 10 you've been together for 11 years? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. And you have a daughter together? 13 A. Our daughter is -- biological mother is 14 Karen Roberts. But when we came together as a family 15 in 2000 -- 11 years ago, I accepted both Karen and 16 Jessica into my heart and my home, and we are a 17 family, and I consider Jessica my daughter as much as 18 Karen considers her her daughter. 19 Q. And you've parented Jessica now for 11 20 years approximately? 21 A. Yes. And was a very close friendship for 22 many years before that. 23 Q. And are you engaged to be married to 24 Ms. Roberts? 25 A. I am. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 74 of 181 Page: - Page 137 ID#: 1636 74 1 Q. And when did you become engaged to be 2 married to her? 3 A. Actually, we probably made that commitment 4 to each other in 2000 -- I'm sorry, 11 years ago when 5 in Dallas, Texas, we -- we started living together as 6 a family, and we made a commitment then to eventually 7 get married. 8 Q. And so you've had an approximately 11-year 9 engagement? 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 Q. And so why didn't you get married for that 12 entire 11 years? 13 A. Well, first, we lived in places where 14 marriage equity was not available to us under the 15 Constitution or the state laws. 16 Q. 17 places. 18 A. And you said first you lived in those Explain what you mean by that. That's the number one reason. The second 19 reason is there were other states that were available 20 that were issuing same-sex couples marriage licenses. 21 But when we considered going to another state or 22 another country even, we recognized that our marriage 23 would not be available to us or recognized in many 24 parts of the United States, and specifically in the 25 places that we lived. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 75 of 181 Page: - Page 138 ID#: 1637 75 1 Q. But you know that's different now, right? 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. And why is that; what's your understanding 4 of that? 5 A. On June 26th, the Supreme Court of the 6 United States ruled that there was marriage equity 7 under the Fourteenth Amendment. 8 Q. And tell the Court a little bit about how 9 you felt when that ruling came down. 10 A. 11 country. Elated. We were really proud of our We celebrated, and were very excited that we 12 had now the opportunity across all 50 states to 13 have -- to be married and to have that marriage 14 recognized. 15 Q. And did you make plans to actually get 16 married once that decision came down? 17 A. We didn't make physical plans as in oh, 18 here's our date, or here's our -- we made plans to do 19 it and get married, actually we were thinking about in 20 the summer. 21 Q. And so you've testified previously to this 22 Court about your efforts to get a license in Rowan 23 County? 24 A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). 25 Q. And since the last time you testified, Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 76 of 181 Page: - Page 139 ID#: 1638 76 1 have you made any further efforts to get a marriage 2 license in Rowan County? 3 A. Yes. Our first attempt was June 30th, and 4 we did discuss that in court in hearings previously. The second attempt was August 13th, after a 5 6 preliminary injunction was decided by this Court. The third time we attempted to get a marriage 7 8 license was on September 1st, Tuesday of this week. 9 Q. 10 week. And let's just focus on what happened this Tell the Court what happened when you went up 11 there to get your marriage license. 12 A. Well, actually we came to the courthouse a 13 few minutes before 8:00. We rallied a bit with 14 Supporters of Equality, and we actually sang with -15 along with Kim Davis's supporters, "Amazing Grace." 16 A few minutes passed, and we entered the 17 courthouse after it opened. We went to the counter. 18 We asked for a marriage license. And the clerk that 19 we saw that day said, "We are not issuing marriage 20 licenses pending appeals." 21 We said, "Our understanding was that the 22 appeal on the preliminary injunction had gone through 23 the court system to the Supreme Court, and they had 24 ruled to deny a continuing stay." 25 We asked again, and she said, "We are not Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 77 of 181 Page: - Page 140 ID#: 1639 77 1 issuing marriage licenses pending appeals." We asked to speak with Ms. Davis. 2 We were 3 told that she was working on monthly reports and was 4 not available to speak to us. We commented that we thought this might be a 5 6 more important business matter, and we would like to 7 see Ms. Davis. And we were again refused. 8 "Thank you very much. We said, Have a nice day," turned around 9 and left the courtroom. 10 Q. Did you actually hope that you were going 11 to get your license that day? 12 A. Yes. We were hopeful that we would walk 13 in there and receive a license and sign the 14 information so that we could get married. 15 Q. And I think you testified that it was your 16 understanding that the Supreme Court said no stay, 17 right? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. At that time? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And tell the Court how you felt having 22 been denied a third time on the application for a 23 marriage license. 24 A. Well, each time we entered the -- the 25 county clerk's office to get a marriage license, we Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 78 of 181 Page: - Page 141 ID#: 1640 78 1 had obviously an intent to get married and wanted a 2 marriage license so that we could go get that -- so 3 that we could go get married. When you go into a courthouse to get a 4 5 marriage license, you are -- you have that giddiness 6 of, "We're gonna' get married. 7 it." This is going to be And each time we went there, we were very 8 excited and hopeful. When the Obergefell decision came down, it 9 10 meant that no longer were we -- could we be 11 discriminated against in requesting a marriage 12 license, that we could -- that we could actually get a 13 marriage license. So, yes, every time we've gone in, we've been 14 15 very excited and very hopeful. 16 Q. Do you feel like being able to get married 17 would bring any sort of validity to your relationship, 18 to your family? 19 A. Yeah. That's what marriage is about, to 20 show other people that you are in a long-term, 21 committed relationship, and that it's recognized all 22 across our country, and that you are a family. 23 is -- it's legitimized. It's permanent. This It's a part 24 of who you are. 25 Q. Why is it important to you to get your Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 79 of 181 Page: - Page 142 ID#: 1641 79 1 license in Rowan County? Couldn't you go someplace 2 else? 3 A. 4 there. Well, I live in Rowan County. I own property in Rowan County. 5 Rowan County. I pay taxes I work in In fact, the last nine years that we've 6 lived there, we've done all of our county business in 7 Rowan County. So I expect to get my license there, 8 yes. 9 Q. Safe to say, you're part of a community in 10 Rowan County? 11 A. We are. 12 Q. Do you feel like more or less part of that 13 community if you're not able to get a marriage 14 license? 15 A. Well, for the last two months it's been 16 pretty demoralizing. We really feel like this 17 marginalizes us again. After the Obergefell decision 18 on June 26th, we expected that we were going to be 19 treated equally and fairly. 20 On June 30th, when that first refusal or 21 denial of being allowed a marriage license, that just 22 marginalized us. And actually we were, I believe told 23 to just go to another county by the clerk's office, 24 the clerk that -- or deputy clerk that saw us that 25 day. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 80 of 181 Page: - Page 143 ID#: 1642 80 That's kind of like saying, "We don't want 1 2 gays or lesbians here. 3 valuable. We don't think you're We don't think you're equal. We don't want 4 you here." 5 Q. Are you still planning to get married to 6 Ms. Roberts? 7 A. Oh, yeah. 8 Q. And what's the stat -- how are you 9 planning to do that? What's the status of your 10 marriage plans now? 11 A. Well, right now we're waiting on a 12 marriage license. But Karen and I have rings, we -- 13 we have an officiant for our wedding. We are waiting 14 to find a date, which is dependent on the marriage 15 license, for a venue. We have picked out some 16 catering and flowers, and we've kind of envisioned all 17 of how our party's going to go. 18 Q. But you haven't picked a date yet? 19 A. Can't pick a date. 20 Q. Why not? 21 A. Well, this case has obviously changed our 22 plans for getting married in the summer. And if I 23 pick a date right now, when I am -- when I'm able to 24 get a license in Rowan County, once I get that 25 license, I'll have 30 days. During that 30-day window Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 81 of 181 Page: - Page 144 ID#: 1643 81 1 is when we'll have to get the marriage performed and 2 have our party and do our thing. We're doing it as a legitimate wedding. 3 4 There's nothing else but this party, that we're 5 waiting for our family and friends to come and witness 6 our marriage and enjoy a celebratory party with us. 7 So we can't make an arrangement for it. 8 Q. Safe to assume that you plan on having 9 your wedding here in Rowan County? 10 A. Oh, yeah. Yes, sir. 11 Q. Are you trying to force Ms. Davis to 12 change her beliefs about anything? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Is it your intention to force her to 15 believe anything in particular? 16 A. No. 17 Q. What's the point of this lawsuit? 18 A. I want to get a marriage license. 19 MR. CANON: Nothing further. 20 THE COURT: Any cross? 21 MR. GANNAM: 22 THE COURT: 23 Thank you. No questions, Your Honor. All right. You may step down. Any further proof? 24 MR. SHARP: No, Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: All right. Turn the white noise Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 82 of 181 Page: - Page 145 ID#: 1644 82 1 on, please. 2 [SHORT PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS] 3 THE COURT: Turn that off. 4 All right. I always like to make sure the 5 court reporter has an opportunity for a break. 6 All right. I've read your briefs. 7 all wish to be heard on the motion? Do you And we've already 8 kind of argued the motion itself. 9 MR. SHARP: Your Honor, we think the evidence 10 and the previous argument speaks for themselves. 11 THE COURT: Counsel? 12 MR. CHRISTMAN: Your Honor, we've -- we've 13 asserted additional arguments in the briefing. 14 THE COURT: You have. 15 MR. CHRISTMAN: Just -- if Your Honor would 16 like any further argument on any -- any kind of 17 contempt finding that would be made in this Court, 18 would be subject to the Federal Religious Freedom 19 Restoration Act as well, and which requires this Court 20 to go through the substantial burden analysis, and 21 also find a compelling government interest. But we 22 specifically -23 THE COURT: 24 the prior ruling. 25 Well, and we've addressed that in I understand that. MR. CHRISTMAN: The prior ruling did not Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 83 of 181 Page: - Page 146 ID#: 1645 83 1 address contempt. 2 Now, as a matter of substantial burden, 3 Ms. Davis is being faced with the Hobson's choice of 4 choosing this conscience that is being applied on her 5 and making it factually impossible for her to 6 complying with the Court's order, or dangling out on 7 the other side a potential finding of contempt by this 8 Court, and by any understanding or interpretation of 9 the Supreme Court's precedent on what a substantial 10 burden is, just like heavy fines and heavy penalties 11 for companies that have to provide contraceptive 12 coverage or abortion-related coverage -13 THE COURT: Or any other non -- I mean, 14 there's a lot of other things other than that. 15 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- and any other -- any other 16 government kind of mandate, the choice between 17 contempt and one's conscience is a substantial burden. 18 And as a result of substantial burden, this Court 19 would then also have to find that a compelling 20 government interest has been found. But that's a 21 compelling government interest in forcing the 22 particular religious claimant to violate their 23 sincerely-held beliefs, which there's no dispute 24 Ms. Davis has those beliefs. 25 So this Court would have to find a compelling Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 84 of 181 Page: - Page 147 ID#: 1646 84 1 government interest in forcing Ms. Davis to violate 2 her religious beliefs, and I think that showing has 3 been made. In addition to that -- 4 THE COURT: Thank you. 5 MR. CHRISTMAN: Go ahead. -- I think the Court would 6 have to analyze the case under the least restrictive 7 means. And as we set forth in our briefing, we have 8 parties in this case who have authority to make 9 modifications, make changes that allow the plaintiffs 10 in this case to obtain a marriage license in Rowan 11 County. If that's is what they really desire and 12 really want, they can get licenses elsewhere. But 13 there are means available, alternatives available that 14 they can get a license in Rowan County, and 15 Ms. Davis's conscience can be forever protected and 16 not irreversibly harmed. We've set forth those 17 alternatives for this Court -18 THE COURT: In your response. 19 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- in prior -- in prior 20 briefing. 21 THE COURT: And the prior briefing. But the 22 prior briefing was on the preliminary injunction, 23 correct? 24 MR. CHRISTMAN: 25 THE COURT: Correct. All right. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 85 of 181 Page: - Page 148 ID#: 1647 85 1 MR. CHRISTMAN: 2 alternatives. And we set forth those The power of contempt is a wand that is 3 meant to be waved rarely and -4 THE COURT: Completely agreed. Completely 5 agreed. 6 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- and in this case, all of 7 those alternatives being made available and presented 8 with a party in this case, including Governor Beshear 9 and Commissioner Onkst who are ready, equipped, and 10 available to make these alternatives available because 11 it's a license -- it's a Kentucky marriage license 12 that's requiring Kim Davis personally to authorize 13 that license and affix her name on it. 14 The governor can change that form, make it a 15 state form with no personal authority, no Kim Davis 16 name on it, available in a Rowan County Clerk's 17 office, and this case would be over, Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Is Governor 19 Beshear -- can he do this by executive order? 20 21 order. MR. VANCE: Your Honor, there is no executive In fact, Governor Beshear isn't going to do 22 anything. 23 THE COURT: But is he -- does he have the 24 authority to do that by executive order versus by 25 calling a special session? And I have some Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 86 of 181 Page: - Page 149 ID#: 1648 86 1 familiarity with the requirements of a special 2 session, but I'm just curious. By executive order, I 3 know the president can issue executive orders for a 4 variety of reasons. I'm assuming that the executive 5 of the state would be able to do that on certain 6 things as well. 7 Is this something where he can just change 8 the form by executive order? 9 MR. VANCE: No, Your Honor, because the 10 requirements or the composition of marriage license is 11 dictated by statute, and the governor cannot change 12 the statute. 13 THE COURT: All right. 14 MR. CHRISTMAN: 15 THE COURT: Hold on. 16 MR. SHARP: Thank you, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: -- to Mr. Christman's argument? 18 MR. SHARP: Your Honor, with all due respect Your Honor -How do you respond -- 19 to Ms. Davis, the sincerity with which she believes 20 that issuing these licenses is a substantial burden on 21 her religious belief does not necessarily correlate to 22 a finding of substantiality in this Court. 23 As the Court found, and as the parties 24 briefed in the preliminary injunction ruling itself, 25 in support of the preliminary injunction ruling, the Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 87 of 181 Page: - Page 150 ID#: 1649 87 1 burden, though sincerely held, and to Ms. Davis 2 certainly substantial, is not sufficient for a court 3 of law to find a substantial burden sufficient to 4 justify heightened scrutiny under either Kentucky or 5 federal RFRA standards. As the Court wrote, "The 6 burden on her religious belief is more slight than 7 substantial." 8 THE COURT: 9 disagree with that. Well, and the Sixth Circuit may And you stood up. I'm going to 10 certainly give you every right to be heard, sir. 11 MR. CHRISTMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. With 12 all due respect to counsel, Governor Beshear has 13 already made the change. The form that existed in 14 Kentucky before the Obergefell decision was a form 15 that was designed by the KDLA, and that form would not 16 have prevented the plaintiffs from even obtaining a 17 marriage license because it was tied to gender-based 18 terms. 19 THE COURT: I recall the change. 20 MR. CHRISTMAN: So Governor Beshear then 21 ordered and directed the KDLA to modify the form, and 22 change, very limited fashion, change it to just say 23 "spouse" and take out the gender -24 THE COURT: Right. 25 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- the gender-based terms. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 88 of 181 Page: - Page 151 ID#: 1650 88 1 So Governor Beshear cannot now argue that, "I suddenly 2 don't have authority to modify the form." We're in 3 this courtroom because he modified the form and forces 4 Kim Davis to authorize that license. 5 So he can certainly modify that form with the 6 least restrictive alternative that doesn't place that 7 substantial burden, which my counsel for the 8 plaintiffs, in all due respect, has just conceded is a 9 substantial burden on Ms. Davis. By that 10 concession -11 THE COURT: Did you concede that? 12 MR. SHARP: No, Your Honor. 13 MR. CHRISTMAN: He just said it was sincere. 14 The record will reflect that. 15 THE COURT: 16 -- hold on. Well, it's sincere. I never have I've never found that it wasn't sincere. 17 I've not -- I've never once in this case taken a 18 position that was contrary to her belief. I mean, I 19 -- or stated that it was anything other than genuinely 20 held. 21 I have never said that. MR. CHRISTMAN: Mr. Sharp said it was a 22 sincerely-held religious belief -23 THE COURT: 24 MR. CHRISTMAN: 25 burdens Kim Davis. Well, I previously found that. -- and that substantially Then he said the Court -- the Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 89 of 181 Page: - Page 152 ID#: 1651 89 1 Court has reached a different decision as the 2 substantial burden, but he's admitted that there is a 3 substantial burden -4 THE COURT: Well, my prior order -- I'm not 5 going to repeat what the Court found, and it's law of 6 the case, at least for now, and so -- I understand 7 your argument. He changed it before, why he can't 8 change it now. 9 10 Mr. Vance, how do you respond to that? MR. VANCE: Judge, the form was changed in 11 response to a final decision of the United States 12 Supreme Court that did change marriage in the sense 13 that same-sex marriage was protected by the Fourteenth 14 Amendment, and so the form was modified to reflect 15 compliance of the decision of the United States 16 Supreme Court. 17 The United States Supreme Court disturbed no 18 other portion of Kentucky's marriage laws, so the 19 governor does not have the ability to change those 20 himself because they are in the statute. 21 THE COURT: All right. Well -- I do plan, 22 and I haven't decided if I'm going to enter a written 23 order or not. I probably will enter some sort of 24 written order following up the Court's decision. 25 The Court finds that the plaintiffs have Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 90 of 181 Page: - Page 153 ID#: 1652 90 1 established through not only their filing, but the 2 testimony of Ms. Miller, as well as Ms. Davis's own 3 admissions here this morning and into this afternoon, 4 by clear and convincing evidence that she has and will 5 continue to violate this Court's order requiring that 6 she issue marriage licenses to the plaintiffs in this 7 case. And I'll explain my reasoning, but I want to 8 make sure that the record reflects the Court's 9 decision. 10 The Court also finds that Ms. Davis has 11 failed to establish that she took all reasonable steps 12 within her power factually and otherwise to comply 13 with the Court's order. She says she can't do it 14 because of her religious beliefs; that's her 15 honestly-held religious beliefs. She says she can't 16 do it, but that's not a factual impossibility. 17 Her reasons for non-compliance are simply 18 insufficient to establish that she is presently unable 19 to comply with the Court's order under the Sixth 20 Circuit authority that the Court has reviewed. 21 In the case of In Re Jaques, and it's 22 J-A-Q-U-E-S, 761 F.2d 302 at page 306. 23 decision. It's a 1985 The Sixth Circuit stated that, "A 24 contemnor's intent in disobeying an order is 25 irrelevant to the validity of a civil contempt Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 91 of 181 Page: - Page 154 ID#: 1653 91 1 finding." While it may be relevant to the chosen 2 3 sanction, it's not relevant to the validity of the 4 contempt finding. The Court finds that Ms. Davis is 5 therefore in contempt of this Court's order. Now, the Court doesn't do that lightly, 6 7 ma'am. I don't -- you don't strike me as being 8 someone who's contentious or combative. I simply 9 believe that in making this contempt finding, it's 10 necessary, for a number of reasons that I'll get into. 11 The Court does reject your argument that you 12 are presently unable to comply. The case law 13 discusses the concept of being factually unable to 14 comply where you may not have any control over certain 15 things. There was an example of money in a bank 16 account. 17 That's -- one of the cases discusses that. There's simply no authority that the Court 18 can find for the proposition that "presently unable to 19 comply" includes a situation where someone chooses not 20 to comply because they have religious objections from 21 doing so. 22 This case is not a situation where there is a 23 factual impossibility of complying. In fact, 24 Ms. Davis testified herself that she's not 25 physically -- it's not physically impossible for her Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 92 of 181 Page: - Page 155 ID#: 1654 92 1 to issue the licenses. She's choosing not to do so 2 because of her religious beliefs. 3 Her good faith belief is simply not a viable 4 defense in this civil context proceeding. And the 5 Court cites the Glover V. Johnson case, 934 F.2d 703, 6 at page 708, Sixth Circuit, 1991. 7 The Court must be mindful, especially in 8 cases which have garnered the public's interests, as 9 this one has, in avoiding situations which would cause 10 a proverbial slippery slope. 11 And in making the Court's determination that 12 she's in contempt, I have to be mindful of the fact 13 that whatever the Court does here, it may have a 14 ripple effect on other types of situations. 15 What's to prevent the next person or party 16 from refusing to comply with a lawfully issued order 17 because they personally disagree with it for a variety 18 of reasons, in this case, the reason being her 19 genuinely-held religious beliefs. 20 21 beliefs. I, myself, have generally-held religious I'm sure many of the folks in this courtroom 22 have their own genuinely-held religious beliefs. 23 I took an oath 13-plus years ago. 24 took an oath in January. 25 room took an oath. Ms. Davis Many of the marshals in this Many of the law enforcement Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 93 of 181 Page: - Page 156 ID#: 1655 93 1 officers took an oath. 2 Oaths mean things. I used the example earlier about a Catholic 3 clerk, and I only used that because I'm Catholic, and 4 I generally have an idea of what is in the Catechism, 5 the Second Vatican Council, I have a general idea. 6 went to Catholic high school. I I have some vague 7 familiarity from my prior life of what Catholics 8 believe in. 9 The marriage license forum itself asks 10 questions such as prior marriages. And if a Catholic 11 clerk wouldn't -- didn't want to issue a marriage 12 license to someone who was eligible to marry because 13 they hadn't had their marriage annulled, would that 14 clerk be able to do so? 15 That's just one example. I mean, if I were to agree that someone could 16 have a religious objection to doing this, what's to 17 prevent him or her from doing it in that case? And 18 you can extend this out to other types of situations 19 where it could cause a ripple effect. 20 21 laws. In this country, we live in a society of Our system of justice requires citizens, and 22 significantly our elected officials, to follow orders 23 of the Court. Indeed, the fabric of our judicial 24 branch relies upon that principle practically every 25 day. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 94 of 181 Page: - Page 157 ID#: 1656 94 1 There's a number of other particular 2 arguments in the response that the Court is going to 3 address. 4 Ms. Davis raises the issue of due process, 5 that her due process rights have been violated during 6 these contempt proceedings. 7 opportunity to be heard. She has had notice and an Her constitutional rights 8 have been addressed in the Court's prior decision. 9 There's simply no viable due process argument in the 10 Court's view regarding these civil contempt 11 proceedings. 12 She also argues that criminal contempt 13 proceedings require greater protections. 14 agrees. The Court If this was a criminal contempt proceeding, 15 there would be greater protections. However, this is 16 a civil contempt proceeding, which is designed to 17 coerce or gain compliance with the Court's order. So 18 these added protections that are mentioned in the case 19 law for criminal contempt simply don't apply. 20 She also argues, and Mr. Christman has argued 21 this this afternoon, that any contempt order will 22 substantially burden her religious rights under RFRA. 23 The Court did address her RFRA argument in the prior 24 memorandum, opinion and order. And I may issue a 25 brief order on that particular issue post-hearing. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 95 of 181 Page: - Page 158 ID#: 1657 95 1 But for today's purposes, the Court -- those of you 2 who have read the Court's order know what the Court's 3 prior decision was. 4 The Court found no substantial burden because 5 she is merely certifying that the couple is legally 6 qualified to marry. And frankly, that -- I think when 7 it comes to that particular issue, given the fact that 8 the Circuit language in its order denying the motion 9 to stay was so specific as it relates to her substant 10 -- her ability to prove that she has a likelihood of 11 success on the merits. That order, while it's only an 12 order denying the motion to stay, it is telling us to 13 what the Circuit -- or how the Circuit may view the 14 merit's appeal. 15 Also, the defendant argues that by entering a 16 contempt order, it would be premature and improperly 17 intrusive in the state of affairs. 18 disagrees. The Court It's not premature in the Court's view. 19 This Court and both appellate courts, as everyone 20 knows, both the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the 21 Supreme Court, have upheld the denial of the motion to 22 stay, pending appeal. 23 The Court does have the authority under 24 rule -- not Rule 4, but Section 401 of Title 18 to 25 enforce its lawfully issued orders through this civil Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 96 of 181 Page: - Page 159 ID#: 1658 96 1 contempt proceeding. 2 The defendant argues that it's not a 3 situation to where contempt is warranted because less 4 intrusive alternatives are available. 5 I recognize, and I mentioned this when we 6 first came out earlier this morning, that the 7 legislative and executive branches do have the ability 8 to make changes. 9 to everyone. And those changes may be beneficial Hopefully, changes are made. 10 not this Court's job to make those changes. But it's I don't 11 write law. 12 Now, sometimes district courts are called to 13 rule on things that there aren't any cases or other 14 authority for. 15 slate. They talk about writing on a clean It's a rare opportunity for a court to write 16 on a clean slate. In those situations, the Court 17 occasionally is called upon to interpret what the law 18 is, and that's kind of what this Court is doing here, 19 to a certain extent. 20 These legislative and executive options which 21 have been identified in the response have not yet come 22 to pass, or were previously addressed in the prior 23 memorandum, opinion, and order. This idea that she's 24 absent because she's chosen not to issue these 25 licenses, I previously addressed that. I'm not going Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 97 of 181 Page: - Page 160 ID#: 1659 97 1 to plow that same ground here this afternoon. 2 Civil contempt is the Court's way of 3 compelling or coercing compliance with its orders. If 4 legislative or executive remedies do not -- or do come 5 to fruition, as I stated, better for everyone. 6 However, the Court cannot condone the willful 7 disobedience of its lawfully issued order. To do 8 otherwise, would allow individuals to violate the 9 orders of the Court without any consequences. And the 10 Court simply cannot allow that to occur. 11 I simply think that if you give people the 12 opportunity to choose which orders that they follow, 13 that's what potentially causes problems. Society 14 depends on individuals and entities and parties to 15 follow lawfully issued orders. 16 This idea of natural law superseding this 17 Court's authority. I have no doubt that you believe 18 that, ma'am; I do. I mean, that's your right to 19 believe that. But to allow that to carry the day, if 20 you will, in ruling on this motion simply would be a 21 dangerous precedent, indeed. 22 Regarding the sanction, the case law suggests 23 that we have the least possible sanction considered to 24 coerce compliance with the order. 25 In this case, the Court finds that the Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 98 of 181 Page: - Page 161 ID#: 1660 98 1 requested financial penalties would simply be 2 insufficient to compel her immediate compliance with 3 the order. The probable effectiveness of any financial 4 5 sanction will not bring about the desired result of 6 compliance. 7 don't. I don't say these things lightly; I I have given this case a lot of thought. Each of the judges that have sworn an oath to 8 9 uphold the Constitution and follow the law and not 10 create law, have a handful of cases where what is 11 required that they do may be different than what I 12 think perhaps the Court should do. But 13 years ago, I told senators in 13 14 Washington that I would do what was required to be 15 done. So -- and I brought that up initially because I 16 think it's important for everybody to recognize 17 that -- I mean, I don't hold -- I think I've had two 18 or three times in 13 years where I've actually been 19 asked to hold a party or a person in contempt. 20 the Court doesn't do this lightly. And It's necessary in 21 this case, because to do otherwise, would allow 22 someone to -- who took an oath to follow the law, to 23 kind of pick and choose what orders they want to 24 follow. And that's simply not the way that the court 25 system is set up, nor is it the way that the court Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880DocDocument: #: 78 Filed: 4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 99 of 181 Page: - Page 162 ID#: 1661 99 1 system can operate in a civilized society. 2 And frankly, the judicial branch wouldn't 3 function properly if we allowed individuals to simply 4 decide not to follow orders of the court. 5 In not ordering that a fine be issued, and I 6 know you've requested a fine here. The fact that 7 there's these other funds set up, and I realize the 8 testimony was somewhat vague about that, I'm not 9 convinced that other individuals would pay the 10 penalties if I imposed a fine. 11 So in this particular instance, ma'am, I'm 12 going to order that you be remanded to the custody of 13 the marshal. To gain compliance with the order, I 14 believe it's necessary in this case. So I'm going to 15 order that you be remanded to the custody of the 16 marshal for your refusal to comply with the Court's 17 order. 18 You can purge yourself of that contempt order 19 by indicating compliance. 20 deadline on it. I'm not going to put a If you want to order your clerks to 21 allow the licenses to be issued, you can purge 22 yourself of contempt. 23 So that will be the order of the Court. 24 you'll be remanded to the custody of the marshal, 25 pending your compliance with the Court's order. So Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 100 of 181 Page: - Page 163 ID#: 1662 100 1 Now -- you can go ahead and escort her out. 2 Thank you. 3 THE DEFENDANT: Thank you, Judge. 4 THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am. 5 All right. Before moving on to the deputy 6 clerks, I want to mention that the Court's order dated 7 August 12th, enjoined the defendant, Ms. Davis, in her 8 official capacity from enforcing her policy, which I 9 amended this morning over the plaintiffs' objection. 10 That is a continuing order, unless and until it's set 11 aside by this Court, having a different order or any 12 other reviewing court. 13 So if there's a -- if I'm notified that 14 Ms. Davis has purged herself of the contempt, I can do 15 that. The fact that this contempt hearing was even 16 necessary demonstrates the need for that. 17 All right. As you know from the telephone 18 conference two days ago, I did order the deputy clerks 19 to be present for the hearing today. 20 Rule 65(d)(2)(B) and (C) set forth who was 21 bound by the injunction. And I brought out my statute 22 book -- or my rule book, excuse me. 23 Two, persons -- the order binds only the 24 following who received actual notice of it by personal 25 service or otherwise. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 101 of 181 Page: - Page 164 ID#: 1663 101 1 The parties' -- B., the parties' official's 2 agents, servants, employees. 3 And C., other persons who are in active 4 concert or participation with anyone described in the 5 rule. 6 So she did testify, Ms. Davis, that she 7 instructed the deputy clerks not to issue licenses. 8 So would you concur or disagree with the proposition 9 that under Rule 65(d)(2)(B) and (C), that the deputy 10 clerks are agents or servants or employees of the 11 parties in this case? 12 MR. GANNAM: Your Honor, the deputy clerks -- 13 THE COURT: You don't represent them? 14 MR. GANNAM: We do not, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: 16 MR. GANNAM: Okay. And I would simply assert that 17 they have a right to be heard in this case. 18 THE COURT: They do. They do. 19 going to take up that in a second. And we're But do you wish -- 20 you both stood up immediately, and I want to give you 21 an opportunity to be heard. 22 MR. CHRISTMAN: Your Honor, before we move on 23 to the deputies and whatever the Court has in mind, 24 we'd ask that your finding of contempt, that you would 25 certify that finding and ruling for immediate appeal Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 102 of 181 Page: - Page 165 ID#: 1664 102 1 to the Sixth Circuit under 1291. 2 THE COURT: Well, I'll take that up in a 3 moment. I'm not going to do that right now because I 4 have some other matters I need to take up first. 5 MR. CHRISTMAN: And in addition to that, we 6 would ask that you would -- upon certifying it, if you 7 grant that motion, then you would also stay any 8 enforcement for sanction from the contempt to allow 9 Ms. Davis to seek emergency relief from the Sixth 10 Circuit from this very weighty ruling from the Court 11 that is different and substantial in terms of 12 affecting her individual rights. 13 THE COURT: 14 important ruling. Well, I recognize it's an I do. I do. I certainly haven't 15 made the decision lightly, Mr. Christman. 16 MR. CHRISTMAN: And given that, Your Honor, 17 we would ask that you would allow immediate appeal of 18 that ruling and a stay of any enforcement of any 19 sanction from which the Court has just ordered. 20 THE COURT: So your oral motion is to certify 21 the issue for immediate appeal. Because a contempt 22 order is ordinarily not something like the preliminary 23 injunction was entered, you had an appeal of right. 24 You don't have an appeal of right on a contempt order. 25 And you recognize that it needs -- it needs to be Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 103 of 181 Page: - Page 166 ID#: 1665 103 1 certified. 2 MR. CHRISTMAN: There are exceptions to the 3 1291 ruling, the Collateral Order Doctrine in 4 particular that can be raised. But to expedite the 5 appeal process, given the weightiness and significance 6 of this Court's ruling today, we would ask for that 7 emergent -- that certification to short-circuit our 8 ability to file that appeal in the Sixth Circuit, 9 because the Court's order today is tied to the 10 merits of -11 THE COURT: Well, I agree with that. 12 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- the preliminary injunction 13 that had been taken up. 14 THE COURT: So I'm just trying to make sure 15 since we'll have the minutes of this proceeding -- and 16 frankly, just before I forget. Madam Clerk, when 17 you're doing the minutes -18 DEPUTY CLERK: 19 THE COURT: Yes, sir. -- the plaintiffs' motion, it's 20 67, to hold Ms. Davis in contempt was granted for the 21 reasons set forth on the record. I'm likely going to 22 supplement with that with perhaps a brief follow-up 23 memorandum order on part of the reasoning that I 24 wanted to kind of -- I may want to supplement that, 25 and I'll do that relatively quickly. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 104 of 181 Page: - Page 167 ID#: 1666 104 The minutes will also reflect that you're 1 2 orally moving for the Court to certify the issue 3 regarding the granting of the motion for contempt, and 4 also orally moving to have that order stayed pending 5 appeal. 6 MR. CHRISTMAN: 7 THE COURT: That's correct, Your Honor. Okay. All right. We'll make 8 sure the record reflects that. Do you want to file a written response to 9 10 that? MR. SHARP: 11 I mean, we object, Your Honor. 12 I mean, we -- THE COURT: 13 14 that. I know you object. I understand I'll just -- I'll just submit that. 15 I know I could probably have a 30-page motion 16 with a memoranda filed by this afternoon by, I guess, 17 other Liberty Counsel who aren't in court, but I -18 MR. CHRISTMAN: Your Honor, with all due 19 respect, we could not get more emergent than the 20 circumstances that have happened, so we -21 THE COURT: Well, I understand that. 22 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- would ask for a ruling on 23 that motion. 24 25 denied. THE COURT: Okay. That motion will be Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 105 of 181 Page: - Page 168 ID#: 1667 105 1 MR. SHARP: Your Honor, thank you. 2 THE COURT: That motion will be denied. 3 Now, the motion to stay will be denied, and 4 the motion to -- to --- the certification motion will 5 be denied as well. 6 MR. CHRISTMAN: In -- in light of that, Your 7 Honor, then alternatively, we would move that you 8 would suspend any sentence until the legislature meets 9 and has an opportunity to revise the Kentucky marriage 10 licensing scheme and permit Kim Davis to be taken out 11 of the custody until the legislature has a chance to 12 address the entire Kentucky marriage licensing scheme. 13 THE COURT: That motion will be denied as 14 well. 15 This case, at its core, is about individuals 16 following the Court's order, and that's -- the Court 17 previously found that she had not, and the Court 18 certainly didn't make its decision lightly. 19 Okay. Given that Ms. Davis and her deputies 20 did discuss, and she, in fact, did indicate that she 21 had instructed her deputies not to issue the marriage 22 licenses, the Court has chosen to ask several 23 court-appointed counsel who are members of the Federal 24 Public Defender list here in Ashland to advise the 25 deputies. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 106 of 181 Page: - Page 169 ID#: 1668 106 1 And I don't know who the deputies are. Up to 2 this point, they've just been deputies of Kim Davis. 3 So what I'm going to need to do is I have -- and what 4 we did, I just had the clerk call the six panel 5 attorneys who would otherwise be appointed to 6 represent individuals who may have -- may be subject 7 to being in contempt themselves. 8 So if you're one of the deputy clerks -- 9 there were eight identified, but I only called six 10 attorneys because -- the individuals who are 11 front-line deputies, I don't know who you are, if you 12 would all would stand. I mean, if you're one of the 13 five. 14 Okay. All right. There were six. But if 15 you would just first of all identify yourself, sir. 16 MR. DAVIS: Nathaniel Ray Davis. 17 THE COURT: Nathaniel Davis? 18 MR. DAVIS: Yes. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 21 MS. PLANK: Kristie Plank. 22 THE COURT: What's your last name? 23 MS. PLANK: Plank, P-L-A-N-K. 24 THE COURT: Plank, P-L-A-N-K? 25 MS. PLANK: Uh-huh (affirmatively). All right. And you, 20 ma'am? Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 107 of 181 Page: - Page 170 ID#: 1669 107 1 THE COURT: All right. 2 MR. MASON: Brian Mason. 3 THE COURT: B-R-Y-A-N? 4 MR. MASON: B-R-I-A-N. 5 THE COURT: Okay. 6 MR. MASON: Yes, M-A-S-O-N. 7 THE COURT: -- like the county? 8 MR. MASON: M-A-S-O-N. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 MS. RUSSELL: 11 THE COURT: Sir? Mason -- You, ma'am? Kim Russell. Kim Russell, common spelling last 12 name, like the county here? 13 MS. RUSSELL: 14 THE COURT: 15 MS. RUSSELL: 16 THE COURT: R-U-S-S-E-L-L. All right. Kim, K-I-M? Yes. All right. And what's your name, 17 ma'am? 18 MS. THOMPSON: 19 THE COURT: 20 MS. THOMPSON: 21 THE COURT: Melissa Thompson. Melissa Thompson? Uh-huh (affirmatively). Okay. Now, what I'm going to do, 22 in the order in which Kelly, the clerk, yesterday gave 23 me the list in order. I'm assuming the list she gave 24 me was just the order in which they'd be -- they would 25 have been called? Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 108 of 181 Page: - Page 171 ID#: 1670 108 1 DEPUTY CLERK: 2 THE COURT: Yes. All right. Mr. Davis, I'm going 3 to have you meet with Mike Campbell. He's a member of 4 the federal public defender list here in Ashland. 5 Ms. Plank, I'm going to have you meet with 6 Michael Fox. 7 Brian Mason, the Court is going to -- and I'm 8 going to appoint each of you to represent each of 9 the -- because you are -- each of you are non-parties 10 to this litigation. But because of the way the rule 11 reads, you could potentially be held in contempt 12 yourselves because you're acting as her agent. That's 13 why the Court felt it was important to have you talk 14 to counsel. Liberty Counsel represent Ms. Davis, not 15 each of you. 16 So, Mr. Mason, you'll be meeting with 17 Mr. Hughes. 18 Mr. Joy. Ms. Russell, you'll be meeting with And, Ms. Thompson, you'll be meeting with 19 Mr. Markelonis. 20 Mr. Clark, I thought there were six clerks. 21 MR. CLARK: That's fine, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: I apologize for having you here. 23 All right. 24 MS. EARLEY: Judge, as Barry said, I'm a 25 non-issuing marriage license -- I'm not -- the Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 109 of 181 Page: - Page 172 ID#: 1671 109 1 department I work in does not issue marriage licenses, 2 but I am one of the deputies. 3 THE COURT: But are you eligible to issue the 4 licenses, though? 5 MS. EARLEY: 6 do not do it now. 7 As a deputy, I would assume. I It's not part of my department. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I -- just out of an 8 abundance of caution then, ma'am, I'm going to have 9 Jeremy Clark, a member of the public defender list, 10 appointed to represent you. 11 MS. EARLEY: 12 THE COURT: Okay. What we're going to do -- I know 13 we have a large contingency of folks here today. And 14 this courtroom and courthouse is somewhat small. So 15 rather than clear the courtroom, I'm going to give 16 each of you 30 minutes. 17 We'll come back at 1:45. Each of you can meet with each of your 18 respective lawyers. And what I'm going to in essence 19 be asking, the Court could find that one or more of 20 you would be in contempt of the order as a non-party 21 pursuant to the rule I previously stated, and the 22 sanction for such finding could include fines and/or 23 imprisonment. The Court has asked each of these 24 public defenders to advise you of your rights. 25 So after having the opportunity to meet with Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 110 of 181 Page: - Page 173 ID#: 1672 110 1 counsel, I'm going to be asking each of you, after a 2 brief recess, whether or not you intend on complying 3 with the Court's order requiring you to issue marriage 4 licenses from the plaintiffs in this case, or any 5 other individuals who are legally eligible to marry. 6 So, Mr. Marshal, if you could -- I know 7 there's several jury rooms. 8 suite in the back. There's the grand jury There's a jury room back here in 9 chambers. 10 I'm, of course, not going to be party to any 11 of this. I'm just trying to get -- if you could find 12 six different places for them to meet -13 DEPUTY MARSHAL: 14 THE COURT: 15 attorneys. Yes, Your Honor. -- with their respective And we'll make sure that each of you are 16 appointed to represent each of these particular 17 deputies. 18 So we'll allow that to occur. We'll come 19 back in at 1:45. 20 MR. CHRISTMAN: Your Honor, if I could -- if 21 I could make an objection. 22 THE COURT: What -- what's your objection to? 23 MR. CHRISTMAN: That all of these deputies 24 can only issue marriage licenses based upon the 25 authority of Kim Davis, and Kim Davis has not given Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 111 of 181 Page: - Page 174 ID#: 1673 111 1 them that authority. 2 So the one deputy clerk has -- who has said 3 she cannot issue licenses, it's not in her department, 4 that applies to all of the deputy clerks because none 5 of the deputy clerks can issue a marriage license 6 bearing Kim Davis's name and on her authorization 7 because she has not given that authorization. 8 THE COURT: 9 overruled. Well, your objection's noted and I'm going to have them talk to these 10 lawyers. 11 MR. CHRISTMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: 13 [RECESS - 1:13 - 1:51 p.m.] 14 [IN OPEN COURT] 15 THE COURT: We'll be in recess until 1:45. All right. Before we took our 16 recess, I had appointed CJA panel attorneys to the six 17 deputies. 18 And I apologize, what was your name, ma'am? 19 MS. EARLEY: 20 THE COURT: 21 MS. EARLEY: 22 THE COURT: 23 MS. EARLEY: Earley, E-A-R-L-E-Y 24 THE COURT: Is that E -- E-A-R-L? 25 MS. EARLEY: Mine? Yes. Roberta Earley. Earley? E-A-R-L-E-Y. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 112 of 181 Page: - Page 175 ID#: 1674 112 1 THE COURT: Okay. All right. And I had 2 appointed counsel for the six deputies so that they 3 could advise them of their rights. 4 And before we broke, and I apologize, I had 5 been citing to Rule 62. It's actually Rule 65(d)(2). 6 That was my error. 7 I mentioned earlier, I'm -- my eyes aren't as 8 good as they used to be, so I was just -- I had the 9 wrong rule regarding whether or not agents or 10 employees are bound by a prior injunction order, and 11 that rule will stand for that proposition. 12 And there was an issue that you had raised, 13 Mr. Christman, about they only act at her behest, and, 14 therefore, they can't do something without her 15 authority. 16 I have found earlier that she is in contempt 17 of the Court's order. And, of course, you disagree 18 with that, and I recognize that, because she's not 19 complying with the order. 20 If she instructs the deputies to not comply 21 with the order, how is that different than from, like, 22 for instance, a biracial couple comes in, and she 23 says, "Don't issue the license."? Or a completely 24 African-American couple comes in and she says, "Don't 25 issue the license."? If it's an unlawful order, do Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 113 of 181 Page: - Page 176 ID#: 1675 113 1 they have to -- do they have to -- do they have to 2 follow it? 3 MR. CHRISTMAN: Which lawful order -- the 4 lawful order -5 THE COURT: Well, either one. I mean, giving 6 those examples, let's say, for instance, Ms. Davis 7 gave an order to her clerks -- and I'm not saying that 8 she would ever do this -- but hypothetically, a 9 biracial couple comes in, "Don't issue the order." Of 10 course, Loving V. Virginia, and we're not going to get 11 into the details, but, I mean, that's -- obviously, 12 that would be an unlawful order. Would they have to 13 follow it, even if they -- gosh, I don't think that's 14 right, but if that's an unlawful order, do the 15 deputies have to follow it? 16 MR. CHRISTMAN: Well, their authorization 17 under Kentucky statute comes from -18 THE COURT: What statute? 19 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- the county clerk. The 20 chapter for marriage laws is 402, and -21 THE COURT: What chapter governs what the 22 deputy clerks have to do? 23 MR. CHRISTMAN: Well, the statute that was in 24 place before Obergefell, 402.100, and -25 THE COURT: What does that say the deputy Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 114 of 181 Page: - Page 177 ID#: 1676 114 1 clerks have to do? 2 MR. CHRISTMAN: Well, that -- that statute is 3 the one that says the authorization statement is from 4 the county clerk, which hasn't been given, and also -5 THE COURT: Well, I'm holding that she's in 6 violation of the Court's order by not authorizing it. 7 MR. CHRISTMAN: That -- that is what you held 8 -9 10 THE COURT: Correct. MR. CHRISTMAN: -- but their authority comes 11 from her, not from you. 12 THE COURT: Well, if they follow her 13 authority and her authority's in contempt, why can't 14 they be held in contempt as agents or employees of 15 hers? 16 MR. CHRISTMAN: Because the only authority 17 they can give is from her. This Court doesn't have 18 authority to rewrite Kentucky marriage statutes. 19 THE COURT: Okay. So I can't -- so taking 20 that to its logical conclusion, though, if someone -21 an employer tells an employee to do something, and 22 they -- just general agency principals, if they're an 23 agent, why, under Rule 65(d)(2)(B), shouldn't they be 24 bound by the Court's preliminary injunction? 25 MR. CHRISTMAN: Well, because here, the Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 115 of 181 Page: - Page 178 ID#: 1677 115 1 employer has told the employee, "You don't have my 2 authority to issue it." 3 4 that? 5 THE COURT: You're -- Are they able to do it without Let's say one of them -MR. CHRISTMAN: The analogy you're creating 6 is you're inserting yourself as the employer and the 7 authorizing agent and issuer of the marriage license. 8 THE COURT: Okay. If I told them they can't 9 do it, but a court says they have to, they still -10 you're saying they can't do it because she said they 11 couldn't? 12 MR. CHRISTMAN: Because their authority -- 13 because at that point then, you're raising 14 implications and issues with respect to what the 15 Kentucky marriage law and the marriage licensing 16 scheme, which again, has been completely overwritten, 17 but those aspects that are being -- are trying to be 18 applied, that authority comes exclusively from the 19 county clerk. That's the -- that's the core issue 20 here. 21 THE COURT: All right. 22 your response to this? Mr. Sharp, what's They're arguing, in essence -- 23 and correct me if I'm wrong, because I want to make 24 sure that we get it right -- because the clerk is not 25 authorizing them to issue the licenses, and she Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 116 of 181 Page: - Page 179 ID#: 1678 116 1 testified this morning that she's very plainly, 2 candidly, and I certainly appreciate that, that she 3 told them that, "We are not issuing licenses pending 4 appeal," I think is what she said. 5 MR. SHARP: We think the Court's absolutely 6 correct as far as there is a valid court order 7 preliminarily enjoining Ms. Davis in her official 8 capacity from enforcing the "no marriage license" 9 policy. 10 To the extent her employees continue to 11 adhere to enforcement of what this Court has enjoined, 12 then we think 65(d)(2)(B) would in fact be implicated, 13 and, you know, their ability to be held in contempt, 14 even as a non-party, would be at play. 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 Ms. Parsons, Mr. Watkins. Let me ask you, What the Court does -- I 17 recognize that what the Court does here potentially 18 impacts the services, et cetera, provided by the 19 clerk's office of Rowan County. Do you all take a 20 position on the applicability of Rule 65(d)(2)(B) as 21 it relates to the deputies? 22 MR. WATKINS: Judge, I -- I think they can 23 issue them in her absence at that point because 24 they're -- they're acting in concert as -- as the 25 clerk. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 117 of 181 Page: - Page 180 ID#: 1679 117 1 If -- if what they say is true, she's allowed 2 to pick the religious beliefs of her deputy clerks, 3 and everybody knows that's -- that's illegal. 4 THE COURT: Ms. Parsons? So -- so it's the 5 position of the county attorney, sir, that they can 6 issue the licenses in her absence? 7 MR. WATKINS: 8 THE COURT: 9 MS. PARSONS: 10 THE COURT: Absolutely. All right. Ms. Parsons? I have the same position. All right. All right. Let me 11 now turn to the actual individuals in play here and -12 I can't remember who was appointed to represent who, 13 so maybe you all can help me. 14 I'll start with you, Mr. Campbell. 15 MR. CAMPBELL: I was appointed to represent 16 Mr. Davis. 17 THE COURT: All right, sir. Did you have an 18 opportunity to talk to him in the interim? 19 MR. CAMPBELL: 20 THE COURT: I did, Your Honor. All right. Did you explain to 21 him the potential consequences of compliance with the 22 Court's order? 23 MR. CAMPBELL: 24 THE COURT: I did. All right. 25 meet with Mr. Campbell, sir? Mr. Davis, did you Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 118 of 181 Page: - Page 181 ID#: 1680 118 1 MR. DAVIS: I did, sir. 2 THE COURT: Okay. And I take it -- and I 3 don't think the record really reflects this, so I'll 4 just ask. I mean, Kim Davis is your mother; is that 5 right? 6 MR. DAVIS: She is my mother, sir, yes. 7 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Again, we go 8 back to what's of the public domain and what's 9 actually of record domain, and I wanted to make sure 10 that reflects that. 11 Mr. Campbell? MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, that's his mother, Your 12 Honor. 13 THE COURT: All right. Okay. 14 ask you all collectively something. I'm going to Thank you. 15 Mr. Fox, who were you appointed for? 16 MR. FOX: Yes, Your Honor. I represent 17 Ms. Plank. 18 THE COURT: Ms. Plank? 19 MS. PLANK: Yes. 20 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fox, did you have 21 an opportunity to talk to Ms. Plank about the 22 potential consequences of compliance with the Court's 23 order? 24 MR. FOX: I did, Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: All right. Ms. Plank, did you Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 119 of 181 Page: - Page 182 ID#: 1681 119 1 talk to Mr. Fox about that? 2 MS. PLANK: I did. 3 THE COURT: Okay. 4 MR. JOY: 5 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Joy? Yes, sir. Let me make a note here. 6 Campbell, Fox. 7 MR. JOY: I have Ms. Russell, Judge. 8 THE COURT: 9 In the interim during the recess, Mr. Joy, Ms. Russell? All right. 10 did you have an opportunity to talk to Ms. Russell? 11 MR. JOY: I did, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: And did you explain to her the 13 potential consequences of a contempt finding? 14 MR. JOY: I did, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: All right. Ms. Russell, is that 16 accurate; did you speak with Mr. Joy? 17 MS. PLANK: I did. 18 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. 19 Mr. Hughes, you have Mr. Mason? 20 MR. HUGHES: 21 THE COURT: Yes, sir, I do. All right. Mr. Hughes, did you 22 have an opportunity to discuss with Mr. Mason the 23 contempt proceedings and the possibilities and the 24 possible consequences for not complying with the 25 Court's order? Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 120 of 181 Page: - Page 183 ID#: 1682 120 1 MR. HUGHES: 2 THE COURT: Yes, I did. All right. Mr. Mason, did you 3 have a chance to talk to him about that? 4 MR. MASON: Yes, Judge. 5 THE COURT: Okay. 6 who's left? And Mr. -- Mr. Markelonis, you have Ms. Thompson? 7 MR. MARKELONIS: 8 THE COURT: 9 questions. Thank you. Yes, sir, I did. And, Mr. Markelonis, the same Did you have a chance to talk to her about 10 the contempt proceedings and the potential 11 consequences of non-compliance with the Court's order? 12 MR. MARKELONIS: 13 THE COURT: I did, Judge. All right. Ms. Thompson, did you 14 speak with Mr. Markelonis about that? 15 MS. THOMPSON: 16 THE COURT: I did, Judge. Okay. Thank you. And, 17 Ms. Earley, you met with Mr. Clark; is that right? 18 MS. THOMPSON: 19 THE COURT: I did. Mr. Clark, did you explain to her 20 the potential consequences of non-compliance with the 21 Court's order? 22 MR. CLARK: I did, Your Honor. 23 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Earley, did you speak 24 to him about that? 25 MS. EARLEY: I did. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 121 of 181 Page: - Page 184 ID#: 1683 121 1 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Now, up to 2 this point, the record does not reflect which deputy 3 the individual plaintiffs may have spoken with on 4 prior occasions. 5 I know since the order denying the motion to 6 stay was entered by the Supreme Court, which was 7 Monday of this week, which was I think approximately 8 7:00 on Monday night, the 31st, I don't know who 9 Ms. Miller met with; she may remember which one. 10 But the important thing for the Court at this 11 point is to see if any of the deputies would be 12 intending on complying with the Court's order, the 13 preliminary injunction order which has enjoined 14 Ms. Davis from enforcing her "no marriage license" 15 policy to the plaintiffs in this case or to any other 16 individuals who were legally eligible to marry. 17 I guess we'll just start with each of you in 18 the order in which I addressed you earlier. 19 MR. HUGHES: 20 THE COURT: 21 MR. HUGHES: Judge, if I may -Yes. -- save that trouble. Mr. Mason 22 was the one that had discussed that with Ms. Davis, 23 and he'd already indicated to her that he would issue 24 those licenses, if he were allowed to do so. 25 He has indicated to me that he will comply Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 122 of 181 Page: - Page 185 ID#: 1684 122 1 with this Court's order to do that. 2 some practical problems. But there are One, he doesn't even have a 3 key to get in the offices. That can probably be 4 overcome. The second is the concern that was raised by 5 6 honorable counsel here involving the state statutes 7 and what authority they have if in fact Ms. Davis is 8 still saying that she does not give them the 9 authority. So he -- that may be an issue that has to be 10 11 addressed somewhere outside this Court. Perhaps this 12 Court can answer his question, but he wants you to 13 know that he intends to comply with this Court's 14 ruling and issue the licenses. THE COURT: 15 16 sorry. Mr. Davis -- or, Mr. Mason? I'm Yes, if you'd come around, please, with 17 Mr. Hughes. I'm going to go ahead and place you under 18 19 oath. 20 Madam Clerk, if you would place Mr. Davis 21 under oath, please. Sorry, Mr. Mason. 22 have Mr. Davis first on the list. I'm sorry. Mr. Mason, I 23 apologize, sir. 24 25 [BRIAN MASON, having been first placed under oath, was examined and responded as I Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 123 of 181 Page: - Page 186 ID#: 1685 123 1 follows:] 2 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Mason, do you 3 intend on complying with this Court's order which 4 previously enjoined Ms. Davis from enforcing her "no 5 marriage license" policy? 6 MR. MASON: I advised her that -- and she 7 knew that I was willing to issue those from the 8 beginning, but I did not want to go against her 9 wishes. But, you know, I can't go to jail or be fined 10 either. 11 THE COURT: How long -- how long have you 12 been a deputy? 13 MR. MASON: I started working there in 14 January of 2014. 15 THE COURT: Okay. So you started a year 16 before she became -17 MR. MASON: Yes. 18 THE COURT: You worked for her mother? 19 MR. MASON: Yes. Ms. Bailey. 20 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So you are not 21 going to follow her -- well, put it this way. You've 22 told me that you are willing to comply with the 23 Court's order requiring you to issue marriage licenses 24 to the plaintiffs in this case or any other 25 individuals who are legally eligible to marry; is that Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 124 of 181 Page: - Page 187 ID#: 1686 124 1 right? 2 MR. MASON: Yes. 3 THE COURT: All right. Now, by doing so, and 4 I bring this up because I mentioned earlier, that this 5 Court has an ongoing -- thank you, sir. You -- you 6 may step back -- this Court has an ongoing interest in 7 ensuring that its orders are complied with. And what 8 I want to avoid is a situation where someone issues a 9 license, something occurs with that individual, we're 10 right back here next week, and we have a proverbial 11 ping-pong match going forward. 12 And I have always been, since the very 13 beginning of this filing when the case was reassigned 14 to me, interested in trying to see if we could get 15 some sort of resolution, and there has been -- at 16 every turn, the parties have been at odds. 17 And I say the "parties." 18 parties. You all are not The six of you all are non-parties. 19 not sued in this action. You are But each of you are 20 employees or agents of Ms. Davis, and I previously 21 found her to be in contempt. 22 for that. Now, I gave my reasons I probably am going to follow up with a 23 brief written order to supplement part of the prior 24 oral findings. 25 But if -- if Mr. -- I simply don't think in Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 125 of 181 Page: - Page 188 ID#: 1687 125 1 the Court's view that telling someone to not comply 2 with a lawful order is something that a clerk, or 3 anyone else who takes an oath to uphold the law, is 4 able to do. 5 MR. JOY: Your Honor, may I? 6 THE COURT: 7 MR. JOY: Yes, sir. Mr. Joy? Your Honor, I think you addressed 8 an issue earlier, but I think you kind of glanced over 9 that. I think I feel the need to -- to bring that 10 back up. You addressed agency principal earlier. 11 THE COURT: 12 MR. JOY: Right. Under an agency principal, an agent 13 is able to -- well, consent can be withdrawn at a 14 certain time. And I think we have an issue here, I 15 think, if you -- and you also spoke of a ping-pong 16 match next week coming right back to you. I think if 17 you -- you are entering a valid order -- you are -18 THE COURT: I -- I believe it to be a valid 19 order. 20 MR. JOY: Right. 21 THE COURT: The Circuit may disagree. But 22 the language the Circuit used in their stay order kind 23 of tells me that they very well may not disagree. 24 MR. JOY: Correct. And in looking at all of 25 that, I still don't think the statute under 402.100 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 126 of 181 Page: - Page 189 ID#: 1688 126 1 necessarily gives, under agency theory, the permission 2 for either Mr. Mason, or my client, Ms. Russell, to 3 issue a valid marriage license. They could issue you 4 a license. I think that's the Now, is that valid? 5 million dollar question that needs to be answered at 6 some point. I don't think that question's being asked 7 of us here today, but I just wanted to bring that to 8 the Court's attention. 9 THE COURT: So you believe that if he issued 10 the license without her authority, it would be an 11 invalid license? 12 MR. JOY: Absolutely. 13 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sharp -- usually 14 the -- the only time that would come up perhaps would 15 be if there was a divorce, we were never married, or 16 some contention later. 17 Mr. Sharp, what's your position on the 18 validity of the license, if it's issued without her 19 authority? 20 Do you take a position on that? MR. SHARP: Well, I mean, we think that she 21 cannot condition her authority on an unlawful act, 22 and -- which is what she has -- what counsel seems to 23 be alluding to the fact that if she is withholding or 24 may withhold her permission to issue licenses based on 25 illegal conduct as far as -- Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 127 of 181 Page: - Page 190 ID#: 1689 127 1 2 illegal. THE COURT: Well, I didn't find it to be I found that it was in violation of the 3 Court's order. 4 MR. SHARP: Contemptuous conduct, correct. 5 We don't think her authority extends that far, insofar 6 as the office, apart from Kim Davis, exists to perform 7 certain public functions. Kim Davis does not have to 8 personally touch every marriage license. She employs 9 people for the purpose of carrying out the duties of 10 that office. 11 To the extent Kim Davis has an erroneous 12 instruction of her ability to block them from doing 13 that, that, nonetheless, does not mean that they 14 cannot perform those functions. 15 THE COURT: 16 deputy clerk. Well, the form says the clerk or It does bear her name. 17 going to plow that ground again. And we're not I previously found 18 that really the clerk is performing a ministerial task 19 verifying that the person is otherwise legally 20 eligible to marry, and I'm not going to rehash that. 21 The prior Court's order speaks for itself. 22 This individual has -- Mr. Mason has 23 indicated that he will issue the licenses. 24 Now, I don't think it's necessary at this 25 point, given your statement to me here under oath, Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 128 of 181 Page: - Page 191 ID#: 1690 128 1 that you would issue the licenses, for me to ask each 2 of the others if they're going to follow the order or 3 not. 4 Because by doing that -- yes, sir? MR. HUGHES: I don't want to put Mr. Mason in 5 the position, and he had a valid concern, and I 6 certainly don't want to put the others in that 7 position because there's a -- obviously, a least 8 restrictive way to go ahead involving these licenses. 9 His concern is, is that you heard her use the 10 term "front-line, five people," and that basically 11 means he's going to be the only one -- not that 12 there's that many people that will be applying, but 13 with the publicity of this case, I wouldn't be 14 surprised if they come from all over. But the point 15 is, is that he's going to be -16 THE COURT: And unfortunately, I can't 17 control that. 18 MR. HUGHES: 19 THE COURT: I know you can't. This case has been tried -- not 20 tried -- both sides have been equally -- "guilty" has 21 a bad context -- participance, equal participance in 22 making this a very public -- and the issues are 23 weighty issues; no question, but making it far more 24 public than it perhaps would otherwise be. 25 And I don't want to put anybody in a bad Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 129 of 181 Page: - Page 192 ID#: 1691 129 1 situation; I don't. It's not the way the Court 2 operates. 3 MR. HUGHES: He recognizes that. He just -- 4 it's probable that there may be some others that also 5 agree to comply. 6 But the point is, is that if we would stop it 7 at this point, as understandable as that is, he faces 8 singular ostracism from the public. 9 10 right. THE COURT: I appreciate that, and you're That's a good point. That's a good point. 11 Because what -- the Court's whole goal here -- it's 12 not the Court's goal ever to hold anyone in contempt 13 for violating an order. 14 mention it again. I mentioned earlier, I'll I mean, there's very little law 15 because most individuals comply. 16 If someone is willing to comply, and most of 17 the -- well, it seems as if there have been situations 18 where other clerks who may have religious objections 19 have allowed other deputies to issue licenses for him 20 or her to enable the Supreme Court's Obergefell's 21 decision to be implemented, and this individual's 22 willing to do that. 23 Okay. I will proceed. Thank you. 24 all -- you can step back, Mr. Mason. 25 Mr. Davis -- You Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 130 of 181 Page: - Page 193 ID#: 1692 130 1 MR. CAMPBELL: Judge, why don't we ask how 2 many other compliers we've got before we get to 3 Mr. Davis. If we have two or three other clerks that 4 also will comply, I might want to be last in line. 5 THE COURT: Well, I can recognize that. 6 mean, I -- we all love our parents. I I mean, that's 7 not a -- well, we -- most of us love our parents. 8 Perhaps there may be reasons why we may not in an 9 individual case or two. 10 Any other defense attorneys after speaking 11 with their respective clients that I appointed 12 indicate that they would be willing to issue the 13 licenses? 14 Mr. Markelonis? 15 MR. MARKELONIS: Judge, if we can approach 16 the podium. 17 THE COURT: Sure. Come around. And this is 18 Ms. Thompson? 19 MS. THOMPSON: Yes. 20 MR. MARKELONIS: 21 THE COURT: Yes, sir. All right. Ms. Thompson, if you 22 would swear her, please, under oath. Thank you. 23 [MELISSA THOMPSON, having been first 24 placed under oath, was examined and responded 25 as follows:] Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 131 of 181 Page: - Page 194 ID#: 1693 131 1 THE COURT: And I understand that this may be 2 difficult for all of you. And I -- and I, on behalf 3 of the Court, had never intended on any of these 4 proceedings to put any of you in harm's way or make 5 you uncomfortable with anything. Because frankly, we 6 were just talking about this during the break. I 7 mean, the most difficult cases are the hardest ones, 8 and they're hard for a variety of reasons. Legally 9 perhaps, emotionally perhaps, factually -- and I've 10 not been to Morehead recently. I understand what's 11 occurring almost on a daily basis there. 12 that go to Morehead State. I know folks We have jurors from Rowan 13 County who come up here and serve. 14 So I want you all to know that the Court has 15 tried to shepherd this case through the court, at 16 least here in the district court level, in a way that 17 enables the issues to be raised and adjudicated as 18 promptly as possible, while making sure that each of 19 your individual circumstances are taken care of. 20 Now, you really haven't -- you've all been 21 behind the -- we talk about "behind the curtain." I 22 mean, you've been behind the desk for a long -- for 23 the whole time. And unfortunately, based upon the 24 actions here, I've had to summons you each to court. 25 So I just felt -- I saw you getting ready to Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 132 of 181 Page: - Page 195 ID#: 1694 132 1 tear up and I wanted you -- I wanted to address that 2 to you because I don't like to make anybody cry; I 3 don't. 4 that. I don't think the Court would ever want to do I don't think these lawyers would ever want to 5 do that. They have issues they want to raise, both 6 sides do. 7 8 times. I've said it once, I'll say it a thousand We -- we can have all our individual 9 disagreements as citizens of the United States. But 10 here in the United States, we resolve those in a way 11 that are -- we peacefully have disobedience, we 12 peacefully protest, we expect at the end of the day 13 for the Court's orders to be complied with, and that's 14 how things work here in America. 15 So, Ms. -- did you place her under oath? I'm 16 sorry. 17 DEPUTY CLERK: Yes, I did. 18 THE COURT: 19 MR. MARKELONIS: 20 THE COURT: 21 MR. MARKELONIS: Okay. Judge, if I could? Yes. I spoke at some length, like 22 the other lawyers, with Ms. Thompson. I would say 23 that she's uniquely situated here. 24 Before going to work at the county clerk's 25 office, she worked for Judge Mains, the circuit judge Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 133 of 181 Page: - Page 196 ID#: 1695 133 1 there, for some time as his secretary. 2 THE COURT: Is he still the circuit judge 3 there? 4 MR. MARKELONIS: No. He's been retired for a 5 while. 6 THE COURT: That's what I thought. That's 7 what I thought. 8 MR. MARKELONIS: But I think she's probably 9 maybe uniquely qualified among the deputies to 10 appreciate judges who want their orders complied with. 11 THE COURT: Well, I think any judge would 12 expect, not want, expect the orders to be complied 13 with. 14 15 Judge. MR. MARKELONIS: And she understands that, She's wrestled with this. But she indicated 16 to me that she's willing to comply with the Court's 17 order. She has her own personal feelings about the 18 issue, like all the other persons in here. But she's 19 indicated to me that she'll comply with the Court's 20 order and do what she has to do. 21 THE COURT: All right. So, Ms. Thompson, how 22 long have you been employed with the clerk's office? 23 MS. THOMPSON: I was there almost 13 years, 24 and then I left and I came back, so probably about 15, 25 16 years. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 134 of 181 Page: - Page 197 ID#: 1696 134 1 THE COURT: Okay. So you left there to go 2 work for the circuit judge? 3 MS. THOMPSON: I worked for Judge Mains about 4 a year-and-a-half. 5 THE COURT: Okay. And then you came back? 6 So I worked for Ms. Davis's mother as well? 7 MS. THOMPSON: 8 THE COURT: 9 MS. THOMPSON: 10 THE COURT: I worked for Ms. Bailey, yes. It was Ms. Bailey? Uh-huh, Jean Bailey. Okay. Okay. Are you willing to 11 comply with this Court's order requiring that marriage 12 licenses be issued to the plaintiffs in this case or 13 any other individuals who are legally eligible to 14 marry in Kentucky? 15 MS. THOMPSON: Yes, Your Honor. I don't 16 really want to, but I will comply with the law. I'm a 17 preacher's daughter, and this is the hardest thing 18 I've ever done in my life -19 THE COURT: Well, we all have things we 20 don't -21 MS. THOMPSON: 22 THE COURT: -- but I will comply. -- we don't want to do. Now, 23 I've been very careful in this case -24 MS. THOMPSON: 25 THE COURT: I don't hate anyone at all. Well, I don't believe Ms. Davis Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 135 of 181 Page: - Page 198 ID#: 1697 135 1 does. 2 MS. THOMPSON: 3 THE COURT: None of us hate -- The rhetoric that goes on outside 4 the courtroom -5 MS. THOMPSON: None of us hate anybody. It's 6 just hard. 7 THE COURT: No one does. I appreciate that; 8 I really do. 9 It's always folks that aren't involved that 10 speak the loudest because they want -- they don't -11 they sometimes don't have all the information and they 12 -- someone sends an email and says, "Look what's going 13 on in Kentucky. 14 We need to be heard and --" I mentioned the 2,000 calls. 15 folks for calling. I don't blame I think every judge in America 16 isn't going to be swayed by calls like that. 17 That's -- the public interest is important, 18 clearly. I appreciate that. 19 hesitation. And I appreciate your I think in a very real way, you're likely 20 like many of the individuals in this courtroom. Both 21 sides -- there's strong views on both sides, no 22 question. 23 It's not my job to tell five Supreme Court 24 Justices that they're wrong. The Supreme Court is 25 able to revisit their decisions, but it's the Supreme Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 136 of 181 Page: - Page 199 ID#: 1698 136 1 Court that does that. 2 So this issue that's been raised -- I mean, 3 he doesn't have a key, Mr. Mason. I mean, I don't 4 know -- Mr. Watkins, you're the county attorney. Are 5 you in the building -6 MR. WATKINS: 7 THE COURT: Yes, sir. -- where the county -- the 8 clerks' office is? 9 MR. WATKINS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Usually 10 when they go to the clerk's office and it doesn't work 11 out, they end up in my office, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Okay. Well, will you -- and I 13 don't know who -- is there a chief deputy? I know 14 everybody -- sometimes you have a -- someone who's a 15 chief -16 MR. WATKINS: 17 MS. EARLEY: 18 THE COURT: 19 MS. EARLEY: 20 THE COURT: There is. Roberta Earley. You're the chief deputy? I am. Okay. I think, and if necessary, 21 I'll eventually get to you. 22 candor, ma'am; I do. Roberta Earley. But I appreciate your Thank you. 23 If you'd step back. And now, Mr. Fox? 24 MS. PLANK: Ms. Plank. 25 THE COURT: Ms. Plank, come around, ma'am. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 137 of 181 Page: - Page 200 ID#: 1699 137 All right. 1 If you would be sworn. Thank 2 you. [KRISTIE PLANK, having been first 3 4 placed under oath, was examined and responded 5 as follows:] 6 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Plank, the Court has 7 asked Ms. Thompson and Mr. Mason about the prior 8 order. You're aware of the Court's prior order 9 requiring that Ms. Davis no longer enforce her "no 10 marriage license" policy? 11 MS. PLANK: Yes, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Okay. Have you -- and you've 13 spoken with Mr. Fox about the potential consequences 14 of not complying with that? 15 MS. PLANK: Yes. 16 THE COURT: All right. 17 MR. FOX: 18 quite length. Mr. Fox? Yes, Your Honor. We did speak at And Ms. Plank presents a situation that 19 I predicted to Mr. Campbell this morning when we 20 talked about this case that would be present, which is 21 that -22 THE COURT: 23 MR. FOX: 24 THE COURT: 25 the air on, so ... Be what? That -If you'd try to -- be -- we have Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 138 of 181 Page: - Page 201 ID#: 1700 138 1 MR. FOX: I'm sorry. 2 THE COURT: 3 MR. FOX: Go ahead, sir. Ms. Plank's situation's one that I 4 predicted, Your Honor. 5 11-year-old child. She is a mother of an She and her husband work hard to 6 keep up and make ends meet. 7 She's in a situation where she has personal 8 convictions, just like, as you've indicated, most 9 people in this courtroom, but she also has financial 10 obligations. 11 her child. She has a duty to her child, to care for And she has struggled and is struggling 12 with the idea of balancing convictions with 13 obligations, family and otherwise. 14 THE COURT: I think that's something 15 everyone's doing. 16 MR. FOX: So our discussion primarily for the 17 half-hour that we met was about those convictions and 18 the balancing, and ultimately a choice of lesser of 19 evils. And I think but for some of the these other 20 obligations and responsibilities that she has, her 21 response to you today would be different. 22 are real world issues. But these And there are two things that 23 she wanted me to talk about. 24 One, she wanted it to be clear that she had 25 personal opinions and beliefs that are contrary to Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 139 of 181 Page: - Page 202 ID#: 1701 139 1 what is expected of her in her job. But she respects 2 the Court, and she recognizes that she's under an 3 obligation under Rule 65 that you discussed, that the 4 orders that apply to Ms. Davis also would apply to her 5 as an employee of Ms. Davis, and I believe she will 6 tell you that she will comply with your order. 7 She was quite articulate in explaining to me 8 and us discussing this issue of whether she has the 9 authority to do that. And while I was back there -- 10 and fortunately, recent court orders allow us to bring 11 these devices into the courthouse -- and 402.080, KRS 12 402.080 says that, "No marriage shall be solemnized 13 without a license therefor. The license shall be 14 issued by the clerk of the county." 15 She believes, and I don't know that she's 16 wrong, that the authority is with the clerk. And if 17 the clerk hasn't given her authority, then she 18 probably doesn't have authority. 19 However, our discussion wasn't about whether 20 she has authority to issue a license. Our discussion 21 was about whether she was obligated to follow your 22 order to do so. And she recognizes that she does have 23 that -- or that she is under your authority to issue a 24 license. 25 THE COURT: She appreciates the authority of Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 140 of 181 Page: - Page 203 ID#: 1702 140 1 the Court? 2 MR. FOX: That's right. That's right. And 3 whether -- as Mr. Joy and I've discussed -- whether 4 that license, when issued by her or Mr. Mason, or 5 anyone else, which is done without being given 6 authority by Ms. Davis, whether that's valid or not, 7 that's, I guess, going to be up to the plaintiffs to 8 find out. 9 But her final concern is this, and this 10 was -- this is almost an emphatic concern. Her duties 11 within the clerk's office are primarily to deal with 12 automobile dealers. 13 Rowan County. 14 There are about 30 of them in This is a large -- THE COURT: So she does -- she does like 15 licensing of autos? 16 MR. FOX: Licensing, the title transfers, and 17 all the things that go along with that. 18 THE COURT: And I know that line is always 19 the longest when you go to the clerk's office. 20 MR. FOX: That line's the longest. And 21 that's her primary duty. 22 She has been directed as an administrative 23 issue within the office, when the dealers come in, 24 take care of the dealers. And she's been concerned, 25 and asked me several times in different ways, "That Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 141 of 181 Page: - Page 204 ID#: 1703 141 1 that's my job, is to deal with the motor vehicle 2 licensing. If there's no else that can issue other 3 types of licenses or do other things, then yes, I'm a 4 deputy clerk and I'll do what I'm told. But I'm also 5 told to take care of the dealers and those things 6 first because that's my primary responsibility." 7 THE COURT: Right. And you were told that, 8 ma'am, by Ms. Davis to take care of those folks, 9 right? 10 MS. PLANK: Yes, sir. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 MR. FOX: Okay. So I've tried to allay her concerns 13 that if it occurs that, for example, Mr. Mason's 14 unavailable or if he's out sick, and she's the person 15 that's there who can issue a license, a marriage 16 license, she should do her job as she normally does 17 and take care of the dealers, and then take care of 18 marriage licenses, because that's what she's done for 19 the entire time that she's worked in the clerk's 20 office. 21 MS. PLANK: Well, in the last year. We 22 changed that last year. 23 MR. FOX: So that's -- that's been a concern. 24 She doesn't want to be accused of being in contempt 25 when she's following administrative practices in the Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 142 of 181 Page: - Page 205 ID#: 1704 142 1 office. 2 THE COURT: Understood. Understood. All 3 right. 4 Ma'am, I appreciate your attorney's comments 5 about his discussions with you and your concerns. All 6 the concerns he just raised, do you share those, 7 ma'am? 8 MR. CHRISTMAN: Your Honor, I'm sorry to 9 object, but I'm not sure she's been sworn in. 10 DEPUTY CLERK: 11 THE COURT: Yes, she was. Oh, I hadn't -- I swore her 12 earlier. 13 MR. CHRISTMAN: 14 THE COURT: 15 heads-up. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Your Honor. I appreciate the I did do that; did I not, Madam Clerk? 16 DEPUTY CLERK: 17 THE COURT: Yes, you did. Okay. Thank you. So setting 18 aside for the moment the discussion of whether or not, 19 without the authority of the clerk, you have the 20 ability to issue those marriage licenses, I mean, 21 would you or are you willing to comply with the 22 Court's order requiring you to issue marriage licenses 23 to the plaintiffs in this case or any other 24 individuals who are legally eligible to marry in 25 Kentucky? Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 143 of 181 Page: - Page 206 ID#: 1705 143 1 MS. PLANK: Yes. 2 THE COURT: What was that? 3 MS. PLANK: Yes. 4 THE COURT: Yes? 5 you. Okay. All right. Thank All right. 6 MR. HUGHES: 7 THE COURT: 8 MR. HUGHES: Judge, if I may -Yes, sir. -- just briefly. I know you 9 have others, but on behalf of Mr. Mason, some of the 10 things we discussed was -- and I want to make it clear 11 from the decision that he's made as well. 12 One, if you consider that -- that Ms. Davis 13 is incapacitated at this point, and I think 14 incarceration probably qualifies for that, and not a 15 person that dies, leaves office, resigns, or just 16 incapacitated, there has to be some method to transfer 17 the authority or the power to other people to keep 18 operating the office. 19 THE COURT: Well, you know what? It's -- 20 it's an interesting point you raise, and it wasn't my 21 case. I think it was Judge Van Tatenhove's case. 22 former judge/executive in Knott County. The I'm not going 23 to ask either of you to identify where Knott County 24 was, but some of the other Kentucky lawyers may 25 remember -- I think his name was Thompson. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 144 of 181 Page: - Page 207 ID#: 1706 144 1 MR. WATKINS: 2 THE COURT: 3 MR. WATKINS: 4 THE COURT: Randy. Is that correct? Randy Thompson. Randy Thompson, yes. He was the 5 county judge after being convicted of, I think it was 6 a vote-buying case. It's been a few years ago, and it 7 wasn't my case, so again, I don't follow it 8 completely, but he actually ran the county from jail, 9 at least allegedly, for a while. 10 MR. FOX: That's correct. 11 THE COURT: So -- if there is, and perhaps 12 there might be some mechanism that would allow for 13 that. 14 I don't know. MR. HUGHES: Well, I say that, Judge, and 15 just coincidentally, the clerk in Boyd County is 16 retiring. In fact, she retired Monday. She resigned 17 her office. 18 The office is open and it can't be filled 19 until a person that's going to be appointed has to 20 take the test during the vacancy. You can't take it 21 just in advance, believe it or not. You have to take 22 it during -- so the office then does not have a clerk. 23 So what they've done is they simply bring a 24 clerk from another county over. I mean, that's the 25 position that they've always done when clerks resign Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 145 of 181 Page: - Page 208 ID#: 1707 145 1 or they're incapacitated. I don't know that applies 2 to this case, but -3 THE COURT: Well, and I don't know if they 4 brought another clerk over from another county to do 5 that here, I mean, whose authority would that be 6 issued under? 7 MR. HUGHES: I mean, I don't know the answer. 8 I just know that -- I just to want to make the point 9 that Mr. Mason is in -- is in the same -- the same 10 glass globe that everybody is that's going to be 11 looking at it. 12 He wants to comply with your orders. Now, how they work this out in Rowan County 13 or Franklin County, or wherever it has to go, will be 14 their -- their issue. But -- but his consensus is 15 that he's going to comply with your orders, unless 16 someone stops him otherwise from doing it. 17 The second thing is, is it's long standing 18 law in divorce cases, that that's what they're worried 19 about, is that even if there's a mistake made 20 somewhere along the line, if the parties thought they 21 were getting married, they're considered married. 22 THE COURT: Like common law -- common law 23 marriage. 24 MR. HUGHES: And I don't know about the other 25 issues that may arise, but -- but at least for that Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 146 of 181 Page: - Page 209 ID#: 1708 146 1 purpose they are. 2 THE COURT: Well, most people when they get 3 married don't expect to get divorced. 4 MR. CHRISTMAN: Your Honor, I'd -- I'd just 5 like to make two remarks in response to the comments. 6 THE COURT: Sure, just two. 7 MR. CHRISTMAN: Go ahead. Thank you, Your Honor. The 8 first would be this gentleman has referred to another 9 county -10 THE COURT: Mr. Hughes? 11 MR. CHRISTMAN: Mr. Hughes. I'm sorry. I 12 didn't remember your name -13 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. I just wanted to 14 make sure you were ref -15 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- immediately. But the -- 16 he just suggested that other county clerks can come in 17 and issue licenses. 18 19 not. 20 THE COURT: I don't know if that's true or That would be a least alternative. MR. HUGHES: I'm just saying that they do it 21 real commonly when they transfer authority. 22 THE COURT: 23 MR. HUGHES: When authority's transferred? Yes. And I don't know -- you 24 know, there's not that many clerks that probably this 25 issue comes up on a regular basis or to challenge. I Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 147 of 181 Page: - Page 210 ID#: 1709 147 1 just know that it has been policy in the past, and 2 I've been at this 40 years now, that whenever clerks 3 leave their offices, for whatever, there is a gap 4 there and that is -- that's commonly how it's taken 5 care of so that the public offices continue. 6 THE COURT: All right. 7 MR. CHRISTMAN: And I would just raise that 8 that's exactly one of the least restrictive 9 alternatives that we've proposed. That if somebody 10 wanted to get a license in Rowan County issued by the 11 county clerk, they could get it from another county 12 authorizing that. 13 THE COURT: Recognizing -- sure. 14 MR. CHRISTMAN: And there's been testimony 15 being raised previously that 402.240 is a statute 16 discussing absence of a county clerk. And there's 17 been discussions now, you know, with Ms. Davis 18 incapacitated and incarcerated, Kentucky marriage law 19 provides, as we argued before, that her conscience 20 provides the absence. And certainly in the Kentucky 21 -22 THE COURT: Well, I found previously that the 23 -- hold on -- I found previously that the conscience 24 doesn't provide the absence for purposes of absence in 25 the prior ruling. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 148 of 181 Page: - Page 211 ID#: 1710 148 1 MR. CHRISTMAN: But Kentucky marriage law 2 provides the outlet for -- the answer for when the 3 county clerk is absent and unable to authorize a 4 license isn't to change Kentucky marriage law and make 5 the deputy county clerk the authorizing agent. What 6 that does is turn Judge Blevins into the authority 7 under that section when the clerk is absent to -8 THE COURT: But it would still be issued 9 under her authorization. 10 MR. CHRISTMAN: 11 THE COURT: No. The form would be under her name, 12 though. 13 MR. CHRISTMAN: No. The statute provides 14 that when the clerk is absent, that the marriage 15 licenses be issued by the county judge/executive on a 16 memorandum. 17 As Judge Blevins testified, he'd -- he had 18 never done it before, but under the facts and 19 circumstances here, Kim Davis is currently now 20 rendered absent. 21 The authority -- there is no authority for 22 the deputy clerks. Kentucky marriage law then says 23 that authority vests into the county judge/executive 24 to issue a marriage memorandum. 25 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Watkins? Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 149 of 181 Page: - Page 212 ID#: 1711 149 1 MR. WATKINS: 2 inaccurate statement. Judge, I think he just said an It -- it allows him. 3 "may issue a license." It says There's no requirement there 4 for a judge/executive to ever issue a license. 5 THE COURT: All right. Well, ultimately 6 here, if I were to follow your argument, 7 Mr. Christman, to its logical conclusion by -- it 8 would enable her to be found in contempt, but then get 9 what she wants, doesn't it strike you as a little 10 disingenuous? 11 MR. CHRISTMAN: In terms of get what she 12 wants? 13 THE COURT: Well, she wants the -- you argued 14 initially that she wants the judge/executive to do it 15 as a least restrictive alternative. 16 He can issue it. I previously found that her religious 17 objection doesn't allow her to be absent. You're 18 saying now she's been locked up for violating my 19 order. "She's now absent, actually absent, Judge. 20 They can go to the county judge." 21 argued before. That's what you It seems like I would be rewarding her 22 for her contemptuous behavior by allowing the judge to 23 do it. 24 Clear those up for me. MR. CHRISTMAN: No. The Court -- the Court 25 would simply be -- the Court made its determination on Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 150 of 181 Page: - Page 213 ID#: 1712 150 1 what the word "absent" meant in the statute under the 2 facts and circumstances that were presented before the 3 Court then. 4 THE COURT: Correct. 5 MR. CHRISTMAN: The facts and circumstances 6 are different now, so the Court makes an 7 interpretation of what the word "absent" means. Is 8 Kim Davis currently absent from issuing marriage 9 licenses? 10 THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Then when is she 11 then purged of her contempt? 12 MR. CHRISTMAN: Well, she's purged of her 13 contempt when, at this point, we're left to file 14 certain writs in order to have her released from the 15 custody that she is in, and the merits of her claims 16 are challenged and taken up on appeal, and she 17 prevails on the merits of her appeal, which have not 18 been addressed. 19 THE COURT: No, the merits have not. The 20 likelihood of success has been addressed. 21 MR. CHRISTMAN: And that was likelihood of 22 success in her capacity -- in her official capacity to 23 which the appeal was taken, she has raised those 24 individual claims against the governor and for any 25 liability that she may have -- Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 151 of 181 Page: - Page 214 ID#: 1713 151 1 THE COURT: Those are not on appeal right 2 now. 3 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- and they have not been 4 taken up, which is again, further, why our due process 5 concerns as to the judgments and determinations that 6 are being taken here. She's now been sent into 7 confinement -- as Your Honor said, the purpose of 8 contempt is to coerce the contemnor into compliance. 9 10 THE COURT: Correct. MR. CHRISTMAN: Now, in addition and well 11 beyond that, the Court is now deciding, after putting 12 Kim Davis in imprisonment for civil contempt of an 13 order, the Court is now stepping in, short of the 14 merits being fully decided, and saying, "I'm going to 15 now order others without the authority, without the 16 merits of her appeal being taken up to do an act that 17 she cannot do." 18 situation. It is literally the analogous And physically -- we've now moved to the 19 point where if she's in contempt, as you've found, and 20 now a marriage license that she says she gives no 21 authority to and is challenging on the merits of 22 appeal, you force that license to go out on her 23 authority and on her name, you have forced the nurse 24 to -25 THE COURT: Forced the who? Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 152 of 181 Page: - Page 215 ID#: 1714 152 1 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- perform the abortion. You 2 have forced -3 THE COURT: 4 analogy? 5 Why do we always use that There's so many others to use. MR. CHRISTMAN: Because those are the 6 analogies in which religious conscience claims have 7 been raised in cases, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Well, you've -- you've 9 represented other parties other than religious cases, 10 have you? 11 MR. CHRISTMAN: I've -- I've represented 12 other people who are religious, yes. 13 THE COURT: Well, or non-religious. I mean, 14 I think ... 15 MR. CHRISTMAN: And I have plenty of years of 16 representing non-religious people as well. 17 THE COURT: Well, I know that. I know that. 18 I would just prefer a different analogy; that's all. 19 I understand your analogy, though. 20 MR. CHRISTMAN: But the analogies are in the 21 context of religious conscience to understand that she 22 has -- you have found her in contempt -23 THE COURT: I have. 24 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- for a conscience claim 25 that you didn't accept, that conscience claim, the Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 153 of 181 Page: - Page 216 ID#: 1715 153 1 merits of which are being challenged on appeal and 2 have not been finally decided by a court of final 3 appeal. 4 And so you told her that she has an 5 opportunity to purge her contempt if she -- if she 6 authorizes and issues the license. So her ability to 7 purge the contempt, her -- again, the purpose of 8 contempt is to coerce the contemnor into compliance. 9 You've told her what that is. 10 If it -- if the hearing is now going to turn 11 into "let's find somebody to issue the license with 12 Kim Davis's name on it and her authority," then what 13 the Court is now doing is turning Kim Davis's sanction 14 into a criminal punishment for what -15 THE COURT: No. 16 MR. CHRISTMAN: I'm not doing that. -- she's done. You're taking 17 the extra step of forcing the conscientious objector 18 to actually have the act that they object to performed 19 before the merits of that have been decided. 20 If the Judge -- if this Court decides that 21 it's going to find somebody else to issue a license, 22 then -23 THE COURT: Well, I'm not finding anyone. 24 I'm just asking if they're willing to comply with the 25 order. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 154 of 181 Page: - Page 217 ID#: 1716 154 1 MR. CHRISTMAN: Then the authority for that 2 marriage license is not Kim Davis. 3 THE COURT: It's -- Well, it very well may not be 4 her. 5 MR. CHRISTMAN: -- it's this Court. And our 6 position would be -- and -7 THE COURT: Well, it's not this Court; it's 8 the Rowan County Clerk's office. 9 MR. CHRISTMAN: But go ahead. No, because Rowan County 10 Clerk's office authority is Kim -- is Kim Davis, and 11 Kim Davis is not giving that authority. 12 So if marriage licenses are issued, those 13 marriage licenses -- if Judge Blevins is not willing 14 to exercise the opportunity he now has to issue the 15 marriage licenses that he said he would issue, then 16 this Court becomes the authorizing and issuing agent. 17 And for any of those marriage licenses, the 18 authorization statement should come from this Court, 19 and the authorization agent should be United States 20 District Court Judge David Bunning -21 THE COURT: All right. 22 MR. CHRISTMAN: 23 THE COURT: Thank you. -- not Kim Davis. You wanted to say something, 24 Ms. Parsons? 25 MS. PARSONS: No. I -- I just agree with Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 155 of 181 Page: - Page 218 ID#: 1717 155 1 Mr. Watkins's point. 2 absence. We don't believe that this is an We believe it is a -- if a religious 3 conscience objection does not qualify as an absence, 4 we don't understand how incarceration caused by that 5 objection and refusal to comply with your order 6 constitutes an absence. 7 THE COURT: All right. 8 MS. PARSONS: We also believe that the deputy 9 clerks' willingness to issue the licenses removes that 10 absent issue entirely under KRS 402.240. 11 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Vance, Mr. Sharp, 12 do you all wish to be heard on this, this issue of 13 authorization and -14 MR. VANCE: No, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: No? 16 MR. SHARP: No. Your Honor, we agree with 17 the county. 18 THE COURT: All right. Well, I take it, 19 Mr. Davis, Ms. Russell, Ms. Earley, you've all spoken 20 with your attorneys? 21 MR. DAVIS: 22 MS. RUSSELL: Yes. 23 MS. EARLEY: 24 THE COURT: 25 here and here. Yes. Yes. Where are we? Okay. We're here and Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 156 of 181 Page: - Page 219 ID#: 1718 156 1 MS. EARLEY: Yes. 2 THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask the attorneys 3 who represent you. 4 Mr. Campbell, Mr. Joy and Mr. -- 5 MR. CLARK: Clark. 6 THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Clark. I'm sorry. I 7 was looking here and not who was standing. 8 I take it after you speaking with your 9 respective clients, the answers that were given by the 10 other deputy clerks, is it safe to assume that they 11 would be different with your clients? 12 MR. JOY: Did you say they'd be different? 13 THE COURT: 14 MR. JOY: Different answers. Your Honor, I don't -- I don't 15 think that would be accurate. I think they would be 16 pretty similar, at least from my client. 17 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Clark? 18 MR. CLARK: Your Honor, my client has been 19 unable to give me her answer at this point. 20 THE COURT: All right. 21 MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Campbell? Same as Mr. Clark's. We don't 22 have an answer for the Court at this point. 23 THE COURT: All right. Well, I think it's -- 24 for completeness sake, I think -- and I am -- in 25 response to what Mr. Christman said, the Court is Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 157 of 181 Page: - Page 220 ID#: 1719 157 1 trying to gain compliance with its order. 2 I -- less than an hour-and-a-half ago, I made 3 the difficult decision to incarcerate Ms. Davis for 4 being in civil contempt of the Court's prior order. 5 This Court recognizes that she has raised issues that 6 are currently on appeal. 7 I read Rule 65(d)(2)(B) to cover the deputies 8 because they are employees of the clerk's office, and, 9 therefore, they are bound by the same order that 10 Ms. Davis is bound by. 11 I'm not authorizing the issuance of the 12 licenses on the authority of this Court. I'm trying 13 to gain compliance with the Court's order. 14 I think whenever any judge -- or whenever any 15 judge issues an order, he or she expects the party who 16 is subject to that order to comply or any agents or 17 employees that are otherwise bound by that order these 18 deputies under 65(d)(2)(B) to comply as well. 19 We'll go ahead and -- Mr. Joy, and, 20 Ms. Earley, if you'd come around. 21 Mr. Clark. 22 I'm sorry. I was -- come around. [ROBERTA EARLEY, having been first 23 placed under oath, was examined and responded 24 as follows:] 25 THE COURT: Okay. Now, Ms. Earley, I know Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 158 of 181 Page: - Page 221 ID#: 1720 158 1 your individual situation is a little bit different in 2 that earlier you told me, or someone represented that 3 you are -- you're the chief deputy, though? 4 MS. EARLEY: 5 THE COURT: I am the chief deputy, yes. Okay. But you're not really a -- 6 is it true that you're not like one of the front-line 7 folks? 8 MS. EARLEY: I don't work on the front line. 9 I work back in the legal department. 10 THE COURT: 11 MS. EARLEY: 12 THE COURT: 13 MS. EARLEY: Okay. The legal department? Uh-huh (affirmatively). So do you work with -Recording, and work -- assist 14 the attorneys, yes. 15 THE COURT: Okay. So when the attorneys come 16 in and ask for help -17 MS. EARLEY: 18 THE COURT: 19 MS. EARLEY: 20 THE COURT: Right. -- they are pointed toward you? Right. Now, how long have you been with 21 the clerk's office? 22 MS. EARLEY: 23 THE COURT: I've been there 16 years. Sixteen (16) years. 24 you worked for Ms. Bailey as well then? 25 MS. EARLEY: I did. Okay. So Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 159 of 181 Page: - Page 222 ID#: 1721 159 1 THE COURT: Okay. Are you willing to comply 2 with the Court's order requiring the issuance of 3 marriage licenses to the plaintiffs in this case or 4 any other individuals who are legally eligible to 5 marry in Kentucky? 6 MR. CLARK: Judge, if I could briefly respond 7 for her on that. 8 THE COURT: Yes. 9 MR. CLARK: In discussions with her, 10 obviously, she hasn't issued marriage licenses in 11 years -12 THE COURT: Well, she'd been there 16 years, 13 so, right. 14 MR. CLARK: Yeah. Her concern at this point 15 is obviously -- it's kind of a short period of time. 16 I don't know that she expected this to be thrust upon 17 her in this circumstance like this today. 18 THE COURT: And I -- again, I'm not going to 19 apologize for everyone here. I'm just -- the docket 20 is what it is and we're trying to get to a resolution. 21 MR. CLARK: No. I understand that, Your 22 Honor, and she does as well. I guess what we would 23 request is -- or what she was asking for was maybe 24 some more time to think about it. 25 -- I've explained to Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 160 of 181 Page: - Page 223 ID#: 1722 160 MS. EARLEY: 1 Get a game plan together, 2 uh-huh. 3 MR. CLARK: Yeah. I've explained to her 4 what, in effect, the consequences of the Court's order 5 of not following that order, and she's well aware of 6 that. And she's also well aware of the arguments 7 that, I think, Ms. Davis's counsel has made. And she 8 does have some differing viewpoints. 9 THE COURT: When you say "differing," there's 10 lots of different viewpoints. 11 MR. CLARK: Yes. 12 THE COURT: Some of them have been made 13 available here today. And there's also ones that 14 remain in each of our hearts. 15 MR. CLARK: Correct, Your Honor. And I think 16 that she's probably a little bit of all of those. But 17 she was unable to tell me exactly whether she would 18 follow the order or not, Your Honor. I would just ask 19 for time for her to be able to make that decision. 20 THE COURT: And when you say "time", are you 21 wanting me to recall her a little bit later or ... 22 MR. CLARK: I was thinking maybe a day or 23 two, Your Honor. 24 THE COURT: Well, I'm certainly -- I am not 25 going to reconvene another one of these hearings Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 161 of 181 Page: - Page 224 ID#: 1723 161 1 tomorrow here in Ashland, or -- I guess Monday's Labor 2 Day -- or Tuesday. 3 So you're wanting more time to consider that; 4 is that right? 5 MS. EARLEY: Well, it seems like every step 6 we take, we've got questions, and -- like who's in 7 authority, you know, whose name goes on that. And 8 that's -- things like that, I think, need to be worked 9 out, and definitely, I'm not an attorney. 10 THE COURT: Well, we have lots of attorneys 11 here have been making their arguments here this 12 afternoon and this morning. 13 MS. EARLEY: And I guess one of the questions 14 was, is Kim still the one that's going to be telling 15 us what to do? 16 Do we go by her authority or ... THE COURT: Well, the authority -- the reason 17 for this hearing is because Ms. Davis was not 18 complying with the order of the Court. There's a lot 19 of discussion -20 MS. EARLEY: 21 THE COURT: Uh-huh. -- but at its very core, the 22 hearing is about compliance with the Court's orders. 23 MS. EARLEY: 24 THE COURT: I understand that. And whether or not a marriage 25 license issued tomorrow by any one of the agents of Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 162 of 181 Page: - Page 225 ID#: 1724 162 1 Ms. Davis is a valid license under the Kentucky 2 statute. 3 These plaintiffs are going to have to decide 4 whether or not they want to perhaps have a license 5 issued, which may not be valid under Kentucky law, but 6 they're willing to take that chance. 7 Or perhaps they're not going to take that 8 chance and hope that maybe in some future date the 9 statute is amended or there's some activity by the 10 elected officials to change it. 11 That's not -- I'm trying to gain compliance 12 with the order, and that's -- so you do -- have raised 13 some interesting questions, as the other attorneys 14 have as well. 15 But what I'm getting at is, if I have 16 individuals who've indicated they're willing to issue 17 the licenses, and I order that to occur, it will be on 18 the form that was used. 19 That's -- if there's a move afoot to amend 20 that, great. I think that would enable all parties to 21 come away with something. 22 Many times in litigation certain parties win 23 and certain parties lose. Oftentimes, though, you 24 have cases where everybody gets something. 25 I've struggled in this case to find middle Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 163 of 181 Page: - Page 226 ID#: 1725 163 1 ground on anything because both sides have been so 2 insistent on digging their heels in at every turn, 3 which is certainly the litigant's right to do. And 4 it's my job to try to keep the decorum even, try to 5 keep everybody on the same page. 6 So I guess getting back to my initial 7 question, do you wish additional time to answer that 8 question, or are you willing to issue those licenses? 9 MS. EARLEY: Well, I'm not set up to issue 10 them, but I won't go against your order. 11 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Joy, 12 Ms. Russell. 13 All right. Would you place Ms. Russell under 14 oath, please. [KIM RUSSELL, having been first placed 15 16 under oath, was examined and responded as 17 follows:] 18 THE COURT: All right. Ms. Russell, you've 19 had a chance to talk to your lawyer now about the 20 consequences of not complying with the order, correct? 21 MS. RUSSELL: 22 THE COURT: 23 MR. JOY: 24 THE COURT: 25 microphone. Yes, sir. All right. Mr. Joy. Your Honor, in speaking with her -If you'd speak close to the The air's on. Thank you. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 164 of 181 Page: - Page 227 ID#: 1726 164 MR. JOY: 1 Your Honor, in speaking with her, 2 I think the fundamental issue that she had was that 3 she was rehired by Ms. Davis in March of this year. 4 She's only worked there for a few months at this 5 point. On or about June 30th, after -- after the 6 7 decision by the Supreme Court came out, Ms. Davis 8 revoked her authority to issue any marriage licenses 9 to the entire office. I think that's what led to this 10 hearing. And as I previously stated, that's the same 11 12 issue she has right now, is she does not believe she 13 has authority to go forward and issue, from Ms. Davis, 14 that is, no authority to issue a marriage license. But I believe her position will be that in 15 16 regards to the Court's order, she will issue a 17 marriage license, she will comply with that going 18 forward. 19 She is torn with that decision, but she does 20 not want to go to jail, and that's the simple 21 semantical -22 23 has. THE COURT: Well, that's an option the Court I mean, the Court could fine her in the 24 alternative of jail. 25 MR. JOY: Correct, Your Honor. But I believe Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 165 of 181 Page: - Page 228 ID#: 1727 165 1 the Court's action in regarding to send Ms. Davis 2 to -- to the marshal's custody for not complying with 3 that order has led her to believe that -- although a 4 contempt hearing has not been held in regards to her, 5 that if the Court does have a contempt hearing, that's 6 the way the Court could go. 7 So based on that information, I believe she 8 is willing to issue a marriage license, if the Court 9 orders her to do so here today. 10 THE COURT: So, ma'am, do you intend on 11 complying with the Court's order requiring you to 12 issue marriage licenses to the plaintiffs in this case 13 or any other individuals who are legally eligible to 14 marry in Kentucky? 15 MS. RUSSELL: Although I don't believe in it, 16 yes, sir, I will. 17 18 right. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All Mr. Campbell? 19 MR. CAMPBELL: 20 THE COURT: 21 MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor? Yes, sir? Since we have so many people 22 who are going to comply, I don't think there's any 23 needs to question Mr. Davis. 24 THE COURT: Mr. Davis, you would answer "No" 25 if -- and I recognize your mother's in custody and Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 166 of 181 Page: - Page 229 ID#: 1728 166 1 I recognize that -2 MR. DAVIS: I would, yes. 3 THE COURT: Pardon? 4 MR. DAVIS: I said, I would. 5 THE COURT: You would answer "No?" 6 MR. DAVIS: Yes. 7 THE COURT: Okay. All right. I don't think 8 it's necessary to place him under oath. 9 10 MR. CAMPBELL: THE COURT: Thank you, Your Honor. All right. Thank you, unless one 11 of the parties think it's necessary. 12 Having heard from neither of the parties 13 then. 14 Okay. Here's what we're going to do. Now, 15 there has been an issue raised about the validity of a 16 marriage license issued that does not have the 17 authorization of Ms. Davis under Rule -- I'm sorry -18 KRS 402. 19 Whether or not a license issued by the Rowan 20 County Clerk's office is valid or not, I mean, 21 that's -- that's kind of something that Mr. Sharp and 22 your clients, if they believe it to be valid -- I'm 23 not saying it is or it isn't. 24 that point. 25 order. I haven't looked into I'm trying to get compliance with my Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 167 of 181 Page: - Page 230 ID#: 1729 167 1 The impact of compliance with the order is 2 left for you. I mean, if you think that's a 3 legitimate issue, then you can advise your clients 4 accordingly, but that's not really something that I 5 think precludes the Court from gaining compliance with 6 the Court's order. 7 And, of course, the Sixth Circuit's decision 8 denying the motion to stay, it isn't a marriage 9 decision. I recognize that. I recognize that there's 10 a motion to dismiss -- or a motion for preliminary 11 injunction that you filed. I recognize there's a 12 motion to dismiss filed that you filed. I recognize 13 that there's going to be a motion to dismiss filed by 14 the governor's office. There's a whole myriad of 15 issues which are part of this case which have not yet 16 been adjudicated. 17 I recognize all of that. I also recognize that pursuant to the Supreme 18 Court's decision in Obergefell, the Fourteenth 19 Amendment recognizes the rights that these plaintiffs 20 in this case have. 21 So I've entered my order. 22 compliance. I've had this hearing. I'm seeking And now I have 23 multiple deputies. 24 Now, I'm confident that if a deputy clerk 25 issues a marriage license to any of these plaintiffs Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 168 of 181 Page: - Page 231 ID#: 1730 168 1 or to any individuals who are eligible to marry, given 2 the nature of this proceeding, that all of you are -3 I mean, I think you can do that under the authority 4 that you were compelled -- you didn't -- you didn't 5 want to be held in contempt of the Court's order, 6 because that's what we're here to discuss today. 7 I would doubt that there would be any 8 employment ramifications for doing so because you're 9 following the Court's order. And in fact, if there 10 was, that would be an issue that would be a separate 11 proceeding, that frankly, I don't know if that even -12 we need to even discuss that. 13 that's not going to happen. But I'm confident that I -- I have every belief 14 that Ms. Davis is sincere and wouldn't do anything 15 like that to begin with. 16 But I am going to find that the -- given the 17 representations of Mr. Mason, Ms. Thompson, Ms. Plank, 18 Ms. Earley and Ms. Russell, five of the six deputies 19 that are here, that they would comply with the Court's 20 order. That the five of you as agents of Ms. Davis 21 shall comply with the Court's order, which in essence 22 precludes you or enjoins you from enforcing the prior 23 order -- or prior -- enforcing the prior "no marriage 24 license" policy implemented by Ms. Davis, over your 25 objection. Your objection's noted and overruled, as Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 169 of 181 Page: - Page 232 ID#: 1731 169 1 early as tomorrow. 2 holiday. 3 I mean, tomorrow's before a long That's going to be the order of the Court. If in fact that's done, I think that would 4 have the potential impact of purging the contempt. 5 It's not my job -- it's not my intention to keep 6 Ms. Davis locked up just because I think it's the 7 right thing to do. I think it's the right thing to do 8 to follow the Court's orders, and she has been found 9 to be in contempt. 10 So -- and I understand, Mr. Davis, you may 11 not agree with the Court's order, as your attorney 12 stated and you stated to me under oath, but there's 13 been enough discussion to fill this courtroom ten 14 times over outside. 15 I'm hoping that cooler heads prevail and that 16 the -- these licenses, which I previously found the 17 policy to be invalid. I'm not going to go into the 18 reasons; I've already stated that in my prior opinion. 19 So the plaintiffs are going to be able to 20 obtain the licenses from Rowan County at the clerk's 21 office. Whether or not they're valid or not's up to 22 you all. 23 If you want to wait until you absolutely are 24 sure they're valid, that's up to you. 25 to the Court. That's not up I'm just trying to gain compliance with Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 170 of 181 Page: - Page 233 ID#: 1732 170 1 the order. 2 I hope there's no shenanigans of, "Well, I'm 3 going to be off today. I'm going to be off today, and 4 let's all get together and be off," so the only person 5 working is Mr. Davis so that they can't comply with 6 the Court's order. 7 The Court will vigilantly oversee its orders, 8 understanding that the orders are subject to -- some 9 orders are subject to appeal as a right. 10 I've previously denied your -- your 11 interlocutory order -- or your request for an 12 interlocutory order under 1291. I'm not going to 13 revisit that. 14 So, Mr. Sharp, I just want to make sure as we 15 leave today that my order's specific. And it will 16 be -- I don't know if I'll be entering my minute order 17 today or not. Given the lateness of the hour, I'm 18 probably -- I don't know when it will actually be 19 entered. 20 Probably sometime tomorrow. But we have five deputy clerks who have 21 indicated they're willing to issue the licenses. They 22 have argued -- Ms. Davis has argued through counsel 23 that they're not valid licenses because she hasn't 24 authorized the licenses. You disagree with that. 25 not taking a position on that. I'm I think they're agents Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 171 of 181 Page: - Page 234 ID#: 1733 171 1 of her. They can -- agency principals, they can issue 2 the licenses. 3 MR. SHARP: We agree, Your Honor, and we 4 agreed with the county. 5 Our primary concern, and we're -- we're happy 6 for the Court to -- you know, with the deputy clerks' 7 testimony here today to find that that purges the 8 contempt. 9 Our -- THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to purge the 10 contempt today -11 MR. SHARP: Okay. 12 THE COURT: -- because I can see what will 13 happen, is I purge the contempt, and she goes back and 14 you're not doing it no more, and then we're right back 15 here tomorrow. 16 MR. SHARP: That's correct, Judge. 17 THE COURT: And I'm simply not going to allow 18 that to occur -19 MR. SHARP: That's precisely our -- 20 THE COURT: -- because it's the ping-pong 21 match that -- if we get to next Tuesday, or let's say 22 a week from today. I mean, because what I don't want 23 to happen is I purge the contempt, and then somebody 24 from Zilpo -- raise your hand if you know where Zilpo 25 is. Yeah, a few of you. Really good muskie fishing Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 172 of 181 Page: - Page 235 ID#: 1734 172 1 in Cave Run Lake down there. A couple from Zilpo 2 decides we're going to get married, heterosexual, 3 same-sex, what have you, and I purge the contempt, and 4 Ms. Davis says, "I'm -- I'm not going to allow that to 5 occur." 6 view. This is not going to go back and forth, in my I'm trying to gain compliance with the Court's 7 order pending appeal. 8 I mean, if the Supreme Court had said, "Judge 9 Bunning, you need to stay your decision," it would 10 have been stayed. We wouldn't have had this hearing. 11 But the appellate courts said, "You don't need to stay 12 it, Judge," and I'm following that. 13 MR. SHARP: And we agree, Your Honor. And 14 that's our biggest concern, that, you know, once the 15 purge is obtained, disruption to the workforce, 16 adverse employment actions could follow. 17 THE COURT: 18 adverse employment. We've -- Well, I don't think there'll be If there are, I mean, I think 19 we've -- the record speaks for itself. I mean, that 20 would not be prudent. 21 MR. SHARP: And we understand. You know, 22 what we would suggest to the Court is perhaps a do not 23 interfere component to the contempt insofar as 24 Ms. Davis's ability to purge herself of contempt. 25 is, based on her testimony, perhaps unlikely to She Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 173 of 181 Page: - Page 236 ID#: 1735 173 1 necessarily agree to the issuance of marriage 2 licenses. 3 THE COURT: I don't think she will. 4 MR. SHARP: But if perhaps she could agree to 5 a do not interfere component, that would allow her 6 deputies to do their jobs and issue marriage licenses 7 to those who are entitled to receive them. Perhaps 8 that may be a way for her to do so. 9 THE COURT: Rowan County counsel, any 10 thoughts on that? 11 MR. WATKINS: 12 THE COURT: 13 MR. GANNAM: I'm fine with it, Judge. Mr. Gannam? Your Honor, now that the Court 14 has obtained the agreement, or at least indication 15 from at least five of the deputy clerks that they will 16 issue marriage licenses, at this point, the Court's -17 the contemnor is Kim Davis in her official capacity. 18 And without waiver of any of the prior positions we've 19 taken and arguments we've made, Kim Davis in her 20 official capacity with that designation is the Office 21 of Rowan County. It's a designation for a government 22 entity through its head. 23 And for that reason, having obtained now the 24 statements from five deputy clerks that they will 25 issue marriage licenses, then as a matter of fact, the Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 174 of 181 Page: - Page 237 ID#: 1736 174 1 Court's incarceration of Kim Davis has accomplished 2 the goal of enforcement of the order. And any 3 additional confinement would serve the purpose of 4 punishment and not coercive enforcement of the order, 5 because you've -- you've already obtained that now 6 from these other deputy clerks. 7 THE COURT: 8 do this. Well, why don't -- why don't we Why don't we have her brought back in and 9 see if she -- if I purge the contempt, and she then -10 well, I've had several deputy clerks that have 11 indicated that they're going to be issuing the 12 licenses so that they're not in violation of my order. 13 Bring her back in to see if she would then 14 protest and not let them do that if she's purged of 15 the contempt. 16 MR GANNAM: 17 question? Your Honor, may I have a If she's going to be brought back in, that 18 we have an opportunity to confer, at least briefly, 19 before they bring her out? 20 THE COURT: Why don't you do that. We'll be 21 in recess until 3:30. 22 [RECESS - 3:06 - 3:40 p.m.] 23 [IN OPEN COURT] 24 THE COURT: All right. We had given 25 Mr. Christman and Mr. Gannam additional time that Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 175 of 181 Page: - Page 238 ID#: 1737 175 1 they've asked, approximately ten minutes. 2 You all wanted to be heard without Ms. Davis 3 being brought into the courtroom; is that right? 4 MR. GANNAM: Yes, Your Honor. You offered to 5 bring Ms. Davis back in at -- based on our request to 6 consider purgation of the contempt based on the 7 representations of the deputy clerks. 8 THE COURT: 9 MR. GANNAM: Correct. At this point, we're prepared 10 to, rather than bring Ms. Davis in, simply communicate 11 to the Court that she does not grant her authority for 12 any licenses to be issued under her authority or by 13 her name. And she -- she also does not make any 14 representations as to whether she would allow any 15 employee of her office to issue those licenses, even 16 without her authorization. 17 THE COURT: So if I were to ask her if -- so 18 you're not seeking to have her -- the prior contempt 19 order purged based upon the answers that you 20 anticipate she would give? 21 MR. GANNAM: Yeah. Just so I'm clear, Your 22 Honor, we -- we cannot represent to the Court that 23 Ms. Davis would -- would allow licenses to be per -24 THE COURT: So if I would allow her to be 25 released from custody, you're not able to make a Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 176 of 181 Page: - Page 239 ID#: 1738 176 1 representation that she would allow the issue -- the 2 licenses to be issued tomorrow? 3 MR. GANNAM: 4 THE COURT: That's correct, Your Honor. Okay. All right. Fair enough. 5 Fair enough. 6 You can go ahead and take her back into 7 custody -- or she's still in custody, but she was 8 waiting outside the hallway. 9 Okay. Well, of course, as I previously 10 mentioned, the Court will continue to have oversight 11 of this matter while the litigation continues. 12 Having indicated previously that five of the 13 deputies have expressed a willingness to comply with 14 this Court's prior order enjoining Kim Davis in her 15 official capacity from enforcing the "no marriage 16 license" policy to these plaintiffs, or anyone else 17 legally eligible to marry under Kentucky law, the 18 Court would expect each of the deputies -- and I'm 19 going to mention this to you, Mr. Davis. 20 I haven't -- at your request and through 21 Mr. Campbell, I haven't asked you to formally be 22 placed under oath and answer questions because I have 23 five others that have indicated a willingness to do 24 it. I have oversight over this matter. 25 rule on what's part of the record. Again, I -- I Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 177 of 181 Page: - Page 240 ID#: 1739 177 1 What someone -- and frankly, I don't know why 2 there's a need to -- just because you're allowed to 3 take a camera into a clerk's office, why is that 4 necessary? I have five individuals who've said 5 they're going to issue the licenses. 6 I know when I -- again, I just -- I want to 7 ensure that the orders of the Court are complied with, 8 and that's the whole reason why we've been here for 9 the better part of five hours, or a little bit less 10 than five hours today. 11 I would hate for this to turn into, we went 12 back, we were told by Mr. Davis that he's going to 13 enforce his mother's order. There's no marriage 14 policy -- "no marriage license" policy, and we're 15 not -- "we're not allowing any licenses today," or 16 we're posting a sign that says, "We're working on 17 computers, or we're doing something else," that shows 18 a level of disrespect for the Court's orders. And I 19 would expect that the Court's orders as reflected by 20 the five individuals have indicated that they will 21 follow the Court's August 12th, 2015 order, that it be 22 enforced, that it be complied with. 23 Two circuit courts, the immediate Circuit 24 Court, Sixth Circuit and the Supreme Court have not 25 stayed my order, so it will be -- I do expect Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 178 of 181 Page: - Page 241 ID#: 1740 178 1 compliance. 2 All right. 3 minute order. I would anticipate it not being entered 4 until tomorrow. 5 accurate. Counsel, we will be entering a I want to make sure that it's I likely will follow up with part of the 6 Court's prior order on the contempt finding with a 7 white order next week. 8 The -- anything else today that we need to 9 take up specifically? 10 MR. HUGHES: Mr. Hughes? Judge, only just some 11 housekeeping. 12 THE COURT: And you are on behalf of 13 Mr. Mason? 14 MR. HUGHES: 15 THE COURT: 16 MR. HUGHES: Yes. All right, sir. Yes, sir. But I've discussed it 17 with the other counsel too. 18 At the conclusion of this, that our clients 19 be allowed to stay until the courtroom's cleared. And 20 when the courthouse is cleared, then maybe have the 21 marshals escort them to their vehicles just because of 22 the emotional issue outside. 23 THE COURT: I think that's appropriate. 24 DEPUTY MARSHALL: 25 THE COURT: Yes, sir. I can only -- I can only say Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 179 of 181 Page: - Page 242 ID#: 1741 179 1 this, and I probably said it in a half-dozen ways 2 today. And I mentioned in my initial order staying my 3 order denying the motion to stay. Now, emotions seem 4 to be running high, and they are. And these are 5 important social issues that have been addressed. The 6 Court hopes and expects individuals to treat each 7 other with respect. Sometimes the person who shouts 8 loudest is the one who doesn't get hurt. And that 9 applies not only in a situation like this, but it also 10 applies in our daily life. 11 Hopefully, the discourse which has occurred 12 -- and I haven't been outside, but I can hear it -13 can be peaceful, and will continue to be so. And I am 14 hopeful that everyone understands whatever side you're 15 on in this case, that the Court's order complying -16 or compelling compliance with the Court's prior order 17 was reasoned. And you can disagree with it. But know 18 that the Court put a lot of time and effort into 19 reviewing the law and what has occurred up to this 20 point in this action. 21 I hope that everyone will be civil. Because 22 someone has indicated to the Court that they are 23 willing to comply with an order of the Court, they 24 need to save face because with someone who they're 25 talking about, the Judge has ordered that we comply. Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 180 of 181 Page: - Page 243 ID#: 1742 180 1 That's correct; I have ordered compliance, because the 2 Circuits have -- the Circuit and the Supreme Court 3 have upheld my denial of the order staying or not 4 staying this action pending appeal. 5 I hope that everyone is treated with respect 6 in this action. We can have a -- this country has 7 always had disagreements. But what makes our country 8 different than other countries is we are able to 9 respect the rule of law, allow important issues to be 10 raised fairly and calmly, and then allow decisions to 11 be made, and then respect those decisions and comply 12 with those decisions, whether we agree with them or 13 not, unless such -- unless some court says that they 14 don't need to be complied with. And up to this point, 15 there's no court that has done that here. So I hope 16 the discourse isn't -- doesn't continue. 17 I would hope that individuals would under -- 18 they've stated under oath their intentions. I would 19 hope that they would follow up with that. 20 I would hate to have to be -- come back to 21 Ashland tomorrow. 22 Saturday. I'm certainly not going to come on There's some football games being played on 23 Saturday that I think some of us probably want to 24 attend. 25 Okay. Mr. Sharp, anything further, sir, Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Case: 15-5880 Doc Document: #: 78 Filed:4309/05/15 Filed: 09/11/2015 Page: 181 of 181 Page: - Page 244 ID#: 1743 181 1 today? 2 MR. SHARP: Not from the plaintiffs, Your THE COURT: Mr. Gannam, anything today? 3 Honor. 4 5 Mr. Christman? 6 MR. GANNAM: No, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: 8 MS. PARSONS: 9 THE COURT: Ms. Parsons? No, Judge. Mr. Watkins? 10 MR. WATKINS: No, Your Honor. 11 THE COURT: Mr. Vance? 12 MR. VANCE: No, Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: All right. Very well. Court 14 will be in recess. 15 16 17 [END OF PROCEEDINGS - 3:50 p.m.] C E R T I F I C A T E I, Sandra L. Wilder, certify that the 18 foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of 19 proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 20 21 /s/ Sandra L. Wilder 22 SANDRA L. WILDER, RMR, CRR, 23 COURT REPORTER 24 25 Date: 09/05/2015