Former clerk Kim Davis accused of hiding inheritance to avoid paying gay couple she denied marriage licence

Former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis has been accused of concealing a substantial inheritance in an effort to avoid paying more than $565,000 in damages and legal fees awarded to a gay couple whose constitutional rights she violated.

Lawyers representing David Ermold and David Moore have asked a federal court to investigate claims that Davis transferred or failed to disclose assets after inheriting property from her late mother. They argue the former clerk has not made a meaningful effort to satisfy the judgment awarded following years of legal battles stemming from her refusal to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples.

Davis became a prominent figure in the culture wars in 2015 when she refused to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples after the US Supreme Court's landmark Obergefell v Hodges ruling legalised equal marriage nationwide. Davis cited her religious beliefs as justification for her actions.

Among the couples denied licences were Ermold and Moore, who later sued Davis. In 2023, a federal jury awarded the couple $100,000 each in damages, while another same-sex couple involved in the case received the same amount. The total amount Davis is now alleged to owe, including legal costs and interest, exceeds $565,000.

Court filings by the couples' legal team reportedly claim Davis inherited property and other assets but failed to properly disclose them during efforts to collect the judgment. They argue the alleged transfers raise questions about whether she is attempting to shield assets from creditors.

Ermold and Moore's lawyers have asked the court to compel further financial disclosures and examine whether Davis has complied with her legal obligations.

The dispute marks the latest chapter in a case that has become emblematic of the struggle for LGBTQ+ equality in the United States. Civil rights advocates have long argued that Davis's actions represented unlawful discrimination against same-sex couples seeking to exercise their constitutional right to marry.

For Ermold and Moore, the case has never been solely about financial compensation. The couple have repeatedly said their legal challenge was intended to ensure that public officials cannot deny services to LGBTQ+ people based on personal religious beliefs.

LGBTQ+ rights groups have welcomed efforts to enforce the judgment, arguing that court rulings protecting equal marriage rights are meaningful only when they are fully upheld.

Davis has continued to defend her actions, maintaining that she acted in accordance with her Christian faith. Her supporters have portrayed her as a victim of government overreach, while critics say public officials have a duty to follow the law regardless of their personal beliefs.

The court has not yet ruled on the latest allegations regarding Davis's finances.