Categories
Uncategorized

The Freedom to Marry Turns One: How Far We’ve Come, How Much We Still Need to Do

U.S. Supreme Court Made History June 26, 2015 with Landmark Decision in Favor of Marriage Equality

A year ago on June 26th, several of us from NCLR sat in white-knuckled silence at the U.S. Supreme Court, waiting for the Court’s most important decision ever for LGBT Americans and their children. Anticipation gave way to jubilation when Justice Kennedy announced the Court’s decision. In soaring and inspirational prose, Kennedy’s opinion for the Court made clear that same-sex couples are entitled to be treated as full citizens under our Constitution, equal in freedom and dignity to their friends and neighbors, including the freedom to commit themselves to one another through civil marriage.

A year later, that moment stands as a triumphant reminder of how far the modern LGBT movement has come in less than half a century. Yet the events of the past year also show us how much work still lies ahead. The devastating attack on the LGBT and Latinx communities in Orlando reminds us that, even in 2016, we remain targets for hatred and violence. In state legislatures across the country, hundreds of rabidly anti-LGBT bills were introduced. Through the hard work of activists and citizens in every state, almost all of them were defeated, but despite our best efforts, sweeping anti-LGBT legislation passed in North Carolina and Mississippi. And despite the progress we have made, family rejection of LGBT youth and harassment in schools continue to contribute to a host of harms, including an alarming rate of homelessness among LGBT young people.

The events of the past year make this anniversary a bittersweet one. But as our Executive Director Kate Kendell would say, we know how this story ends. We at NCLR will continue to fight for equality until every single member of our community can live their life openly, safely, and without fear.

Read More About the Case

On Anniversary of Historic Marriage Equality Ruling, Ropes & Gray Makes Donation to NCLR

Check Out Supreme Court Photos from 2015

Categories
Uncategorized

Supreme Court Order Marks the End of Legal Challenges to New Jersey’s Ban on Conversion Therapy for Minors

A support of marriage equality stands with a rainbow flag and a United States flag near protestors on the steps of the United States Supreme Court ahead of oral arguments in three landmark same-sex marriage cases. Plaintiffs in the Tanco vs. Haslam case, the lead case for same-sex marriage in Tennessee, meet with members of the media on the steps of the United States Supreme Court in Washington, DC on Monday, April 27, 2015.On February 29, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review Doe v. Christie, a case challenging New Jersey’s law prohibiting state-licensed therapists from engaging in the discredited practice of conversion therapy with patients under 18 years of age. The Supreme Court’s order allows the law to remain in full effect and marks the final chapter in a nearly three-year-long series of challenges filed by Liberty Counsel, an anti-LGBT legal group.

NCLR was proud to join Garden State Equality in asking the New Jersey legislature and governor to pass this life-saving legislation, and then to represent GSE in successfully urging the federal courts to reject this legal challenge and uphold the law.

At the time Governor Chris Christie signed the bill into law on August 19, 2013, New Jersey was the second state after California to pass legislation protecting against harmful efforts by licensed therapists to change a young person’s sexual orientation or gender identity – practices that put youth at risk of serious lifelong harm, including depression, substance abuse, and suicide. Since that time, similar laws have been passed in Washington, D.C., Oregon, and Illinois, and NCLR’s #BornPerfect campaign is working with leaders in dozens of other states to bring the same protections to young people everywhere.

Wherever these laws have been challenged, NCLR has also stood ready to defend them in the courts. And we’ve been successful. Federal appeals courts have uniformly rejected legal challenges to these laws brought by anti-LGBT legal groups representing therapists, minors, and parents who want to preserve these outdated and dangerous “treatments.”

These federal court decisions rest on the common-sense principle that states have the power to regulate medical care to protect patients from treatments that are ineffective and risky. Just as a doctor or patient has no right to administer or receive untested or unsafe prescription medications, therapists have no right to engage in so-called treatments that do not benefit minors and expose them to serious risks of harm. Laws protecting minors from conversion therapy are based on a strong scientific consensus among medical and mental health professionals, and states have a right—and a duty—to make sure licensed therapists are not engaging in these harmful and discredited practices.


In 2014, NCLR launched #BornPerfect: NCLR’s Campaign to End Conversion Therapy in five years. Learn more about #BornPerfect.

 

 

Categories
Uncategorized

A Landmark Decision and an Incredible Year for Marriage

DOMA_OneYearA year ago today, we celebrated a major tipping point in the movement for LGBT equality—a watershed United States Supreme Court decision that continues to impact the lives of same-sex couples across the country.

The Supreme Court’s decision on June 26, 2013 striking down the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which barred the federal government from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples, set off a legal tidal wave unlike anything we have seen before.

Inspired by Justice Kennedy’s stirring decision—the first recognition ever by the Supreme Court that our families are just like other families and deserve the same respect—couples across the country flooded the courts with new cases seeking the freedom to marry.

Since then, every court that has considered the issue has ruled in favor of the freedom to marry. Today, same sex-couples can get married in 19 states, at least 8 tribal nations, and the District of Columbia.

There are now more than 70 marriage cases pending in federal and state courts nationwide, and we at NCLR are doing our part. Just yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a landmark ruling in our Utah marriage equality case that found Utah’s freedom to marry ban violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process. This historic ruling is the first federal appellate court ruling since the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision—and the first ever to hold that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.

We are also representing couples in marriage cases in Florida, Idaho, and Wyoming. Earlier this year, we won an important ruling in Tennessee (now on appeal) that the state must recognize the marriages of couples who married in other states.
Together with our colleagues at the ACLU, we won the freedom to marry in the New Mexico Supreme Court in December 2013, enabling our clients Jen Roper and Angelique Neuman to legally marry before Jen passed away from brain cancer.

It’s only a matter of time before a marriage case reaches the Supreme Court.  No matter what, NCLR will be there again.  We will urge the Court to recognize that the equal respect it spoke about so powerfully a year ago means that all couples, in every state, deserve the freedom to marry.
We’re committed to stay in this fight until every couple across the country has the freedom to marry.

Categories
Uncategorized

A Year Like None Other: NCLR’s Litigation Work

KodyLaurieDog
Kody Partridge and Laurie Wood in plaintiffs in NCLR’s Utah marriage equality case.

Ever since NCLR’s founding, we have been at the forefront of some of the most important legal cases in the history of the LGBT movement, from winning the freedom to marry in California, to securing critical protections for LGBT parents in courts around the country, and all the way to the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. But no year in our history has ever been quite like this one.

The Supreme Court’s decision last summer striking down the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which barred the federal government from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples, set off a legal tidal wave unlike anything we have seen before. Inspired by Justice Kennedy’s stirring decision—the first recognition ever by the Supreme Court that our families are just like other families and deserve the same respect—couples across the country flooded the courts with new cases seeking the freedom to marry. From Alabama to Wyoming, brave couples are stepping up to send a clear message that the time for our full equality is now.

There are now more than 70 marriage cases pending in federal and state courts nationwide, and we at NCLR are doing our part. We are representing couples in marriage cases in Florida, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. Earlier this year, we won an important ruling in Tennessee (now on appeal) that the state must recognize the marriages of couples who married in other states. Our Utah case was the first marriage case to be argued in a federal appeals court since the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision, and it is sure to be one of the first in this new wave of marriage cases that the Supreme Court will be asked to review.

Together with our colleagues at the ACLU, we won the freedom to marry in the New Mexico Supreme Court earlier this year, enabling our clients Jen Roper and Angelique Neuman to legally marry before Jen passed away from brain cancer. We’re committed to stay in this fight until every couple across the country has the freedom to marry.

NCLR has made tremendous progress on other fronts as well. Last year, we won important federal court decisions upholding new laws in California and New Jersey protecting youth from dangerous “therapies” that falsely claim to be able to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender expression.

We achieved other victories for LGBT youth. Just a few days before the Supreme Court handed down the DOMA decision, we reached a settlement with the Indianapolis Public Schools in the case of an openly gay, gender nonconforming African-American student who was subjected to severe harassment that school officials failed to address.

Not long after, the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice resolved a complaint filed by NCLR on behalf of a transgender student in California’s Arcadia Unified School District. The resolution required the school district to revise its policies to ensure that transgender students have equal access and opportunity to participate in all of the district’s activities and programs.

Our legal work does not just involve cases that make headlines. Every year, we help hundreds of people with the information provided through our legal helpline, and we help others resolve their problems without ever needing to go to court. Just in the past year, we helped an educator in a tiny rural school district in the Midwest to stay in her job after a member of the school board outed her in the community and tried to drive her out. And we advised a college soccer player in Florida whose coach subjected the student and her girlfriend, who was also on the team, to severe harassment and public humiliation in front of other team members. With our guidance, the student filed a formal complaint with the university, and the school promptly took action and fired the coach. Cases like these don’t end up in the news, but they are every bit as important to our goal of full equality for LGBT individuals in every state and every city and town in the country.

So there you have it – a year in the life of NCLR’s litigation work (well, a small part of it, anyway). The past year has been a wild ride, and if our current docket is any indication, the year ahead promises even more excitement. It is only a matter of time before marriage is before the Supreme Court again and, no matter what, we will be there.

Originally published in the San Francisco Bay Times.

 

 

Categories
Uncategorized

NCLR Analysis: Latest on LGBT Cases at the Supreme Court—What to Expect and When

As was widely expected, the Supreme Court today declined to take any action on three important cases involving the rights of same-sex couples, including the challenge to California’ Proposition 8 and one of several challenges to the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  (See my Huffington Post blog post for a preview of the Court’s LGBT cases this term.) At this point, we still do not have any information about whether the Court will take any of these cases, or whether it will let the lower court decisions stand.

Instead, the Court will decide later this fall whether to take these three cases, as well as three additional DOMA challenges on its fall docket.  Although the Court could announce whether it will take the Prop 8 case or any of the other cases on almost any Monday in the coming weeks, many believe that it will postpone all of these LGBT equality cases until the parties have finished filing their briefs in latest-filed of the DOMA cases, so that it can consider all of the cases at the same time.  If that prediction holds true, then based on the current schedule (which can change depending on when the parties choose to file their papers), the LGBT cases would not be considered until the Court’s November 20 conference at the earliest.

One other point to keep in mind is that the Court can reschedule cases multiple times.  So just because one of the cases that were originally on the September 24 conference agenda is rescheduled for say, the Friday, October 26 conference, that does not necessarily mean we will have an answer from the Court on Monday, October 29.  The Court could decide to postpone the case again.

For more information, see our FAQ.

Read Chris Stoll’s Huffington Post piece: LGBT Rights Take Center Stage at the Supreme Court.

Categories
Uncategorized

NCLR Analysis: Got Married in Canada? Don’t Panic, But Protect Your Relationship

Yesterday, the thousands of American same-sex couples who have married in Canada since 2003 woke up to some shocking news:  The Canadian government had decided that all marriages of non-Canadian same-sex couples were invalid.

As details have emerged, it’s become clear that the reality is far less dramatic than early reports made it out to be.

First, let’s put to rest some misconceptions about what happened. Contrary to what some news reports have said, the Canadian government did not invalidate the marriages of the more than 5,000 non-resident couples who have married in that country.  It did not secretly divorce them or pass any law that affects them.  Couples who married in Canada are still married, and they have exactly the same rights and obligations today as the day they said “I do.”

Here is what actually happened. A non-Canadian couple recently filed for divorce in Toronto.  In that divorce case, a single lawyer for the Canadian government filed a legal brief on Wednesday arguing that the marriages of certain non-resident same-sex couples are not valid. Specifically, the lawyer argued that if the couple’s home country would not permit them to marry, they are not eligible to marry in Canada.

It is not clear whether Prime Minister Stephen Harper or Justice Minister Rob Nicholson approved, or even knew about, the filing of this brief. The government has quickly backtracked, with Justice Minister Nicholson promising to take steps to clarify the law to make sure that non-resident couples who married in Canada may also divorce there.

More importantly, the filing of a legal brief by a government lawyer does not by itself have any legal force. In Canada, just like the United States, the courts, not the government, decide what the law is. There is every reason to believe that Canada’s courts will reject the argument being made by the government lawyer and grant this couple their Toronto divorce. In fact, it appears that no one has ever before argued that non-resident marriages are invalid during the entire eight years that same-sex couples have had the freedom to marry in Canada.

So if you are a non-Canadian couple who got married in Canada, there’s no need to panic. You are still married. There’s absolutely no reason to think your marriage will end without your consent.  Not now, not ever.

At the same time, there are several steps that all U.S. same-sex couples can and should take to protect their relationships. These are steps that every couple should consider, no matter whether they are married or not, and no matter whether they married in the United States or another country.

The sad reality for U.S couples is that recognition of same-sex relationships varies widely from state to state.  Even if a couple has made the ultimate commitment and gotten married in Canada or a state that offers same-sex couples the freedom to marry, their home state may still treat them as legal strangers, refusing to recognize their marriage for any reason. If you are living in one of these states (or even just traveling there), your marriage certificate may be a legally meaningless piece of paper. This can lead to tragic consequences. Imagine being denied the right to see your spouse in the hospital because the state doesn’t recognize your marriage, or losing the home you shared together on the death of a partner who is not recognized as your legal spouse.

Because even a legal marriage is often no guarantee of protection, it is essential for every same-sex couple to have legal documents to make sure that their relationship is respected.  At a minimum, every couple needs wills, durable powers of attorney for healthcare (also called a “healthcare proxy”), and durable powers of attorney for financial decisions. For more information about these documents, see NCLR’s publication Lifelines: Documents to Protect You and Your Family.

Couples with children should have additional documents to make sure that their wishes concerning their children’s care and custody are respected in the event a parent dies or becomes disabled.  In addition, same-sex couples who are raising children together should obtain adoptions or legal parentage decrees to ensure that both spouses are legally recognized as parents.

Finally, it may be appropriate for some same-sex couples who have already married in Canada, the U.S., or any other country to marry or register as domestic partners in their state of residence.  Although many states that have comprehensive domestic partnership laws also have laws requiring out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples to be treated as domestic partnerships, in practice many people are unaware of these laws, and married same-sex couples often encounter resistance to legal recognition of their relationships.

If you run into any difficulties with recognition of your marriage or domestic partnership, or if you have more questions, please see our Legal Help & Resources section.

Categories
Uncategorized

CA Supreme Court Should Not Give Unprecedented Powers to Prop 8 Supporters

This morning, the California Supreme Court heard arguments on an important issue of California law that may affect whether the sponsors of Proposition 8 can continue to pursue their federal court appeal in Perry v. Brown, the case challenging Prop 8.

The federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing the appeal from federal District Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s August 2010 ruling striking down Prop 8. This January, the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to answer a specific question of California law: Do the sponsors of an initiative like Prop 8 have special authority under California law to defend ballot initiatives in an appeal even when the state Attorney General or other responsible state officials have decided not to?

Under the California Constitution, when state laws are challenged as unconstitutional, elected state officials—usually the Attorney General or the Governor—are responsible for making all decisions relating to the legal defense of the law. That includes the decision whether or not to file an appeal when a court issues a decision striking down the law.

In the Perry case, both Attorney General Kamala Harris and Governor Jerry Brown concluded that they agree that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that appealing Judge Walker’s ruling is not in the best interests of the state. Because neither of these elected officials appealed the decision, the sponsors of Prop 8 cannot appeal Judge Walker’s decision unless they can show that they are personally harmed by permitting same-sex couples to marry or that state law gives them some special authority simply because they are initiative sponsors.

The U.S. Supreme Court has expressed “grave doubts” that the sponsors of a ballot initiative have standing to appeal a federal court decision invalidating the initiative—unless state law gives them some special right to do so. That is why the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to weigh in on the case and decide whether California law grants special power to the proponents of Prop 8 to appeal the trial court ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

As NCLR, Lambda Legal, and Equality California argued in a friend-of-the court brief filed with the California Supreme Court, there is nothing in California law that gives initiative sponsors any special interest in an initiative once it is passed or that purports to deputize them to represent the interests of the state.  To the contrary, the California Constitution and California law give the Attorney General and the Governor—not private initiative sponsors—the responsibility to decide whether and how to appeal a federal court decision striking down a state law. Both conservative and progressive elected officials have occasionally exercised that discretion in the past by choosing not to expend state resources to defend invalidated measures.

It is never possible to predict what a court will do based on the questions asked at oral argument, but the tenor of some of the justices’ questions today was concerning. With some notable exceptions, many of the California Supreme Court’s questions today did not address the specific legal issues before it or delve into the relevant provisions of the California Constitution. Instead, some of the justices seemed to be discussing the initiative process in general terms without considering that the state constitution specifically delegates the power to defend state laws to its elected officers.

The initiative process is already frequently misused to target vulnerable groups, due in part to the Court’s past reluctance to enforce any meaningful limits on the process, even when those limits are mandated by the California Constitution. It would compound that mistake to give initiative proponents an unprecedented new power to step outside of their proper legislative role, usurping the power that the California Constitution gives only to elected state officials in the executive branch.

If the California Supreme Court does expand the rights of initiative proponents in this unprecedented way, the Ninth Circuit will still need to consider whether the Prop 8 proponents meet the requirements for appealing in federal court. The Ninth Circuit could still decide that the Prop 8 proponents cannot appeal Judge Walker’s ruling because they have no personal stake in the outcome of the case: Unlike same-sex couples who are hurt every day by being forbidden to marry, the sponsors of Prop 8 would not suffer any harm from a decision that eliminates discrimination against gay couples. But regardless of how the Ninth Circuit rules on whether the proponents have standing in federal court, a decision from the California Supreme Court giving such power to initiative proponents under state law would be a terrible blow to equality—not just for LGBT people, but for any group targeted by ballot initiatives, which disproportionately seek to limit the rights of the most vulnerable people in our society. The argument today did not inspire confidence that our state supreme court justices sufficiently appreciate those stakes.

Categories
Uncategorized

NCLR Analysis: NCLR Overview of Today’s CA Supreme Court Decision in the Proposition 8 Case

Today in the federal court challenge to California’s Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court agreed to accept a question sent to it last month by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and provided a timeline for the briefing and argument on that question. The question posed to the California Supreme Court by the Ninth Circuit panel is whether California law gives ballot initiative sponsors the extraordinary power to override the decisions of elected state officials about how to litigate court challenges to state laws. In the context of this case, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, the question is whether the proponents of Prop 8 can force an appeal of the federal district court decision holding that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. In today’s order, the California Supreme Court did not answer that question, but agreed to answer it after an expedited briefing and argument schedule, with oral arguments to come as soon as September of 2011.

As we see it, the California Supreme Court should have no trouble deciding that the supporters of Proposition 8 do not have the right to force an appeal of Judge Walker’s ruling. The California Constitution vests the power to decide how to handle lawsuits involving the constitutionality of ballot initiatives squarely in the hands of the Attorney General and the Governor. That includes the authority to decide whether or not to appeal a court ruling invalidating the initiative.

This is not a new issue. In fact, in several well-known cases, California’s elected  officials have refused to defend voter-enacted initiatives on appeal. In 1967, the California Attorney General refused to defend a voter-approved ballot initiative that would have amended the California Constitution to allow real estate owners to discriminate on the basis of race when renting their property.  The California Attorney General not only declined to defend that shameful amendment in court, he actually asked the United States Supreme Court to strike it down.

Similarly, in 1999, the Governor refused to appeal a ruling by the U.S. District Court striking down Proposition 187, which would have required the State to withhold health care, public education, and other critical state services to undocumented immigrants.

In these cases, California officials were doing what the voters elected them to do — deciding whether these laws could and should continue to be defended on appeal after courts decided that they were unconstitutional.

Categories
Uncategorized

Closing Arguments For Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Legal_ChrisStoll_photoIt’s been several months since the parties wrapped up the presentation of evidence in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Since then, they’ve been fighting over some issues about evidence, which are now all resolved.  Today, the advocates reconvened for a full day of closing arguments, watched closely by hundreds of spectators in two overflow courtrooms. In closing arguments, attorneys summarize the most important evidence from trial that supports their side. Today’s arguments overwhelmingly demonstrated the volume and strength of the plaintiffs’ evidence, and the complete lack of evidence in support of Proposition 8.

Theodore Olson of Gibson, Dunn did a masterful job for the plaintiffs.  He focused his presentation on the two plaintiff couples’ moving testimony about why marriage is important to them.  Olson also highlighted the testimony from all of the expert witnesses – on both sides of the case – who unanimously agreed that marriage would enhance the well-being of same-sex couples and their kids. Olson hammered home the point that during the election, Prop 8 backers argued that children needed be “protected” from gay people — but during the trial, the Prop 8 backers did not raise this argument, which echoes themes that anti-gay forces have used for decades to stigmatize and marginalize gay men and lesbians.  Instead, the attorneys defending Prop 8 argued that same-sex couples must be excluded from marriage because the purpose of marriage is procreation. Olson countered that the right to marry, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, is about the individual right to form a family, whether or not procreation is involved.

Asked by Judge Walker to describe the evidence supporting his position, Charles Cooper, the attorney defending Proposition 8, repeatedly said that there was no need for evidence to support his case.  At one point, he claimed that even the single expert witness on his side, David Blankenhorn, had been unnecessary, because simply looking at the dictionary would show that the definition of marriage presumes procreation. Judge Walker asked Cooper about different-sex couples who cannot or do not procreate, and about different-sex married couples who do not procreate “naturally” because they adopt children or need medical assistance to conceive. Cooper returned time and again to the argument that marriage is needed in order to “channel” heterosexual people into having sex, and procreating, within marriage, but was unable to point to any evidence from trial that allowing same-sex couples to marry would have any effect on the “channeling” of heterosexual reproduction into marriage.

Judge Walker’s sharply questioned both Olson and Cooper about the facts presented at the trial.  Although it’s risky to predict how a judge might be leaning based on the questions he asked, several of Judge Walker’s suggested that he might be considering applying some type of heightened scrutiny to Prop 8 because it discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation.  Judge Walker indicated that in his view, whether a trait is “immutable” and whether the excluded group lacks political power are not the key factors supporting heightened scrutiny. Instead, his questions indicated that he considers it more important that the group have a long history of discrimination based on a factor that is irrelevant to their ability to contribute to society. Based on the evidence presented at trial, that would certainly be true of gay men and lesbians.  Ted Olson and David Boies’s team put on compelling expert testimony about the long and painful history of discrimination against LGBT people.  If the judge does decide to apply some type of heightened scrutiny, it’s very hard to see how Prop 8 could be upheld.  The defenders of Prop 8 offered no evidence that there was even a rational reason, let alone a compelling one, for the voters to single out one category of California couples for unequal treatment under the law.

Judge Walker will now take some time to write a written decision. The judge did not say when he might issue a ruling, but based on his pointed and thoughtful questions today, our community should be confident that the opinion will be thorough, well-reasoned, and evidence-based.

Our highest compliments and deep thanks to the Olson/Boies team.  They were brilliant at every turn and litigated this case to a standard that most lawyers can only hope to attain.