marriage equality

  • April 2, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Nina Totenberg of NPR reports on the recent Supreme Court ruling that private Medicaid providers cannot sue states for higher reimbursement rates to keep pace with rising medical costs.

    Monica Davey and Richard Pérez-Peña report for The New York Times that Indiana Republicans will revise the state’s controversial religious freedom law to prohibit discrimination.

    In the Huffington Post, Brianne Gorod writes that the battle in lower courts over same-sex marriage shows how important it is for the Supreme Court to recognize marriage equality.

    Following the ruling in Young v. UPS, George Gao and Gretchen Livingston of the Pew Research Center explain that working while pregnant is even more common than when the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was first made into law.

    At Slate, Mark Joseph Stern writes that the Supreme Court is considering whether to allow Louisiana to execute a man who claims to be intellectually disabled.

    Michael Li reports at the blog for the Brennan Center for Justice that the courts are likely to review Virginia’s congressional map.

  • March 18, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Attorneys arguing for marriage equality have stalled on the decision about who will argue before the Supreme Court, reports Chris Geidner at Buzzfeed. Other coverage comes from David Savage at the Los Angeles Times.

    Mark Joseph Stern argues at Slate that Jeffrey L. Fisher should be the lawyer chosen to argue for marriage equality before the Supreme Court.

    Lauren-Brooke Eisen and Oliver Roeder discuss the faulty perception of crime rates in the United States at the blog for the Brennan Center for Justice.

    At NPR, Domenico Montanaro considers whether automatic voter registration would increase voter turnout.

    The Presbyterian Church announced that it has changed its definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, reports Rachel Zoll at Salon.

  • February 13, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    A new study from the Brennan Center for Justice examines the causes of the dramatic decline in crime nationwide in the last two decades. The study argues that harsh criminal justice polices and increased incarceration did not drive the decline.

    David S. Cohen argues at Salon that although marriage equality is likely to win at the Supreme Court, the decision is still unpredictable.

    Cristian Farias offers a critique of Chief Justice John Roberts at Slate, asserting that his life experiences limit his reasoning on Fourth Amendment cases.

    At Bloomberg Business, Greg Stohr writes that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is still leading the push for women’s equality. 

    Zoe Carpenter of The Nation considers the FBI Director’s recent comments on policing, race, and police violence.

  • January 30, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    In the Huffington Post, Jonathan Cohn writes about a letter from Ben Nelson that lawmakers are using to defend the language of the ACA on state exchanges and tax credits. 

    Vivian Ho reports for SF Gate on the arrest of a San Francisco deputy public defender detained outside of court. Jeff Adachi, a public defender and a member of the ACS Bay Area Lawyer Chapter Board of Advisors, speaks against the arrest in the article.

    Garrett Epps argues in The Atlantic that anything but a Supreme Court decision that unequivocally supports marriage equality will risk state-level obstruction.

    In The New York Review of Books, David Cole reflects on Citizens United and urges the Court “to recognize the urgent and legitimate need for robust limits on campaign spending.”

    At The Nation, Nan Aron, William William Yeomans, and Michelle D. Schwartz consider how the Roberts Court has helped the wealthy and left little protection for others.

  • January 12, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest & Public Service, George Washington University Law

    *This piece originally appeared on The Huffington Post.

    On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court declined to hear seven cases in which federal courts of appeals had found bans on same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional. One month later, a divided court of appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, upheld the bans in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, & Kentucky. All four groups of plaintiffs have asked the Supreme Court to review that decision, and the Court is likely to decide whether to take up those cases at its conference on January 9, 2015. There are a number of legal issues in the case, but the keys to the ruling below are the two reasons Judge Sutton gave to support the ban, which this essay argues are indefensible under whatever degree of scrutiny the Court applies.

    The majority opinion of Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton upholding bans in four states on same-sex marriage has an aura of reasonableness to it, but when it comes to offering real reasons to justify the bans, it cannot withstand analysis. According to Sutton, there are two reasons why the bans are constitutional: (1) they encourage procreation in marriage by opposite-sex couples, and (2) they uphold traditional marriage, while allowing for future change.

    There are three undisputed facts that demonstrate conclusively that those reasons cannot sustain the bans: (1) most of the benefits of marriage for opposite-sex couples are unrelated to encouraging procreation; (2) the laws also preclude civil unions or any other arrangement that confers any of the benefits of marriage on same-sex couples; and (3) the Ohio ban was applied to deny the surviving member of a marriage performed out of state the right to include on the death certificate of his husband the indisputable fact that he was "married."