Suit Challenges Kentucky Abortion Bans

A class action lawsuit was filed last week in a Kentucky state trial court challenging the constitutionality under the Kentucky state constitution of two separate abortion bans found in Kentucky statutes. The complaint (full text) in Poe v. Coleman, (KY Cir. Ct., filed 11/12/2024), alleges that both the six-week ban, and the near total ban violate the right to privacy and the right to self-determination protected by the individual liberty guarantees of Sections 1 and 2 of the Kentucky Constitution.  The complaint alleges in part:

92. The constitutional right to privacy protects against the intrusive police power of the state, putting personal and private decision-making related to sexual and reproductive matters beyond the reach of the state. The right to privacy thus protects the right of a pregnant individual to access abortion if they decide to terminate their pregnancy. ...

98. The constitutional right to self-determination guards every Kentuckian’s ability to possess and control their own person and to determine the best course of action for themselves and their body. An individual who is required by the government to remain pregnant against her will— a significant physiological process affecting one’s health for 40 weeks and culminating in childbirth—experiences interference of the highest order with her right to possess and control her own person. The right to self-determination thus protects Kentuckians’ power to control whether to continue or terminate their own pregnancies.

The Kentucky ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

6th Circuit Finds That Employee's Objections to Covid Testing Were Not Religious

 In DeVore v. University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, (6th Cir., Oct. 11, 2024), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit by a former department manager at the University of Kentucky who was denied a religious accommodation that would exempt her from the University's policy that required weekly testing of employees who were not vaccinated against Covid. Plaintiff filed a suit claiming religious discrimination in violation of Title VII. She alleged in part that the University's policy was designed to coerce her to get tested. the court said:

Such coercion, she explained, was “wrong” because “[t]rying to manipulate somebody into doing something to attain a result that you want by holding something over them” is “not right behavior.”...

DeVore drew no connection between her fairness conclusion and any “religious principle” she follows, leaving it simply to reflect her “personal moral code.”... DeVore’s “subjective evaluation” of the Policy against this rubric of “secular values” does not establish a religious conflict with the Policy.

Kentucky Governor Issues Executive Order Limiting Conversion Therapy for Minors

 After attempts to get the Kentucky state legislature to ban conversion therapy for minors failed, on Wednesday Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear issued Executive Order 2024-632 (full text) which uses executive powers available to him to limit the practice. The Executive Order provides in part:

The Cabinet for Health and Family Services shall take all actions necessary to prohibit the direct or indirect use of state and federal funds for the practice of conversion therapy on minors, referring a minor for conversion therapy, or extending health benefits coverage for conversion therapy with a minor....

Any state agency that discovers or receives a report that a provider certified or licensed to practice in Kentucky engages in conversion therapy efforts with a person under 18 years of age or performs counseling on conversion therapy as part of his training for any profession licensed under a professional certification or licensing board within the Commonwealth of Kentucky shall report that provider to the appropriate professional certification or licensing board within the Commonwealth for potential disciplinary action....

The Governor's office issued a press release announcing the signing of the Executive Order. AP reports on the Executive Order. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Buffer Zone Ordinance Violates Free Speech Rights of Protesters Because of Inadvertent Breadth of Ban

In Sisters for Life, Inc. v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government, (WD KY, Sept. 13, 2024), anti-abortion sidewalk counselors challenged a city ordinance that created a ten-foot buffer zone from the street to the door of health care clinics.  Only clinic personnel, patients and those accompanying them, law enforcement and persons walking through to a different destination could enter the buffer zone. The ordinance was passed because of problems at one particular abortion clinic. The court found that the Ordinance would have been permissible if limited to clinics with problems but violated free speech rights because it applies to all healthcare facilities. The court said in part:

At the time of the ordinance’s passage, the city had established healthcare access problems at only one facility—EMW—and principally on Saturday mornings.... It is clear from the record that the Council intended for the ordinance to create buffer zones only at facilities which were having access or safety issues and chose to request a buffer zone, like abortion clinics, battered women’s shelters, and emergency rooms.... This is what the legislators expected in drafting and passing the ordinance.... And how EMW understood the ordinance to work....  And how LMPD enforced its terms.... 

... Metro Council gave careful consideration to each alternative and endeavored to choose the least burdensome option.  But for its inadvertent application to facilities with no established access issues, it is difficult to imagine how the ordinance could be more closely tailored to the city’s interest in preserving safe access to healthcare facilities. Regardless, the Court is bound by the Sixth Circuit’s holding: “The [Supreme] Court’s conclusion in McCullen applies here.  This buffer zone is not narrowly tailored.”...

The court also concluded that the ordinance did not violate plaintiffs' free exercise rights or the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act because the ordinance is neutral and generally applicable. 

Jewish Women Lack Standing in Religious Freedom Challenge to Kentucky Abortion Restrictions

In Sobel v. Cameron, (KY Cir. Ct., June 28, 2024), plaintiffs, three Jewish women, alleged, among other things, that the lack of exceptions for complications during pregnancy and lethal fetal anomalies in Kentucky's restrictive abortion laws impinge on their willingness to follow their religious obligations to expand their families in a manner that does not jeopardize their health or the health of their unborn children. Plaintiffs say that "In Judaism, having children is considered a blessing, and the commandment to be fruitful and multiply is paramount." Plaintiffs alleged that the abortion statutes are unconstitutionally vague, violate the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act and reflect sectarian Christian views that denigrate Jewish practice. A Kentucky state trial court dismissed the case, saying in part:

... [T]he alleged injuries of the three Plaintiffs are hypothetical as none are currently pregnant or undergoing IVF at the present time. Accordingly, the Court simply cannot find that the plaintiffs have shown "the existence of an actual controversy respecting justiciable questions which is a required condition precedent for a declaratory judgment action.... Therefore, the Court must conclude that the Plaintiffs here lack standing to proceed in this action.

NPR reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

6 More States Fend Off Enforcement of Title IX Transgender Discrimination Rules

Four days after a Louisiana federal district court enjoined the Department of Education from enforcing its new sex-discrimination rules under Title IX against Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho (see prior posting), a Kentucky federal district court issued an opinion barring enforcement against Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia which were plaintiffs in the case. DOE's new rules interpret the Title IX ban on sex discrimination to include discrimination against transgender students and faculty by institutions receiving federal financial assistance. Intervenors in the Kentucky case are an organization of Christian educators and a cisgender high school girl who objects to a transgender female who was on her Middle School track team. In State of Tennessee v. Cardona, (ED KY, June 17, 2024), the court in a 93-page opinion said in part:

The Department’s new definition of “discrimination on the basis of sex” wreaks havoc on Title IX and produces results that Congress could not have intended....

For purposes of Title IX, “sex” is unambiguous.  Therefore, there is no “implicit delegation from Congress” to the Department to change or expand its meaning.... But even if the word were ambiguous, there would be significant reason for pause before assuming that Congress “had intended such an implicit  delegation.”...  Education is one of the most important functions of state and local governments and is an area where states “historically have been sovereign.” ...  Accordingly, it is unlikely that Congress would have intended to delegate the authority to deviate from Title IX’s original purpose “in so cryptic a fashion.”...

The major questions doctrine assumes that Congress speaks clearly when it delegates to an agency the authority to make “decisions of vast economic and political significance.”...

The court also concluded that the new rules violate teachers' free speech rights, saying in part:

... [P]rivate and public institutions, as well as the students, faculty, and staff therein, will be forced to convey a particular message that may contradict moral or religious values....  For example, the Final Rule’s definition of harassment will likely compel “students and teachers to use ‘preferred’ rather than accurate pronouns.” ...

It is unclear how the Government’s articulated position can be seen as anything less than a tacit endorsement of a content-based heckler’s veto So long as the offended individuals complain with sufficient vigor, the refusal to abide by preferred pronouns can be deemed harassment and exposes a recipient of Federal funds to liability under Title IX....

The court also focused on parental rights and privacy rights, saying in part:

Although the Final Rule gestures at retaining a certain role for parents, it does not provide that parental opposition to their child’s selective gender identity requires schools to exempt that student from Title IX’s new mandate.  To the contrary, it implies that Title IX could supersede parental preferences about a child’s treatment depending on the case.

... [D]espite society’s enduring recognition of biological differences between the sexes, as well as an individual’s basic right to bodily privacy, the Final Rule mandates that schools permit biological men into women’s intimate spaces, and women into men’s, within the educational environment based entirely on a person’s subjective gender identity.  This result is not only impossible to square with Title IX but with the broader guarantee of education protection for all students.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Denial of Permission to Build Grotto Did Not Violate RLUIPA

 In Frederic v. City of Park Hills Board of Adjustment, (KY App., Dec. 1, 2023), a Kentucky state appeals court held that a denying a church permission to build a grotto on its property does not violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.   The court said in part:

The application of the ordinance to prohibit construction of the grotto may make practice of religion somewhat more difficult for the church’s congregation or the adherents of the Catholic faith broadly, but the Zoning Ordinance is not inherently inconsistent with their religious beliefs. Accordingly, we find the Park Hills Zoning Ordinance imposes no substantial burden on the religious exercise of any Appellee and, therefore, the ordinance does not constitute a violation of RLUIPA.

6th Circuit Upholds TN and KY Laws Barring Gender Transition Treatment For Minors

 In L.W. v. Skrmetti, (6th Cir., Sept. 28, 2023), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, reversed preliminary injunctions issued by district courts in challenges to statutes in Tennessee and Kentucky prohibiting chemical, hormonal or surgical treatment of minors for gender dysphoria. The majority rejected due process and equal protection challenges to the state laws, saying in part:

No one in these consolidated cases debates the existence of gender dysphoria or the distress caused by it. And no one doubts the value of providing psychological and related care to children facing it. The question is whether certain additional treatments—puberty blockers, hormone treatments, and surgeries—should be added to the mix of treatments available to those age 17 and under. As to that, we return to where we started. This is a relatively new diagnosis with ever-shifting approaches to care over the last decade or two. Under these circumstances, it is difficult for anyone to be sure about predicting the long-term consequences of abandoning age limits of any sort for these treatments. That is precisely the kind of situation in which life-tenured judges construing a difficult-to-amend Constitution should be humble and careful about announcing new substantive due process or equal protection rights that limit accountable elected officials from sorting out these medical, social, and policy challenges.

Judge White dissented, saying in part:

The statutes we consider today discriminate based on sex and gender conformity and intrude on the well-established province of parents to make medical decisions for their minor children. Despite these violations of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the majority concludes that the statutes are likely constitutional and reverses district court orders enjoining the statutes. I respectfully dissent.

Kim Davis Assessed $100K Damages In One Case, $0 in Another

Last year, in a long-running case, a Kentucky federal district court held that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis violated the constitutional rights of two same-sex couples when she refused, on religious grounds, to issue them marriage licenses. The court said that damages should be assessed by a jury.  (See prior posting.) That case, along with another making similar claims, were recently tired in parallel before two separate juries. In one of the cases-- Yates v. Davis -- the jury yesterday awarded zero damages.  In a second case-- Emold v. Davis-- a different jury awarded $100,000 damages. Liberty Counsel says the decision will be appealed. USA Today reports on the cases.

6th Circuit: Kentucky Governor Had Qualified Immunity For Covid School-Closing Order

 In Pleasant View Baptist Church v. Beshear, (6th Cir., Aug. 14, 2023), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear had qualified immunity in a suit challenging his Covid order temporarily barring in-person classes at public and private schools. The suit was brought by a group of churches, private religious schools and parents alleging that the 2020 Covid order violated their free exercise rights (as well as parental rights to send their children to religious schools and  their right to freedom of association). Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief became moot when the orders were lifted. However, their claims for monetary damages did not. Affirming the district court's finding of qualified immunity, the appeals court said in part:

Neither this court’s nor the Supreme Court’s precedent clearly established that temporarily closing in-person learning at all elementary and secondary schools would violate the Free Exercise Clause when Governor Beshear issued EO 2020-969 on November 18, 2020. As the Governor points out, Plaintiffs have not provided this court with any cases denying a government official qualified immunity for their immediate public-health response to the COVID-19 pandemic.... Because the Governor issued EO 2020-969 in the midst of a vibrant debate on this constitutional issue, he is thus entitled to a qualified-immunity defense. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that a clearly established right existed at the time Governor Beshear issued EO 2020-969....

Judge Murphy filed a concurring opinion.

6th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Wedding Photographer Case

On Friday, the U.S 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Chelsey Nelson Photography LLC v Louisville Jefferson Co KY. In the case, a Kentucky federal district court held that Louisville's public accommodation ordinance violates the free speech rights of a Christian wedding photographer who has moral and religious objections to same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) Louisville Public Media reports on the oral arguments.

State AG's Warn Target Corp. About Consequences of Its Pride Campaign

Earlier this week, the Indiana Attorney General, joined by the Attorneys General of Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and South Carolina sent a joint letter (full text) to the CEO of Target Corp. complaining about the company's promotion and sale of products supporting Pride month. The states' legal officers suggested that Target may have violated state child-protection and parental rights laws.  It also suggests that Target has violated its duties to the states as shareholders of Target stock (presumably held in state pension funds).  The 5-page, heavily footnoted letter said in part:

As the chief legal officers of our States, we are charged with enforcing state laws protecting children and safeguarding parental rights.... 

In light of these responsibilities, we wish to communicate our concern for Target’s recent “Pride” campaign. During this campaign, Target wittingly marketed and sold LGBTQIA+ promotional products to families and young children as part of a comprehensive effort to promote gender and sexual identity among children...  Target also sold products with anti-Christian designs, such as pentagrams, horned skulls, and other Satanic products....

In connection with its “Pride” campaign, Target provides financial support to an organization called GLSEN (pronounced “glisten”). GLSEN furnishes resources to activists for the purpose of undermining parents’ constitutional and statutory rights by supporting “secret gender transitions for kids” and directing public schools to withhold “any information that may reveal a student’s gender identity to others, including [to] parents or guardians.”...

...Target’s directors and officers have a fiduciary duty to our States as shareholders in the company. The evidence suggests that Target’s directors and officers may be negligent in undertaking the “Pride” campaign, which negatively affected Target’s stock price. Moreover, it may have improperly directed company resources for collateral political or social goals unrelated to the company’s and its shareholders’ best interests....

We live in a different day and age from our nation’s founding. But certain immutable precepts and principles must always endure so long as America is to remain free and prosperous.

CBS News reports on the letter.

Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Kentucky Ban on Puberty Blockers and Hormonal Treatment for Minors

 In Doe v. Thornbury, (WD KY, June 28, 2023), a Kentucky federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the state from enforcing the portions of SB150 that prohibit health care providers from prescribing puberty blockers or testosterone, estrogen, or progesterone to minors suffering from gender dysphoria. The court held that the ban violates the equal protection rights of minors as well as parents' due process rights to make medical decisions for their children. CNN reports on the decision.

Kentucky Legislature Overrides Veto of Transgender Bill Restricting Schools and Doctors

As reported by AP, the Kentucky legislature yesterday voted to override Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear's veto of Senate Bill 150 (full text). The elaborate bill requires schools to notify parents of all school health and mental health services related to human sexuality, contraception or family planning and of parents' right to withhold consent for such services.

The bill prohibits policies that keep student information confidential from parents and policies that require use of pronouns that do not conform to a student's biological sex. However, information may be kept from parents if disclosure is likely to result in the child becoming abused or neglected.

Under the bill, no instruction on sexuality may be offered to children below grade 6, and no course at any grade level may discuss gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation. Parental consent is required for students to take sex education courses. However, this does not bar discussing sexuality of historic persons or answering relevant student questions about human sexuality. 

The bill bars schools from allowing students to use restrooms or locker rooms reserved for students of the opposite biological sex. However other accommodations should be made for transgender students. 

Also, health care providers are prohibited from furnishing puberty blockers or providing other gender transition procedures to minors.

Governor Beshear's March 24 veto message said in part:

Senate Bill 150 allows too much government interference in healthcare issues and rips away the freedom of parents to make medical decision for their children. Senate Bill 150 further strips freedom from parents to make personal family decisions on the names their children are called and how people should refer to them....

I am also vetoing Senate Bill 150 because my faith teaches me that all children are children of God and Senate Bill 150 will endanger the children of Kentucky....

Lex18 reports on the bill.

Kentucky Supreme Court Finds Procedural Problems with Abortion Providers' Attempt to Enjoin Abortion Bans

In Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, P.S.C., (KY Sup. Ct., Feb. 16, 2023), the Kentucky Supreme Court considered challenges by abortion providers to two Kentucky statutes banning abortions. The "trigger ban" prohibits all abortions, except when necessary to preserve the life of the mother or prevent permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ. The "heartbeat ban" bars abortions after there is a detectable human heartbeat, with a similar exception for preserving the life of the mother or preventing irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of both laws. The state Court of Appeals granted emergency relief and dissolved the injunction, and then transferred the case to the state Supreme Court. In this opinion, the state Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals dissolution of the injunction, holding that abortion providers lack third-party standing to challenge the laws on behalf of their patients. However, they held that abortion providers do have standing to challenge the "trigger ban" on their own behalf, and remanded the case to the trial court on that issue. Justice Lambert, joined by Justice Conley, said in part:

[T]he abortion providers’ arguments that the trigger ban improperly delegates legislative authority and that becomes effective on the authority of an entity other than the General Assembly remain live issues. If the abortion providers were to receive a favorable ruling on those issues, the statute would be invalidated if the offending enactment provision could not be severed. This in turn would provide the abortion providers with the relief they seek, satisfying the redressability prong of constitutional standing. 

However, although the abortion providers have constitutional standing to challenge the trigger ban on the foregoing two grounds, they made no arguments concerning their own rights in relation to the heartbeat ban. Their only assertion against the heartbeat ban was that it violated their patients’ constitutional rights to privacy and self-determination....

[T]he personal harm asserted by the abortion providers, the harm to their business, is not considered an irreparable injury for the purposes issuing a temporary injunction.

The circuit court also erred when balancing the equities involved....

To be clear, this opinion does not in any way determine whether the Kentucky Constitution protects or does not protect the right to receive an abortion, as no appropriate party to raise that issue is before us. Nothing in this opinion shall be construed to prevent an appropriate party from filing suit at a later date....

This matter is accordingly remanded to the circuit court for the determination of the first-party constitutional claims of the abortion providers as to the trigger ban. Specifically, whether the trigger ban was an unlawful delegation of legislative authority in violation of Sections 27, 28, and 29 of the Kentucky Constitution and if the trigger ban became effective upon the authority of an entity other than the General Assembly in violation of Section 60 of the Kentucky Constitution.

Chief Justice VanMeter concurred only in the result.

Four other Justices each filed separate opinions, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Justice Bisig, joined by Justice Keller, said in part:

Thus, while I concur with the majority’s conclusion that Plaintiffs have first-party standing to challenge the Trigger Ban and with their recognition of third-party standing for purposes of Kentucky law, I respectfully dissent from the remainder of their Opinion. I would reverse the Court of Appeals, affirm the trial court, and direct reinstatement of the temporary injunction....

Because the statutes infringe upon a pregnant patient’s fundamental rights to pursue safety and to self-determination and are likely not sufficiently narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest, I would hold that EMG presented a substantial question on the merits of the case below.

Justice Keller, joined by Justics Bisig, concurred in part, saying in part:

I concur with the Majority’s holding that the physicians have first-party standing to assert their claims in the case at bar. However, I dissent from the remainder of the Majority’s Opinion. Further, I join Justice Bisig’s separate opinion, as I also believe that the physicians have third-party standing to assert the claims of their patients and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the temporary injunction.

Nickell, J. concurred in part and dissented in part, saying in part:

I concur with the view that the trial court abused its discretion by enjoining the enforcement of the abortion bans. However, I respectfully dissent from any conclusion that Appellees have first-party standing or third-party standing to assert this pre-enforcement constitutional challenge. There should not be one set of procedural rules for abortion providers and another for everyone else.

Thompson, J. concurred in part, saying in part:

I concur in the majority opinion that first party standing was established for the abortion providers and dissent from its conclusion that they lacked third party standing. I believe we should err on the side of finding standing when at all possible, so that parties can gain needed review. 

Accordingly, I urge the trial court to fully exercise its authority on remand by freely allowing intervention by all interested parties so that first party standing may be established for all issues....

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision. CNN reports on the decision.

6th Circuit: Healthcare Buffer Zone Law Violates Pro-Lifer's Free Speech Rights

In Sisters for Life, Inc. v. Louisville-Jefferson County, KY Metro Government, (6th Cir., Dec. 21, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an ordinance imposing a 10-foot buffer zone around the entrance of any healthcare facility abridges the free speech rights of pro-life groups and individuals who wish to hand out leaflets and speak with women entering abortion clinics. The court said in part:

Even though caselaw permits a city to enact access laws focused on abortion facilities, ... the County sought to advance its interests by imposing a buffer zone on all medical facilities in Louisville. And why? The record does not reveal access problems beyond EMW.... Yet the ordinance covers every single hospital, clinic, and dentist’s office in the area.... Because the County may not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary” to further the County’s order and access interests,..., and because the County has not made any showing that all medical facilities need this kind of regulation, the ordinance lacks any tailoring, to say nothing of narrow tailoring.... 

The second problem is that the County has not shown that it “seriously undertook to address” its concerns “with less intrusive tools.”... [T]he County offers no tenable... explanation why the first prohibition in the law—that no one shall “knowingly obstruct, detain, hinder, impede, or block another person’s entry to or exit from a healthcare facility,”... will not work.

Suit Challenges Kentucky Abortion Bans As Violating Jewish Religious Beliefs

Suit was filed last Thursday in a Kentucky state trial court by three Jewish women who contend that Kentucky's strict abortion bans violate their religious freedom rights. The complaint (full text) in Sobel v. Cameron, (KY Cir. Ct., filed 10/6/2022), alleges that Kentucky law might be read to make it a capital offense to discard excess embryos created in the process of in vitro fertilization. The complaint alleges in part:

35. Under Jewish law, a fetus does not become a human being or child until birth. Under no circumstances has Jewish law defined a human being or child as the moment that a human spermatozoon fuses with a human ovum.

36. The question of when life begins for a human being is a religious and philosophical question without universal beliefs across different religions....

39. Plaintiff’s religious beliefs demand that they have more children through IVF, yet the law forces Plaintiffs to spend exorbitant fees to keep their embryos frozen indefinitely or face potential felony charges. This dilemma forces Plaintiffs to abandon their sincere religious beliefs of having more children by limiting access to IVF and substantially burdens their right to freely exercise these sincerely held religious belief....

51. Kentucky's contemporary Abortion Law is focused on preservation of ova and blastocysts on the basis of a religious understanding of fetal personhood.....

The complaint alleges that Kentucky abortion laws are void for vagueness and unintelligibility; violate the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and violate the Kentucky Constitution by giving preference to sectarian Christianity and diminishing Plaintiffs' privileges, rights, and capacities on account of their Jewish faith and beliefs. Los Angeles Times reports on the lawsuit.

6th Circuit Affirms That County Clerk Kim Davis Had No Qualified Immunity Defense

In Ermold v. Davis, (6th Cir., Sept. 29, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Kentucky federal district court decision that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis does not have qualified immunity in a suit against her for stopping the issuance of all marriage licenses to avoid issuing licenses to same-sex couples. The court said in part:

[P]laintiffs have not only “alleged” but also now “shown” that Davis violated their constitutional right to marry.... And, as we held three years ago, that right was “clearly established in Obergefell.”

The court held that insofar as Davis has raised a free exercise defense under the First Amendment, that issue should be resolved when the case goes to trial and not at the current motion-to-dismiss stage. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

District Court: Public Accommodation Law Violates Wedding Photographer's Free Speech Rights

In Chelsey Nelson Photography, LLC v. Louisville/ Jefferson County, (WD KY, Aug. 30, 2022), a Kentucky federal district court held that Louisville's public accommodation ordinance violates the free speech rights of a Christian wedding photographer who has moral and religious objections to same-sex marriages. The court said in part:

Courts across the country have addressed whether bakers, florists, website designers, and other creative professionals must either provide their services for weddings that violate their beliefs or else abstain entirely from the wedding business. And those courts’ disagreement on whether this amounts to prohibited discrimination or protected dissent is what the U.S. Supreme Court has set out to resolve during its upcoming term....

This is a real conflict between nondiscrimination and speech that cannot be wished away: compelling access for all necessarily clashes with the liberty of some. The City contends that Nelson’s speech demeans same-sex couples, while Nelson says the City’s Ordinance demeans her speech....

The First Amendment’s protections for religious exercise ... are unlikely to help those in Nelson’s position: at least as currently construed, that aspect of the Constitution does not shield people whose sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with generally applicable laws....

But the government’s authority over public accommodations does not extend to “abridging the freedom of speech.”...

So although Louisville may require restaurants and hotels and stores to provide services regardless of the proprietors’ views or their customers’ legal status, the government may not force singers or writers or photographers to articulate messages they don’t support.

The court also concluded that the ordinance violates the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Kentucky Abortion Bans Violate State Constitution

In EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Cameron, (KY Cir. Ct., July 22, 2022), a Kentucky state trial court issued a temporary injunction against enforcement of two statutes restricting abortions-- a six-week fetal heartbeat ban, and a ban on almost all abortions triggered by the overruling of Roe v. Wade. Relying on provisions of the Kentucky state constitution, the court found that the Trigger Ban constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the U.S. Supreme Court, and also concluded that the law is unconstitutionally vague. the court concluded that the six-week ban violates provisions of the Kentucky constitution protecting the right to privacy, equal protection and the prohibition on the establishment of religion and the protection of the free exercise of religion. The court said in part:

Defendants' witnesses ... argue that life begins at the very moment of fertilization and as such is entitled to full constitutional protection at that point. However, this is a distinctly Christian and Catholic belief. Other faiths hold a wide variety of views on when life begins and at what point a fetus should be recognized as an independent human being....

The General Assembly is not permitted to single out and endorse the doctrine of a favored faith for preferred treatment.... There is nothing in our laws or history that allows for such theocratic based policymaking.

AP reports on the decision.

UPDATE: A Kentucky appellate court lifted the injunction while the case is on appeal, and the Kentucky Supreme Court refused to reinstate the injunction but set the case for argument on Nov. 15. An ACLU press release reports on these developments.