Chelsey Nelson; Chelsey Nelson Photography LLC v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 24a0167n.06
Nos. 22-5884/5912
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
CHELSEY NELSON; CHELSEY NELSON
PHOTOGRAPHY LLC,
Plaintiffs - Appellees/ Cross - Appellants,
v.
LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO
GOVERNMENT; LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON
COUNTY HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION-
ENFORCEMENT; LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON
COUNTY HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION-
ADVOCACY; VERNA GOATLEY, in her official capacity
as Executive Director of the Louisville Metro Human
Relations Commission - Enforcement; GLENDA BERRY,
in their official capacities as members of the Louisville
Metro Human Relations Commission-Enforcement;
KEVIN DELAHANTY, in their official capacities as
members of the Louisville Metro Human Relations
Commission-Enforcement; LESLIE FAUST, in their
official capacities as members of the Louisville Metro
Human Relations Commission-Enforcement; ANDREA
HOUSTON, in their official capacities as members of the
Louisville Metro Human Relations Commission-
Enforcement; CHARLES ROGERS, in their official
capacities as members of the Louisville Metro Human
Relations Commission-Enforcement; WILLIAM SUTTER,
in their official capacities as members of the Louisville
Metro Human Relations Commission-Enforcement;
LEONARD THOMAS, in their official capacities as
members of the Louisville Metro Human Relations
Commission-Enforcement,
Defendants - Appellants / Cross-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OPINION
Before: STRANCH, BUSH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 4 --

Nos. 22-5884/5912, Nelson, et al. v. Louisville-Jefferson County, KY Metro Government, et al.
-2-
PER CURIAM. Chelsey Nelson is the owner of the Louisville, Kentucky, based
photography studio Chelsey Nelson Photography. She brought suit against various local municipal
bodies and officials, who we refer to collectively as “Louisville” or “the City,” seeking injunctive,
declaratory, and retrospective relief for injuries she allegedly suffered, or will imminently suffer,
under the City’s public accommodation laws. These laws prohibit establishments that provide
“goods or services to the general public” from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
Louisville, Ky., Metro Gov’t Code of Ordinances §§ 92.01-02, 92.05. They implicate Chelsey
Nelson Photography’s policy against providing services for same-sex weddings, which is rooted
in Nelson’s stated religious belief “that God ordained marriage to be a covenant between one man
and one woman.”
Nelson’s lawsuit seeks prospective relief preventing Louisville from enforcing its public
accommodation law against her and retrospective relief awarding her nominal and compensatory
damages for the chilling effect the law has allegedly had on her protected speech. The district
court entered judgment for Nelson on her prospective claims, concluding that she faced a
sufficiently imminent threat of enforcement to confer standing and that the law violated the First
Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. Chelsey Nelson Photography, LLC v. Louisville/Jefferson
Cnty. Metro Gov’t, 624 F. Supp. 3d 761, 797-804 (W.D. Ky. 2022). It dismissed her retrospective
claims for lack of standing, concluding that her compensatory damages claim failed for lack of
causation and her nominal damages claim failed for lack of redressability. Chelsey Nelson
Photography LLC v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov’t, 479 F. Supp. 3d 543, 553 (W.D. Ky.
2020). The court also granted Nelson’s motion to exclude the City’s expert and denied her motion
to supplement the summary judgment record after the close of discovery. Chelsey Nelson
Photography, 624 F. Supp. 3d at 797-800; R. 131, Order.

-- 2 of 4 --

Nos. 22-5884/5912, Nelson, et al. v. Louisville-Jefferson County, KY Metro Government, et al.
-3-
The parties each appealed elements of the district court’s decisions. Louisville appealed
the rulings on Nelson’s claims for prospective relief and on the admissibility of its expert witness;
Nelson cross-appealed the dismissal of her claims for retrospective relief, the denial of her motion
to supplement the record, and the scope of relief the district court entered.
In the time between the district court’s initial order and argument before this Court, three
notable developments occurred. In March 2021, the Supreme Court decided Uzuegbunam v.
Preczewski, 141 S. Ct. 792, 802 (2021), holding that “a request for nominal damages satisfies the
redressability element of standing where a plaintiff’s claim is based on a completed violation of a
legal right.” In April 2023, Nelson disclosed that she had “moved outside Kentucky.” And in
June 2023, the Supreme Court decided 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570, 579-80, 588-89
(2023), holding that a Colorado public accommodation law violated the Free Speech Clause of the
First Amendment as applied to a business that provided custom wedding websites.
These developments triggered three additional rounds of briefing in this court. At our
direction, the parties filed supplemental briefs addressing the effect of 303 Creative on this appeal.
Louisville then filed a motion, predicated on Nelson’s move, seeking remand of the case to the
district court to dismiss Nelson’s claims as moot or, in the alternative, to undertake further
discovery and to enter new findings on the issue. Finally, in addition to opposing remand, Nelson
filed a motion to supplement the appellate record with a declaration related to her move.
Given the intervening developments, in particular the “unsettled facts” introduced by
Nelson’s move to Florida, the “district court is best positioned to resolve” in the first instance the
continued vitality of Nelson’s claims. FemHealth USA, Inc. v. Williams, 83 F.4th 551, 557 (6th
Cir. 2023). We therefore GRANT Louisville’s motion to remand for further proceedings and
DENY Nelson’s motion to supplement the appellate record. We VACATE the district court’s

-- 3 of 4 --

Nos. 22-5884/5912, Nelson, et al. v. Louisville-Jefferson County, KY Metro Government, et al.
-4-
dismissal of Nelson’s claim for nominal damages and its denial of Nelson’s motion to supplement
the summary judgment record, and REMAND to the district court to address in the first instance
whether Nelson’s claims for injunctive relief are moot and whether under Uzuegbunam she can
maintain her claim for nominal damages. We express no opinion on these issues, or on the merits
of Nelson’s claims. In the interim, we leave in place the injunction prohibiting Louisville from
enforcing the Ordinance against Nelson.

-- 4 of 4 --