More than a decade after Kim Davis became a national political figure for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the legal battle surrounding that decision has shifted from marriage rights to money.

Attorneys for David Ermold and David Moore—the Kentucky couple Davis turned away in 2015—now accuse the former county clerk of concealing valuable inherited property while claiming she lacks the assets to satisfy a federal judgment of more than $565,000.

The dispute centers on whether Davis gave truthful information about her finances and whether property was transferred to members of her family in an effort to keep it beyond the couple’s reach.

On Tuesday, July 28, Ermold and Moore’s attorneys asked the federal judge overseeing the case to hold Davis in contempt. Their motion alleges that she told the court she owned no property and had not recently transferred any, even though she had allegedly moved hundreds of thousands of dollars in property to her brother, husband and son only months earlier.

Davis denies that she was dishonest.

Her legal team says she supplied the required documents, answered questions about her finances truthfully and did not improperly hide assets. The property at issue, her attorney argues, came from her mother and had always been intended for Davis’ children.

The latest conflict adds another chapter to a case that began during one of the most consequential periods in the modern debate over same-sex marriage.

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Davis was serving as the elected clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, when Ermold and Moore sought a marriage license from her office.

Davis refused to issue it.

She said her Christian beliefs prevented her from approving marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Her refusal continued despite a federal judge’s order requiring her office to comply with the law.

The standoff quickly expanded beyond the Rowan County courthouse.

Davis became a symbol for religious conservatives who argued that government employees should not be forced to participate in conduct that violated their faith. Others saw her refusal as a government official denying citizens a legal right because of her personal beliefs.

The dispute drew national media attention and attracted prominent Republican politicians to Davis’ defense.

After she continued refusing to comply with the court order, Davis was held in contempt and briefly jailed in September 2015. When she was released, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz—both Republican presidential candidates at the time—appeared in support of her.

The public spectacle turned a local county clerk into one of the most recognizable figures in the national conflict over marriage equality.

For Ermold and Moore, however, the case was deeply personal.

They had gone to their county clerk’s office seeking the same legal recognition available to other couples. Instead, they were repeatedly denied a license and placed at the center of a political and religious confrontation they had not created.

Their legal challenge continued long after the television cameras left Kentucky.

In 2023, a federal jury concluded that Davis had violated the couple’s civil rights. The jury awarded Ermold and Moore $50,000 each in damages.

Legal fees and other expenses pushed Davis’ total obligation much higher. The amount is now estimated at approximately $565,000.

According to the couple’s attorneys, Davis has not paid any of it.

The effort to collect that judgment eventually required a detailed examination of her assets. It is during that process that Ermold and Moore’s lawyers say they discovered a serious inconsistency.

Davis allegedly claimed that she owned no property and had not recently transferred property to anyone else.

The couple’s attorneys contend that records tell a different story.

Their filing alleges that Davis transferred property worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to her brother, husband and son shortly before providing the court with information about her finances.

Attorney Michael J. Gartland said his team contacted Davis’ lawyers on July 14 to address the apparent contradiction. According to the filing, the attorneys continued communicating for three days in an effort to resolve the matter.

They eventually presented Davis with a proposed solution, although the details of that offer were not disclosed.

On July 23, Davis’ attorneys responded that they had communicated the proposal to their client but had not received permission to accept it.

With no agreement reached, Ermold and Moore’s lawyers returned to court and asked the judge to hold Davis in contempt.

The motion places Davis in a familiar legal position.

In 2015, she was jailed for contempt after refusing to obey an order directing her office to issue marriage licenses. Now, more than 10 years later, the couple’s attorneys are again asking a judge to find that she has failed to meet her legal obligations—this time by allegedly giving inaccurate information while resisting payment of the judgment against her.

Mathew Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel and one of Davis’ attorneys, rejected the accusation that she concealed assets.

He said Davis provided all requested answers and financial records and responded truthfully to questions from the opposing attorneys.

Staver also disputed the interpretation of the inherited property. He said the assets Davis received from her mother were always meant to pass to Davis’ children rather than remain with her personally.

He criticized the allegations as inflammatory and argued that the disagreement should be decided through evidence in court rather than through public accusations.

Liberty Counsel has represented Davis throughout her long-running legal fight. The organization continues to oppose the Supreme Court’s 2015 same-sex marriage decision and has called for it to be overturned.

Davis also continued challenging the judgment entered against her.

She appealed the federal jury’s decision through the court system and eventually asked the Supreme Court to take up her case. The justices declined to hear the appeal in 2025, leaving the civil rights judgment in place.

By then, Davis’ political career had already ended.

A Republican, she lost her campaign for reelection as Rowan County clerk in 2018. Yet the consequences of the actions she took while holding that office continued following her through the courts.

The current dispute does not revisit whether Davis violated Ermold and Moore’s rights. A federal jury has already answered that question, and her efforts to overturn the judgment were unsuccessful.

The issue now is whether the couple will receive the money awarded to them—and whether Davis has been truthful about her ability to pay.

For Ermold and Moore, the financial judgment represents the legal consequence of being denied a marriage license by a public official responsible for issuing it. Their attorneys argue that a court victory has little meaning if the person found responsible can avoid payment by moving assets beyond reach.

For Davis, the latest filing threatens to produce another contempt battle tied to the same confrontation that made her famous.

A judge must now consider the competing accounts: one alleging that valuable property was transferred while Davis portrayed herself as having nothing, and another insisting that the inheritance belonged with her children and was fully disclosed.

Eleven years after a denied marriage license ignited a national uproar, the dispute remains unresolved in a new form.

The crowds, presidential candidates and courthouse confrontations are gone. In their place are financial records, inherited property and a judgment exceeding half a million dollars.

But the central question remains one of accountability—whether a court’s decision will ultimately be enforced, and whether Davis will finally be required to pay the couple whose rights a jury found she violated.