(Reuters) – The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a Kentucky county clerk who denied them 2015 marriage licenses. This opened the door to a jury trial for damages.

U.S. district Judge David Bunning denied Friday Kim Davis immunity.

Davis, who was a religious zealot and denied the licenses to LGBTQ rights in 2015, has gotten herself right into the middle of U.S. culture wars over the topic. For refusing to grant the license, Davis was temporarily detained by the U.S. Court of Appeals. The deputy clerk for eastern Kentucky granted the licenses.

In the aftermath of 2015’s landmark Obergefell v. Hodges U.S. Supreme Court case, the two plaintiffs had tried to get married. Davis was sued by the couple in 2015. They claimed she had violated constitutional rights.

The Obergefell case was decided by the United States Supreme Court. It held that states are required to recognize the same-sex marriages made in other states and grant them equal protection under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of Amendment 14.

Davis denied issuing marriage licenses despite being instructed by the governor for all county clerks. Davis also requested a Rowan County attorney’s legal opinion. This was in response to her legal requirement.

Obergefell clearly recognizes Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment rights to marry. The judge also ruled in summary that Davis had made the conscious decision to break Plaintiffs rights.

Now that the key facts of the case have been settled, both the couples (David Ermold and David Moore) and James Yates, Will Smith can move on to a jury trial in order to obtain damages for Davis.

Davis was previously granted sovereign immunity by her official position.

Liberty Counsel is a Christian group representing Davis. It stated it would argue that she is not liable to damages as she is entitled by former Governor Matt Bevin to make religious accommodation.

In a statement, the group also mentioned that the Obergefell decision could be reexamined by conservative justices at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mat Staver (founder of Liberty Counsel) stated that the case raised serious First Amendment claims regarding free exercise of religion and had a good chance of getting to the Supreme Court.