Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Louisville to pay $800K after court rules for Christian photographer
Alliance Defending Freedom ^ | March 24, 2026 | Bryan Neihart

Posted on 03/25/2026 7:50:46 AM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands

LOUISVILLE, Ky. – To conclude a lawsuit brought by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys, the city of Louisville has agreed to pay $800,000 in attorneys’ fees for violating the First Amendment rights of photographer and blogger Chelsey Nelson. The fee settlement comes after the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky held Louisville accountable for violating Nelson’s freedom to speak messages consistent with her religious beliefs.

ADF attorneys representing Nelson and her photography studio filed the lawsuit, Chelsey Nelson Photography v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government, in 2019 because Louisville’s law threatened to compel Nelson to create photographs and blogs celebrating a message about marriage she does not believe and prohibited her from expressing her views on marriage on her studio’s website. The district court kept a permanent bar in place to prevent Louisville from enforcing its law against Nelson in this way, and the court also ordered the city to pay nominal damages to Nelson for restricting her past speech. Now, the city is paying additional attorneys’ fees.

(Excerpt) Read more at adflegal.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Kentucky
KEYWORDS: adf; homosexualagenda; socialconservatism
Message from Jim Robinson:

Dear FRiends,

We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.

If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:

Click here: to donate by Credit Card

Or here: to donate by PayPal

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794

Thank you very much and God bless you,

Jim

The city of Louisville says (via a Gannon newspaper, which cannot be posted here) that they are still intent in enforcing their "anti-LGBTQ" laws, since they are only agreeing to pay for legal expenses. However, there was a $1 judgment against them, and the court kept in place a permanent injunction forbidding the city from enforcing the law against the photographer.
1 posted on 03/25/2026 7:50:46 AM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands

So she gets nothing, but the lawyers get theirs. Typical.


2 posted on 03/25/2026 7:58:38 AM PDT by Flaming Conservative ((Pray without ceasing))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flaming Conservative

The Justice System is basically “just us” in one way or another. It doesn’t help regular people all that much.


3 posted on 03/25/2026 8:02:42 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands

taxpayer $$$ to pay lawyers, nothing for the photographer=justice???


4 posted on 03/25/2026 8:04:54 AM PDT by The Louiswu (USA FIRST...USA FOREVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands

If the city is thumbing its nose at the judge in the way that you describe, he should up the amount to $8 million


5 posted on 03/25/2026 8:07:37 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands

In English literature, “Let’s kill all the lawyers” is a phrase from a line of dialogue spoken by a henchman in the history play Henry VI, Part 2 (1591), by William Shakespeare.


6 posted on 03/25/2026 8:08:01 AM PDT by jroehl (And how we burned in the camps later - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - The Gulag Archipelago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jroehl

She would have lost her case without smart and dedicated lawyers, if she could have even brought it in the first place.


7 posted on 03/25/2026 8:13:19 AM PDT by oldplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Flaming Conservative

> So she gets nothing, but the lawyers get theirs. <

Definition: Lawyer
A learned individual who gets you the money you deserve, then keeps it for himself.

😀


8 posted on 03/25/2026 8:15:16 AM PDT by Leaning Right (It's morning in America. Again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands

I don’t think that the intent of her lawsuit was to get money, but to keep from having to photograph same-sex weddings against her will and to keep from being sued for refusing to do so. From that standpoint, it was a win for her (and for those in similar shoes).


9 posted on 03/25/2026 8:19:50 AM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands (If someone says that there are no absolutes, ask them if they are absolutely sure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flaming Conservative

The lawyers are from Alliance Defending Freedom and they do a lot of pro-bono work defending religious freedom, free speech and parental rights.

https://adflegal.org/about/

The money they receive will be use to defend many others facing persecution by the woke-tard lefties running governments.


10 posted on 03/25/2026 8:38:42 AM PDT by Valpal1 (Yes, I did vote for this!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands
Once SCOTUS filthied the Constitution by added sexual deviation as a protected right in Lawrence and Obergefell, a conflict between their creature and the 1st Amendment's guarantees of religious protection was inevitable.

The Constitution is silent about both sexual behavior and marriage, and both have been the subject of legislation since time immemorial.

The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were intended to give blacks equal rights as citizens of the United States and segregation and miscegenation statutes should have always been deemed unconstitutional because their intended effect was to make blacks social pariahs.

There was never any language or intent to broaden these protections to sexual behavior. Under SCOTUS' "equal protection" reasoning, the court could have simply granted women the right to vote and hold public office and declared Indians US citizens without the 19th Amendment or statute. This is of course nonsense as are the court's decisions on homesoxual protections.

11 posted on 03/25/2026 9:07:04 AM PDT by pierrem15 ("Massacrez-les, car le seigneur connait les siens" )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

That doesn’t make Chelsey whole, and obviously she was billed for the work they did for her.


12 posted on 03/25/2026 9:28:43 AM PDT by Flaming Conservative ((Pray without ceasing))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Flaming Conservative

Chelsey would not have been billed if they lost. Also her lawsuit asked for nominal damages of $1, so that is what she was awarded.

She wasn’t seeking a payout, she was seeking to preserve her rights to free speech. Actual damages was probably to hard to prove as it involves compelled speech and she wasn’t actually prosecuted as she moved to Florida.

ADF did yeoman’s work here.


13 posted on 03/25/2026 9:51:31 AM PDT by Valpal1 (Yes, I did vote for this!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

Yep.


14 posted on 03/25/2026 10:06:36 AM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands (If someone says that there are no absolutes, ask them if they are absolutely sure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands

Sounds like the judge’s sympathy lay with the state, but the case was so obvious and overwhelming there was no way to work around it.


15 posted on 03/25/2026 10:30:17 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard ( Resist the narrative. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands

Obergefell tilted the scales.


16 posted on 03/25/2026 10:41:11 AM PDT by WhiteHatBobby0701
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands
It almost seems like the worm has turned. I'm guardedly optimistic.

I'm thinking that the ones who brought the suits should be the ones brought to court and made to pay several hundred thousand like the Klein's were in Oregon for declining to create a custom cake in a state that, at the time, official defined marriage as man/woman. Instead, this city's taxpayers have to foot the bill.

Still, a good start.

17 posted on 03/25/2026 3:58:31 PM PDT by fwdude (Why is there a "far/radical right," but damned if they'll admit that there is a far/radical left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

I think that is too wide a paintbrush. Justices Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito dissented. They didn’t sully anything. It was Kennedy, Breyer, Kagan, Ginsburg and Sotomayer who used the Constitution as toilet paper.

It was a 5-4 decision made by Democrat political officers. So it wasn’t Scotus, it was Democrats.


18 posted on 03/25/2026 6:24:40 PM PDT by Eastern Shore Virginian (Yea, I sometimes gild the lily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson