Same-sex marriage

  • June 16, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    ACS Board of Directors member Linda Greenhouse considers in The New York Times the Supreme Court’s slowness in delivering the last opinions of the term.

    Adam Winkler, ACS Board member and faculty advisor for the UCLA Law School ACS Student Chapter, discusses at Slate two cases in which Chief Justice John Roberts has sided with the liberals of the Supreme Court.

    At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Marci A. Hamilton argues that the big question following the Obergefell decision will be how states treat discrimination against LGBT persons.

    Noah Feldman explains at Bloomberg View that a recent Supreme Court case on terrorism in Afghanistan provides insight into the possible ruling on same-sex marriage.

    At NPR, Nina Totenberg reports on the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the government’s visa denial to a spouse of an American citizen. 

  • May 26, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Keith Alexander and Geoffrey Stone argue in The Christian Science Monitor that Congress needs to tackle surveillance reform in order to protect American privacy.

    At The Washington Post, Sari Horwitz reports that the Justice Department has reached a settlement in its investigation into the conduct of Cleveland police officers.

    Olga Khazan discusses at The Atlantic the increasing costs of abortion due to new state laws that require waiting periods before the procedure.

    Lawrence Hurley writes at Reuters that the biggest victor in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, a case concerning the disparate impact standard of the Fair Housing Act, could be Wall Street.

     At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost considers the national vote in Ireland to legalize same-sex marriage and how the U.S. Supreme Court will decide on the same issue.

  • May 12, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Geoffrey R. Stone considers in The Huffington Post what the Supreme Court will look like in 2025.

    In The New YorkerJeffrey Toobin looks at an experiment in Milwaukee aimed at reducing racial disparities in the criminal justice system. 

    At Bloomberg View, Noah Feldman explores the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that one of the NSA’s surveillance programs is unlawful.

    Robert J. Smith and Charles J. Ogletree Jr. discuss at The Washington Post the latest death penalty challenge before the Supreme Court.

    Kenneth Jost writes at Jost on Justice that “religious liberty has become the last refuge of those who oppose marriage for gay and lesbian couples.”

    Audie Cornish and Linda Blumberg examine at NPR how a Supreme Court ruling against the Affordable Care Act would hurt low and middle income workers the most.

  • May 4, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    At The New York Times, Jesse Wegman considers the lethal injection case before the Supreme Court and how “both the logic and the practice of the death penalty begin to collapse inward on themselves.”

    Nina Totenberg of NPR discusses the ruling in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar and its implications.

    David Savage reports in the Los Angeles Times on the oral arguments in the same-sex marriage cases and how opponents of marriage equality are arguing that marriage is not centrally about love or fedelity.

    At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Marci A. Hamilton reviews the history of the marriage equality movement and the religious freedom questions it raises.

    At Salon, Joanna Rothkopf profiles Marilyn Mosby, the Baltimore City state’s attorney that recently deemed Freddie Gray’s death a homicide.

  • May 1, 2015

    by Paul Guequierre

    Earlier this week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, the consolidated marriage equality cases. It is a critical case in the fight for equal rights for LGBT Americans and the nation now waits to hear if marriage equality will soon be the law of the land (my prediction is it will be).

    The Supreme Court finally decided to take a marriage equality case after declining several when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled a marriage ban constitutional. This was the circuit split we had all been waiting for. But before the Sixth Circuit ruling, every other marriage ban before a federal court had been knocked down. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was no exception, striking down three separate marriage bans last year and making marriage equality a reality throughout the circuit. Yet there is one governor who is pulling a Roy Moore.

    After a lesbian couple filed a lawsuit after being denied a marriage license, Guam Attorney General Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson last month issued an opinion that the territory should follow the rulings of the Ninth Circuit (which it falls under) and should immediately start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Seems like an open and closed issue, right? Enter Republican governor Eddie Calvo.

    Calvo ordered the Public Health Department, the territory agency responsible for issuing marriage licenses, to hold tight. Until his legal team has the chance to do its own legal research, no marriage licenses will be issued to same-sex couples. And he continues to punt. He has asked for the legislature to take up the issue, but he has not said he wouldn’t veto a marriage equality bill. He has asked for a public referendum, putting the rights of a minority up to the will of the majority, not to mention engaging in a costly endeavor only weeks or months before the Supreme Court rules on the issue once and for all.  

    So what are loving and committed same-sex couples on the island supposed to do? It would appear they have two options, simply wait or travel to a marriage equality state (by the way the distance a couple would have to travel to get married is 3,950 miles).

    Governor Calvo is defying the Ninth Circuit. He is stalling. When the marriage equality story is written – and it will be soon – Governor Calvo will be on the wrong side of history. Biba Guam and Hafa Adai, marriage equality.