The State of LGBT Equality

Despite arguments that much has been gained in the struggle for LGBT equality in the year since the historic Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, many contend that tremendous battles still remain for the LGBT community. From the absence of equal rights for transgender people, the lack of definite and adequate protection in employment under Title VII, to a patchwork of relationship recognition laws in the states, LGBT Americans still arguably face second class status.

What is the impact of Windsor on the current state of the LGBT rights movement, and what legal principles provide for expanding equality? What does the failure to pass LGBT anti-discrimination laws reveal about equality fifty years after the passage of Title VII? Are religious exemptions the next great struggle for these equality battles in the courts and legislatures? And, what is the overall state of the LGBT legal rights movement?

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014, ACS hosted a panel discussion on the quest for lived equality for LGBT Americans across the country.

Welcome:
Dipal Shah, Director of Policy Development and Programming, American Constitution Society

Panelists:
Nan Hunter, Associate Dean of Graduate Programs and Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center (moderator)
Maya Rupert, Policy Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights
Heather Sawyer, Chief Democratic Counsel, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, House Judiciary Committee
Paul Smith, Partner, Jenner & Block LLP
Sarah Warbelow, Legal Director, Human Rights Campaign

Closing Remarks:
Allyson Robinson, LGBT Advocate, Social Entrepreneur and Author

From "Papers Please" to DREAM and TRUST

In recent years, a wave of punitive state and local immigration laws went down to defeat in federal courts on the theory that, immigration policy being a national matter, they were preempted by federal law. Since 2012, there has been a proliferation of pro-immigrant state and local policies, such as measures limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement officials, allowing immigrants, regardless of legal status, access to driver's licenses, in-state college tuition, and professional licensing. Why did states and localities pass anti-immigrant laws in the first place, and what explains this shift to the positive? What are the legal theories and policy arguments being offered to support these efforts?

ACS and the Center for American Progress hosted a panel discussion about the potential of immigration federalism to promote pro-immigrant policies, and what the future of state and local action might be, with or without federal comprehensive reform.

Welcome:
Josh Bernstein, Service Employees International Union

Introduction:
Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society for Law & Policy

Featured Speaker:
Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-Montgomery), Sponsor of the Maryland Law Enforcement TRUST Act

Panelists:

  • Angela Maria Kelley, Vice President, Immigration Policy, Center for American Progress (moderator)
  • Kamal Essaheb, Immigration Policy Attorney, National Immigration Law Center
  • Pratheepan Gulasekaram, Associate Professor of Law, Santa Clara University
  • Lorella Praeli, Advocacy & Policy Director, United We Dream
  • Karthick Ramakrishnan, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of California, Riverside

A Briefing on the Contraception Mandate Cases

ACS hosted a briefing on Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius and Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, two cases that involve religious exemption claims raised by for-profit corporations and their owners to the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires employers to provide preventive health care, including contraception, to employees without cost sharing. The cases will be argued together before the Supreme Court on March 25, 2014.

Panelists:

  • Kimberly Atkins, Washington Bureau Chief, Lawyers Weekly, The Daily Record and sister newspapers (moderator)
  • Kevin T. Baine, Partner, Williams & Connolly LLP
  • Caroline Mala Corbin, Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law
  • Walter Dellinger, Former acting Solicitor General; Partner, O'Melveny & Myers LLP; Douglas B. Maggs Emeritus Professor of Law, Duke University
  • Frederick Mark Gedicks, Guy Anderson Chair and Professor of Law, Brigham Young University Law School

Reproductive Rights and Women's Health: The States, Courts and Congress

From targeted regulation of abortion providers to restrictions on medication abortions to ultrasound requirements, recent years have witnessed the passage of an unprecedented number of state laws that seek to restrict reproductive choice. ACS hosted a panel discussion addressing the proliferation of state laws restricting reproductive rights and the legal and policy responses in courts and legislatures. Following the panel discussion, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal delivered featured remarks on the Women's Health Protection Act.

Panel Discussion:

  • Juliet Eilperin, White House Correspondent, The Washington Post (moderator)
  • Roger Evans, Senior Director of Public Policy Litigation and Law, Planned Parenthood Federation of America
  • Dawn Johnsen, Walter W. Foskett Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
  • Elizabeth Nash, State Issues Manager, Guttmacher Institute
  • Heidi Williamson, Senior Policy Analyst, Women’s Health and Rights Program, Center for American Progress

Featured Remarks: 

  • Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)