FWIW, my effort to make sense (?) of the mess; please let me know if I've gotten anything wrong (or if anyone has a transcript of the contempt hearing on Thursday, which might help explain things). Thanks
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/09/does-anyone-have-any-idea-whats.html On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > The reports I've seen (e.g., > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html) do > not make clear exactly what's happening, other than that Davis is > incarcerated. > > 1. Is the County Executive Judge now issuing certificates and licenses > (which might ironically eliminate the grounds for Davis's contempt > incarceration . . . until she refuses to allow the documents to be issued > to the next couple that appears)? > > 2. What was the deal the judge offered her, regarding her deputies > issuing the documents? Did she refuse it because her name would continue > to appear on the two lines? Or did the judge say that she could omit her > name and she still refused? > > Thanks in advance for any info, or, better yet, links to actual documents. > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Cohen,David <ds...@drexel.edu> wrote: > >> Hi all - a mootness question for you. In the case of the KY clerk who >> was jailed today for refusing to comply with a district court order that >> required her to issue a marriage license to a gay couple (and stay denied >> from the 6th Circuit or Supremes), according to some news reports, now that >> she is in jail and not able to serve, state law allows a county’s executive >> judge to now issue licenses. So, presumably that will happen relatively >> quickly, and the plaintiffs will get their licenses. >> >> >> >> Is the case now moot and the clerk can get out of jail because she’d no >> longer be in contempt of a court order, since the case is vacated as moot? >> And the issue isn’t capable of repetition at this point for the plaintiffs, >> as they now have a license and can’t get another (until divorced, which may >> never happen). It certainly is capable of repetition for other people, but >> not these plaintiffs (and they haven’t filed a class action, to the best of >> my knowledge). We’ve been around this issue before, and to the best of my >> recollection, most people believe the cases say that the “capable of >> repetition” part has to be for the particular plaintiffs, not for someone >> else. >> >> >> >> In other words, is she in jail for an hour, maybe a day, and then back at >> it shortly to deny someone else a license (when that eventually happens) >> only to repeat the whole thing again? >> >> >> >> David >> >> >> >> *David S. Cohen* >> >> *Professor of Law* >> >> >> Thomas R. Kline School of Law >> >> *Drexel University * >> >> 3320 Market St. >> >> Philadelphia, PA 19104 >> >> Tel: 215.571.4714 >> >> drexel.edu <http://drexel.edu/law/faculty/fulltime_fac/David%20Cohen/> | >> facebook <https://www.facebook.com/dsc250> | twitter >> <https://twitter.com/dsc250> >> >> Available NOW <http://www.livinginthecrosshairs.com/>: *Living in the >> Crosshairs: The Untold Stories of Anti-Abortion Terrorism *(Oxford) >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To post, send message to conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof >> >> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are >> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or >> wrongly) forward the messages to others. >> > >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
