Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 120 Filed: 09/21/15 Page: 1 of 13 - Page ID#: 2312

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION AT ASHLAND

APRIL MILLER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 0:15-cv-00044-DLB

v.

Electronically filed

KIM DAVIS, et al.,
Defendants.
MOTION TO ENFORCE SEPTEMBER 3 AND SEPTEMBER 8 ORDERS
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class, respectfully request that
this Court enforce its September 3 [RE # 75] 1 and September 8 [RE #89] Orders.
Specifically, with regard to this Court’s September 3 Order, Plaintiffs request that
the Court direct the Rowan County Deputy Clerks to (1) issue marriage licenses in the same
form and manner as those that were issued on or before September 8, 2015; (2) disregard
any instruction or order from Defendant Kim Davis that would require them to issue any
marriage license in a form or manner other than the form and manner of licenses that were
issued on or before September 8, 2015; (3) continue to file status reports that address their
compliance with the Court’s Orders and detail any attempt by Davis to interfere with their
issuance of marriage licenses in the same form or manner as those that were issued on or
before September 8, 2015; and (4) re-issue, nunc pro tunc, any marriage licenses that have

1

At a September 3, 2015, hearing, the Court notified the Deputy Clerks and their appointed
counsel that compliance with its orders would require refusing to enforce the “no marriage
licenses” policy and issuing marriage licenses to individuals legally entitled to receive
them. [RE #78: 9/3/15 Hrg. Transcript, PAGE ID #1729-32.]
1

 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 120 Filed: 09/21/15 Page: 2 of 13 - Page ID#: 2313

been issued since September 14, 2015, in the same form or manner as those that were issued
on or before September 8, 2015.
Plaintiffs further request, with regard to the Court’s September 8 Order, that this
Court (1) expressly direct Defendant Davis to refrain from interfering with the Deputy
Clerks’ issuance of marriage licenses in the same form or manner as those that were issued
on or before September 8, 2015, including but not limited to, taking any action that would
cause further alteration to the marriage license forms or taking any action to penalize any
Deputy Clerk for issuing marriage licenses in the same form or manner as those that were
issued on or before September 8, 2015; and (2) provide Davis with notice that any violation
of this Order will result in civil sanctions, including but not limited to (a) the placement of
the Rowan County Clerk’s Office into a receivership for the limited purposes of issuing
marriage licenses, and (b) the imposition of civil monetary fines as appropriate and
necessary to coerce Davis’ compliance with this Court’s Order.
I.

THE ROWAN COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THIS COURT’S SEPTEMBER 3 AND SEPTEMBER 8 ORDERS.
The Court is by now well-acquainted with the facts giving rise to this action. After

an evidentiary hearing and full briefing by the parties, this Court entered a preliminary
injunction on August 12, 2015, barring Davis, in her official capacity, from enforcing her
“no marriage license” policy against Plaintiffs. [RE #43.] In doing so, the Court examined,
and rejected, each of the purported harms Davis alleged would result if an injunction were
granted. The Court rejected Davis’ free speech claim as well as her arguments under the
Religious Test Clause and Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. [Id. at 21-28.]
Following entry of this Court’s preliminary injunction, Davis sought to stay the injunction,
and her stay requests were denied by this Court, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and
2

 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 120 Filed: 09/21/15 Page: 3 of 13 - Page ID#: 2314

finally the U.S. Supreme Court. [RE #52; RE #55; Miller, et al. v. Davis, No. 15-5880 (6th
Cir. Aug. 26, 2015); Davis v. Miller, et al., No. 15A250, -- S.Ct. --, 2015 WL 5097125, at
*1 (U.S. Aug. 31, 2015).]
Following the Supreme Court’s denial of Davis’ emergency application to stay the
preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs Miller and Roberts went to the Rowan County Clerk’s
Office to obtain their marriage license. They were denied a license by the Clerk’s Office,
however, prompting Plaintiffs to file a motion for contempt seeking financial sanctions.
[RE #67.] The Court ordered a hearing for September 3, 2015, at which the parties, along
with the Rowan County Deputy Clerks, appeared. At that hearing, the Court modified the
preliminary injunction to clarify that the Rowan County Clerk shall issue marriage licenses
to all qualified individuals who apply, not just the named Plaintiffs. [See RE #74.] The
Court also found Davis in contempt for her continued refusal to comply with the August
12 injunction, and the Court ordered her taken into custody until such time as she agreed
to abide by the Court’s order.
During the contempt hearing, the Court also took pains to ensure that its injunction
would be enforced. Central to the near day-long discussion was the fact that the marriage
licenses to be issued by the Clerk’s Office must be issued under the authority of the Clerk’s
Office. Davis voiced repeated objections to having her name on the license. Indeed, both
at the July 20, 2015, hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction and at the contempt
hearing, Davis testified under oath that the computer software automatically populated her
name on the licenses:
Q. Who puts that information on the form, your name and your title as
Rowan County Clerk?
A. It populates from our software.
3

 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 120 Filed: 09/21/15 Page: 4 of 13 - Page ID#: 2315

Q. Do you have any control over that?
A. No.
***

***

***

Q. And do you have the discretion to create a different kind of license that
would not require your authorization for it to be issued?
A. No.
[RE #26: 7/20/15 Hrg. Transcript 38, 39; see also RE #78, PAGE ID #1624.]
This testimony is of critical importance now. At the contempt hearing, the
feasibility of alternative licenses was discussed, with Davis’ counsel asserting: “The
governor can change that form, make it a state form with no personal authority, no Kim
Davis name on it, available in a Rowan County Clerk’s office, and this case would be over,
Your Honor.” [RE #78, PAGE ID #1647.] The Governor’s counsel disagreed, noting that
the marriage license requirements are “dictated by statute, and the governor cannot change
the statute.” [Id. at PAGE ID #1648.] The issue was fully vetted and the Court concluded:

Well, the form says the clerk or deputy clerk. It does bear her name. And
we’re not going to plow that ground again. I previously found that really the
clerk is performing a ministerial task verifying that the person is otherwise
legally eligible to marry, and I’m not going to rehash that. The prior Court’s
order speaks for itself.
[Id. PAGE ID # 1689.]
After five of six Deputy Clerks “stated under oath that they would comply with the
Court’s Order and issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples,” [RE #89, PAGE
ID #1827], the Court then considered Davis’ contention that licenses issued by the Deputy
Clerks would not be valid. Plaintiffs were asked whether they objected to the Court’s
solution. Because KRS § 402.100 expressly authorizes deputy clerks to issue licenses on

4

 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 120 Filed: 09/21/15 Page: 5 of 13 - Page ID#: 2316

behalf of the county clerk, Plaintiffs expressed no serious reservations about the proposed
solution. The Court then directed, “[I]f I have individuals who’ve indicated they’re willing
to issue the licenses, and I order that to occur, it will be on the form that was used.” [RE
#78, PAGE ID #1724 (emphasis added).] The Court also cautioned the Deputy Clerks not
to engage in any “shenanigans.” [Id. at PAGE ID #1732.]
During Davis’ incarceration, Deputy Clerk Brian Mason began issuing marriage
licenses out of the Rowan County Clerk’s Office. The licenses were largely unaltered, but
did remove Kim Davis’ name and replaced it with “Rowan County.” [See Status Report
RE #84.] Three of the named Plaintiff couples obtained licenses during this period. [Id.]
On September 8, 2015, per the Court’s Order, Plaintiffs filed a status update. [RE
#84.] The status update described the marriage licenses issued to Plaintiffs and others.
Pointing to those licenses, the Court lifted the contempt sanction against Davis, explaining
that it was “satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk’s Office is fulfilling its obligation to
issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples, consistent with the U.S. Supreme
Court’s holding in Obergefell and this Court’s August 12, 2015 Order.” [RE #89, PAGE
ID #1827.] In the Order directing Davis’ release, the Court made clear that Davis was
prohibited from interfering with the licenses then being issued by the Deputy Clerk:
Defendant Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the
efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.
If Defendant Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be
considered a violation of this Order and appropriate sanctions will be considered.
Id.
Despite this clear directive, however, Davis immediately began interfering with the
Deputy Clerk’s issuance of marriage licenses upon returning to her office on September
14. Rather than standing aside while Deputy Clerk Mason issued the same marriage

5

 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 120 Filed: 09/21/15 Page: 6 of 13 - Page ID#: 2317

licenses upon which this Court relied in its September 8 Order lifting the civil contempt
finding and releasing her from custody, Davis “confiscated all the original forms, and
provided a changed form which deletes all mentions of the County, fills in one of the blanks
that would otherwise be the County with the Court’s styling, deletes her name, deletes all
of the deputy clerk references, and in place of deputy clerk types in the name of Brian
Mason, and has him initial rather than sign.” [RE #114: Notice filed by Brian Mason.]
Plaintiffs have obtained a copy of one of these altered licenses, a redacted copy of
which is attached as Exhibit 1. As described in Mason’s Notice filed with this Court, Davis
made substantial and material alterations to the forms that include forcing Mason to issue
the licenses as a “notary public” rather than a Deputy Clerk, eliminating any mention of
the County, and changing the forms to state instead that they are issued “Pursuant to Federal
Court Order #15-CV-44 DLB.” See Ex. 1.
Davis’ decision to significantly interfere with the marriage licenses being issued as
of this Court’s September 8 Order not only violates the Court’s clear directive, but it also
has resulted in material alterations to those licenses that render their validity questionable
at best. The statutes governing the contents of marriage licenses direct that licenses be
issued by county clerks using the forms prescribed by the Kentucky Department for
Libraries and Archives, and that the contents of those forms be uniform throughout the
state. See KRS § 402.100 (“Each county clerk shall use the form prescribed by the
Department for Libraries and Archives when issuing a marriage license.”); KRS § 402.110
(providing that the “form of marriage license prescribed in KRS 402.100 shall be uniform
throughout this state”). Kentucky law also dictates the contents of the form, which must
include an authorization statement of the county clerk, id. § 402.100(1)(a), “the date and

6

 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 120 Filed: 09/21/15 Page: 7 of 13 - Page ID#: 2318

place the license is issued,” id. § 402.100 (1)(c), and the “signature of the county clerk or
deputy clerk issuing the license,” id. The statute does not authorize notaries public to issue
licenses, nor do notaries have that authority elsewhere under Kentucky law. See KRS §
423.010, et seq.
Because a valid license is a prerequisite to solemnization, see KRS § 402.080, and
because Kentucky courts have yet to address whether defects in a license of this magnitude
can void the marriage, any marriage performed pursuant to the licenses issued last week
by Davis’ office is potentially open to a future challenge to its validity. See, e.g., Pinkhasov
v. Petocz, 331 S.W.3d 285, 294 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011) (“[W]hile every presumption will be
indulged to support finding a legally valid civil marriage, parties may not disregard
statutorily mandated solemnities, and the strongest presumption must yield to
uncontroverted evidence.”)2

2

The court further explained in Pinkhasov:
[W]e hold the General Assembly intended two essential requisites of a
legally valid civil marriage which are inviolable. First, the parties intending
to be married must obtain a marriage license from a county clerk. Second,
having obtained a marriage license, the parties intending to be married must
solemnize their intent to be married before a person or society believed in
good faith to possess authority to solemnize the marriage. While
functionaries, such as county clerks and marriage officiants, who
contravene statutorily imposed duties relative to the licensing,
establishment, and recording of a legally valid civil marriage may be
exposed to penalties under KRS 402.990, conformity with the two foregoing
requirements deduced from KRS 402.080 is entirely within the power,
control, and responsibility of the parties intending to be legally married,
and we hold strict compliance therewith is necessary for the establishment
of a legally valid and binding civil marriage.

331 S.W.3d at 294 (emphasis added).
7

 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 120 Filed: 09/21/15 Page: 8 of 13 - Page ID#: 2319

II.

FURTHER ENFORCEMENT OF THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 3 AND
SEPTEMBER 8 ORDERS IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS
OF PLAINTIFFS AND THE PUTATIVE CLASS.
The marriage licenses currently being issued by the Rowan County Clerk’s Office

do not conform to this Court’s September 3 and September 8 Orders, which contemplated
that Davis or the Deputy Clerks would issue marriage licenses in the usual form and manner
and that Davis would not interfere with that process. Davis’ conduct obstructing the
Deputy Clerks’ usual process has, at a minimum, created considerable uncertainty for
marriage applicants regarding the legality of their licenses and subsequent marriages. Her
intentional creation of such uncertainty surrounding the exercise of a fundamental right
like marriage – an uncertainty not faced by couples in other counties – is a significant
burden and injury that Plaintiffs and members of the putative class ought not bear. Nor
should Plaintiffs and members of the putative class have to endure the humiliation and
stigma associated with the receipt of marriage licenses that are effectively imprinted with
Davis’ opprobrium. The marriage licenses currently issued by the Rowan County Clerk’s
Office are so materially altered that they create a two-tier system of marriage licenses
throughout state. The adulterated marriage licenses received by Rowan County couples
will effectively feature a stamp of animus against the LGBT community, signaling that, in
Rowan County, the government’s position is that LGBT couples are second-class citizens
unworthy of official recognition and authorization of their marriage licenses but for this
Court’s intervention and Order.
A. The Court Should Direct the Deputy Clerks to Issue Marriage Licenses in the
Same Form and Manner as Those Issued On or Before September 8, 2015.
To bring the Defendants into compliance with this Court’s Orders and to restore the
rights of Plaintiffs and the putative class, the Court should take steps to further enforce its
8

 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 120 Filed: 09/21/15 Page: 9 of 13 - Page ID#: 2320

September 3 Order vis-à-vis the Deputy Clerks. As set forth above, Plaintiffs believe that
compliance could be achieved by providing additional direction to the Deputy Clerks.
First, the Court should expressly Order the Deputy Clerks to issue marriage licenses in the
same form and manner as those that were issued on or before September 8, 2015. Deputy
Clerk Mason, at least, has indicated both his willingness and desire to issue valid licenses,
and has stated that he does not want to be issuing potentially invalid licenses. [RE #114.]
Second, the Deputy Clerks should be ordered to disregard and refuse to obey any
instruction or request from Defendant Kim Davis that would result in their issuance of
marriage licenses in a form or manner other than the form and manner of licenses that were
issued on or before September 8, 2015. Third, given Davis’ ongoing defiance, the Court
should order the Deputy Clerks to continue filing regular status reports detailing their
compliance with the Court’s Orders, [see RE #89, PAGE ID #1828], and any attempt by
Davis to interfere with their issuance of marriage licenses in the same form or manner of
those that were issued on or before September 8, 2015. Finally, to remedy the harm caused
as a result of the materially altered marriage licenses issued, the Court should order the
Deputy Clerks to re-issue – nunc pro tunc and in the same form or manner as those that
were issued on or before September 8, 2015 – any marriage licenses that have been issued
since September 14, 2015.
B. The Court Should Prohibit Defendant Davis From Taking Any Action That
Would Interfere With, Inhibit, or Prevent the Deputy Clerks From Issuing
Marriage Licenses in the Same Form and Manner as Those That Were Issued
on or Before September 8, 2015.
On September 8, this Court lifted the civil contempt sanction imposed on Davis but
expressly directed her not to “interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts
of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.” [RE # 89
9

 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 120 Filed: 09/21/15 Page: 10 of 13 - Page ID#: 2321

(emphasis added).] Davis’ material alteration of the marriage license forms so that they do
not comport with the legal requirements for a valid license ran afoul of that Order. Indeed,
even if the altered licenses were ultimately determined to be valid at some future point, as
explained above, Davis’ interference has caused substantial injury to Plaintiffs and
members of the putative class by intentionally creating uncertainty surrounding their
exercise of the fundamental right of marriage and establishing a two-tier system of
marriage licenses through the issuance of licenses marked by her opprobrium.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs believe that, in further enforcement of its September 8
Order, the Court should direct Defendant Davis to refrain from interfering with the Deputy
Clerks’ issuance of marriage licenses in the same form or manner as those that were issued
on or before September 8, 2015. Specifically, the Court should prohibit Davis from taking
any action to (1) cause any alteration to the marriage license forms as they were issued on
or before September 8, or (2) penalize any Deputy Clerk for issuing marriage licenses in
the same form or manner as they were issued on or before September 8. In connection
with the Order prohibiting interference, the Court should also instruct Davis to return any
previously confiscated forms to the Deputy Clerks. And, in the event that those forms are
not available, authorize the Deputy Clerks to immediately secure new forms from the
appropriate agency.
Moreover, given Davis’ repeated failure to comply with this Court’s Orders, the
Court should provide Davis with notice that any violation of this Order will result in civil
sanctions, including both the placement of the Rowan County Clerk’s Office into a
receivership for the limited purposes of issuing marriage licenses and the imposition of
coercive monetary fines to compel her compliance with the Court’s Order.

10

 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 120 Filed: 09/21/15 Page: 11 of 13 - Page ID#: 2322

When faced with state actors who persist in violations of federal law, courts have
appointed receivers “to coerce public officials to comply with legal mandates in a number
of factual settings, including public schools, housing, highways, nursing homes, and
prisons.” Dixon v. Barry, 967 F. Supp. 535, 550 (D.D.C. 1997). Because the imposition of
a receivership is an equitable remedy, it is available only when there is no adequate legal
remedy. United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213, 1310 (11th Cir. 2011). Thus, the primary
consideration is “whether any other remedy is likely to be successful.” Dixon, 967 F. Supp.
at 550 (citing Shaw v. Allen, 771 F. Supp. 760, 762 (S.D.W.Va. 1990) (“When more
traditional remedies, such as contempt proceedings or injunctions, are inadequate under the
circumstances a court acting within its equitable powers is justified, particularly in aid of
an outstanding injunction, in implementing less common remedies, such as a receivership,
so as to achieve compliance with a constitutional mandate.”); Newman v. Alabama, 466 F.
Supp. 628, 635 (M.D. Ala. 1979) (“When the usual remedies are inadequate, a court is
justified in resorting to a receivership, particularly when it acts in aid of an outstanding
injunction.”)). Should Davis again violate this Court’s order, she will have unfailingly
demonstrated that the usual remedies for securing compliance are simply inadequate and
that a receivership is an appropriate remedy pending her obedience, which may be induced
via coercive civil monetary fines as appropriate and necessary.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court take the
steps described above to enforce its September 3 and September 8 Orders and that Plaintiffs
be awarded attorneys’ fees incurred in the preparation of their motions to enforce the
Court’s Orders.

11

 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 120 Filed: 09/21/15 Page: 12 of 13 - Page ID#: 2323

Respectfully submitted,

William E. Sharp
Legal Director
ACLU OF KENTUCKY
315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300
Louisville, KY 40202
(502) 581-9746
sharp@aclu-ky.org

s/ Heather L. Weaver
Daniel Mach*
Heather L. Weaver*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
915 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 675-2330
dmach@aclu.org
hweaver@aclu.org

Daniel J. Canon
Laura E. Landenwich
L. Joe Dunman
CLAY DANIEL WALTON & ADAMS, PLC
462 South Fourth Street
Suite 101
Louisville, KY 40202
(502) 561-2005
ACLU OF KENTUCKY Cooperating
Attorneys
dan@justiceky.com
laura@justiceky.com
joe@justiceky.com

Ria Tabacco Mar*
James D. Esseks*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 1004
(212) 549-2627
rmar@aclu.org
jesseks@aclu.org

Counsel for Plaintiffs
* Admitted pro hac vice

12

 Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 120 Filed: 09/21/15 Page: 13 of 13 - Page ID#: 2324

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on September 21, 2015, I filed this motion and accompanying proposed
order with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of
electronic filing to the following:
Jeffrey C. Mando
Claire E. Parsons
Cecil Watkins
jmando@aswdlaw.com
cparsons@aswdlaw.com
cwatkins@prosecutors.ky.gov
Counsel for Rowan County
Anthony C. Donahue
Roger Gannam
Jonathan Christman
Horatio G. Mihet
acdonahue@donahuelawgroup.com
rgannam@lc.org
jchristman@lc.org
hmihet@lc.org
Counsel for Kim Davis
William M. Lear, Jr.
Palmer G. Vance II
william.lear@skofirm.com
gene.vance@skofirm.com
Counsel for Governor Beshear and
Commissioner Onkst

s/ Heather L. Weaver
Counsel for Plaintiffs

13