LGBT issues

  • June 30, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Sarah Warbelow, Legal Director, Human Rights Campaign

    Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in two cases, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation v. Burwell (Hobby Lobby), in which the Justices were asked to decide whether requiring a corporation to provide insurance coverage that includes contraception under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a “substantial burden” on the corporation with religious objections, and whether corporations are covered by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). The Court ruled that closely held for-profit corporations are exempt from complying with the ACA contraception mandate based on religious belief under RFRA.

    The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community watched this decision with bated breath. Though ostensibly about birth control, the potential ramifications of this case could have been far-reaching. Religious beliefs have long been used as a basis to deny LGBT people access to basic civil rights. In the past year alone, more than a dozen states contemplated passing laws that would have permitted business owners to deny LGBT people services if the owner cited religious reasons for their actions. In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg expresses her concern that Hobby Lobby could lead to RFRA being used to permit discrimination against minority groups including LGBT people.

    Yet, in what is otherwise a very damaging decision, the Court expressly attempted to limit the implications of this ruling by explaining, “The principled dissent raises the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example on the basis of race, might be cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction. Our decision today provides no such shield.” Justice Alito may have chosen race to illustrate his point, but the significance for the LGBT community is clear—employment non-discrimination laws are “precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal” of equal opportunity. Hobby Lobby will NOT serve as a free pass to utilize religion as a means of avoiding laws with which business would rather not comply.

  • June 27, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Daniel Tilley, Staff Attorney, ACLU of Florida; ACS Next Generation Leader

    By now it is cliché to observe that the advancements in equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community in the past decade or so have been simply astounding. The victories have indeed been incredible, manifested not just in the securing of formal legal equality in some legislative and regulatory bodies but also dramatic shifts in public opinion and major wins in courts and administrative agencies (and, most recently, in President Obama’s announcement of a forthcoming executive order banning workplace discrimination against LGBT employees of federal contractors). This is something to celebrate.

    But the fight is far from over, and complacency is not an option. The triumphs of the past few years have created a sense of inevitability that can serve as a useful advocacy tool but that may also blind us to the challenges that remain ahead. Some things—like marriage for same-sex couples—really are inevitable (and I am proud to be the lead counsel in the ACLU of Florida’s case challenging Florida’s ban on recognizing marriages of same-sex couples); but marriage equality is only inevitable because countless people have been working for decades (and are continuing to work) to make it so. While the marriage equality movement will hopefully be sliding into home plate in one of the next two Supreme Court terms, there remains a long, hard road ahead on other issues.

    For example, many people are still shocked to hear that most states have no laws explicitly prohibiting employers from firing someone simply for being gay or transgender. While litigation will have a role to play in that fight as well, the real heavy lifting will have to be done in state legislatures (and not a single southern state has a non-discrimination law barring discrimination against LGBT people). Despite supermajority support for employment protections for LGBT people, legislatures are fertile ground for the harmful stereotypes and misinformation about LGBT people that continue to exist, thanks in substantial part to the harmful and misguided work of anti-LGBT groups.

  • June 26, 2014

    by Nicholas Alexiou

    Writing for The New York Times, Adam Liptak looks at today’s Supreme Court decisions in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning and McCullen v. Coakley.

    At Salon, Katie McDonough examines yesterday’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to affirm the trial court’s finding that Utah’s same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional.

    Slate’s Jordan Weissmann makes the argument for why now is the time to enroll in law school. Joe Patrice at Above the Law redlines the article and explains why Weissmann is off base.

    Hina Shamsi and Hugh Handeyside discuss at the ACLU’s Blog of Rights a recent decision by Judge Anna J. Brown of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon which found unconstitutional the system in place for one to challenge their placement on the “No-Fly List.”

  • June 25, 2014

    by Paul Guequierre

    Proponents of marriage equality garnered two major victories today. This morning U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young ruled Indiana’s ban on marriages by gay and lesbian couples unconstitutional and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld an earlier ruling that Utah’s same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional. The Hoosier state’s marriage ban becomes the latest in a string of bans to be ruled unconstitutional since the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic rulings last year striking down Section 3 of DOMA and California’s Prop. 8. Utah’s marriage ban was struck down in December.

    According to the Human Rights Campaign, in Baskin v. Bogan, Lambda Legal and local private counsel sued the state on behalf of same-sex couples who argue that Indiana’s ban on marriage equality violates the U.S. Constitution.  In his ruling, Judge Young wrote, “In time, Americans will look at the marriage of couples such as Plaintiffs, and refer to it simply as a marriage – not a same-sex marriage. These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such.”   

    The Indy Star reports that Marion County Clerk Beth White is prepared to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in her office at the City-County Building in Downtown Indianapolis.

    Over in Utah, the Salt Lake Tribune reports that by upholding a Utah judge’s decision, the Tenth Circuit became the first appeals court to rule on the issue, setting a historic precedent that voter-approved bans on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of same-sex couples to equal protection and due process. But the court stayed the implementation of their decision, pending a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court

    The split ruling affects all states in the Tenth Circuit: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.

    Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb ruled Wisconsin’s marriage ban unconstitutional. Hundreds of marriages took place in the Badger state before Crabb stayed her ruling. Just a week before Crabb’s ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block marriages of same-sex couples in Oregon.

  • June 9, 2014
    Although U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crab struck down Wisconsin’s ban on gay marriage Friday, some counties are still turning away same-sex couples. John M. Becker at The Bilerico Project describes the state of marriage equality in the Badger State.
     
    In an op-ed for The New York Times, ACS board member Linda Greenhouse pays a visit to the Berkshire International Film Festival and recommends two must-see legal documentaries.
     
    A new report released Friday reveals the immense preparation behind the Clinton administration’s nomination of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen BreyerTony Mauro and Todd Ruger at Legal Times comment on the report.
     
    At PrawfsBlawg Dan Rodriguez notes John McGinnis’ new article on the decline of lawyers entitled Machines v. Lawyers .
     
    At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost addresses allegations of inadequate health care for Arizona prisoners.