National
Supreme Court to consider on Nov. 20 whether to take up marriage lawsuits
Decision could immediately allow same-sex couples to wed in California
The Supreme Court could decide next month whether to review challenges to California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act that would have an immediate impact on same-sex couples across the nation. The court announced Monday that justices have scheduled on Nov. 20 whether to consider lawsuits challenging the measures.
According to the Supreme Court’s website, justices have docketed the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, the lawsuit contesting Prop 8, for their conference on Nov. 20. Also docketed for that conference are the four DOMA lawsuits that were already pending before the court: the consolidated case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services; Windsor v. United States; Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management; and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management.
The court’s decision on whether to take up the Prop 8 case is particularly significant because if justices declined to do so, same-sex couples would be able to marry again in California almost immediately just as soon as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issues a mandate saying its earlier ruling striking down the amendment is now in effect.
According to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which filed the lawsuit against Prop 8, the Supreme Court is expected to issue an order list detailing its decisions on cases it has granted or denied review on this conference by Nov. 26.
It takes a vote of four justices to grant a writ of certiorari (to take up a case) but the decision will be put off if any one justice wants more time to decide. The Supreme Court had previously docketed the Prop 8 case, which was filed by AFER, and the Windsor challenge against DOMA for their Sept. 20 conference, but didn’t make a decision on those lawsuits at that time.
It’s possible that justices could continue to hold off on issuing a decision, although legal observers have said they were likely waiting until all the DOMA cases and the Prop 8 case were fully briefed before making a decision and are more likely to do so at this time.
Adam Umhoefer, AFER’s executive director, said in a statement the court’s decision to schedule the Perry case for Nov. 20 brings same-sex couples in the Golden State once step closer to enjoying the right to marry.
“For far too long, gay and lesbian couples in California have been waiting to exercise the fundamental freedom to marry that the United States Constitution already tells them they have,” Umhoefer said. “With the distribution of our case for the court’s consideration, we move one step closer to the day when the nation will be able to live up to the promise of liberty and equality enshrined in our constitution, and all Americans will be able to marry the person they love.”
If the court decides to take up the Prop 8 case, justices will evaluate whether the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage violates equal protection afforded under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The situation with DOMA is slightly different because advocates say justices are widely expected to take up at least one case challenging the anti-gay law, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, to make a nationwide ruling on the statute.
The court’s decision to docket the case for the Nov. 20 comes on the heels of a filing from the Obama administration last week in which the Justice Department called on the court to make the Windsor case its priority among other cases challenging DOMA.
In that case, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals became the first appellate court to determine that DOMA is unconstitutional by applying a more rigorous standard of heightened scrutiny in evaluating the law.
But the marriage cases aren’t the only LGBT-related cases that the Supreme Court has docketed for its Nov. 20 conference. Justices have also scheduled whether to take up Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s (R) appeal of an federal district court injunction prohibiting her from enforcing a law that took away domestic partner benefits from state employees. The case is called Brewer v. Diaz.
The Comings & Goings column is about sharing the professional successes of our community. We want to recognize those landing new jobs, new clients for their business, joining boards of organizations and other achievements. Please share your successes with us at [email protected].
Congratulations to Gil Pontes III on his recent appointment to the Financial Advisory Board for the City of Wilton Manors, Fla. Upon being appointed he said, “I’m honored to join the Financial Advisory Board for the City of Wilton Manors at such an important moment for our community. In my role as Executive Director of the NextGen Chamber of Commerce, I spend much of my time focused on economic growth, fiscal sustainability, and the long-term competitiveness of emerging business leaders. I look forward to bringing that perspective to Wilton Manors — helping ensure responsible stewardship of public resources while supporting a vibrant, inclusive local economy.”
Pontes is a nonprofit executive with years of development, operations, budget, management, and strategic planning experience in 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and political organizations. Pontes is currently executive director of NextGen, Chamber of Commerce. NextGen Chamber’s mission is to “empower emerging business leaders by generating insights, encouraging engagement, and nurturing leadership development to shape the future economy.” Prior to that he served as managing director of The Nora Project, and director of development also at The Nora Project. He has held a number of other positions including Major Gifts Officer, Thundermist Health Center, and has worked in both real estate and banking including as Business Solutions Adviser, Ironwood Financial. For three years he was a Selectman, Town of Berkley, Mass. In that role, he managed HR and general governance for town government. There were 200+ staff and 6,500 constituents. He balanced a $20,000,000 budget annually, established an Economic Development Committee, and hired the first town administrator.
Pontes earned his bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth.
Kansas
ACLU sues Kansas over law invalidating trans residents’ IDs
A new Kansas bill requires transgender residents to have their driver’s licenses reflect their sex assigned at birth, invalidating current licenses.
Transgender people across Kansas received letters in the mail on Wednesday demanding the immediate surrender of their driver’s licenses following passage of one of the harshest transgender bathroom bans in the nation. Now the American Civil Liberties Union is filing a lawsuit to block the ban and protect transgender residents from what advocates describe as “sweeping” and “punitive” consequences.
Independent journalist Erin Reed broke the story Wednesday after lawmakers approved House Substitute for Senate Bill 244. In her reporting, Reed included a photo of the letter sent to transgender Kansans, requiring them to obtain a driver’s license that reflects their sex assigned at birth rather than the gender with which they identify.
According to the reporting, transgender Kansans must surrender their driver’s licenses and that their current credentials — regardless of expiration date — will be considered invalid upon the law’s publication. The move effectively nullifies previously issued identification documents, creating immediate uncertainty for those impacted.
House Substitute for Senate Bill 244 also stipulates that any transgender person caught driving without a valid license could face a class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. That potential penalty adds a criminal dimension to what began as an administrative action. It also compounds the legal risks for transgender Kansans, as the state already requires county jails to house inmates according to sex assigned at birth — a policy that advocates say can place transgender detainees at heightened risk.
Beyond identification issues, SB 244 not only bans transgender people from using restrooms that match their gender identity in government buildings — including libraries, courthouses, state parks, hospitals, and interstate rest stops — with the possibility for criminal penalties, but also allows for what critics have described as a “bathroom bounty hunter” provision. The measure permits anyone who encounters a transgender person in a restroom — including potentially in private businesses — to sue them for large sums of money, dramatically expanding the scope of enforcement beyond government authorities.
The lawsuit challenging SB 244 was filed today in the District Court of Douglas County on behalf of anonymous plaintiffs Daniel Doe and Matthew Moe by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Kansas, and Ballard Spahr LLP. The complaint argues that SB 244 violates the Kansas Constitution’s protections for personal autonomy, privacy, equality under the law, due process, and freedom of speech.
Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a temporary restraining order on behalf of the anonymous plaintiffs, arguing that the order — followed by a temporary injunction — is necessary to prevent the “irreparable harm” that would result from SB 244.
State Rep. Abi Boatman, a Wichita Democrat and the only transgender member of the Kansas Legislature, told the Kansas City Star on Wednesday that “persecution is the point.”
“This legislation is a direct attack on the dignity and humanity of transgender Kansans,” said Monica Bennett, legal director of the ACLU of Kansas. “It undermines our state’s strong constitutional protections against government overreach and persecution.”
“SB 244 is a cruel and craven threat to public safety all in the name of fostering fear, division, and paranoia,” said Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project. “The invalidation of state-issued IDs threatens to out transgender people against their will every time they apply for a job, rent an apartment, or interact with police. Taken as a whole, SB 244 is a transparent attempt to deny transgender people autonomy over their own identities and push them out of public life altogether.”
“SB 244 presents a state-sanctioned attack on transgender people aimed at silencing, dehumanizing, and alienating Kansans whose gender identity does not conform to the state legislature’s preferences,” said Heather St. Clair, a Ballard Spahr litigator working on the case. “Ballard Spahr is committed to standing with the ACLU and the plaintiffs in fighting on behalf of transgender Kansans for a remedy against the injustices presented by SB 244, and is dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights jeopardized by this new law.”
National
After layoffs at Advocate, parent company acquires ‘Them’ from Conde Nast
Top editorial staff let go last week
Former staff members at the Advocate and Out magazines revealed that parent company Equalpride laid off a number of employees late last week.
Those let go included Advocate editor-in-chief Alex Cooper, Pride.com editor-in-chief Rachel Shatto, brand partnerships manager Erin Manley, community editor Marie-Adélina de la Ferriére, and Out magazine staff writers Moises Mendez and Bernardo Sim, according to a report in Hollywood Reporter.
Cooper, who joined the company in 2021, posted to social media that, “Few people have had the privilege of leading this legendary LGBTQ+ news outlet, and I’m deeply honored to have been one of them. To my team: thank you for the last four years. You’ve been the best. For those also affected today, please let me know how I can support you.”
The Advocate’s PR firm when reached by the Blade said it no longer represents the company. Emails to the Advocate went unanswered.
Equalpride on Friday announced it acquired “Them,” a digital LGBTQ outlet founded in 2017 by Conde Nast.
“Equalpride exists to elevate, celebrate and protect LGBTQ+ storytelling at scale,” Equalpride CEO Mark Berryhill said according to Hollywood Reporter. “By combining the strengths of our brands with this respected digital platform, we’re creating a unified ecosystem that delivers even more impact for our audiences, advertisers, and community partners.”
It’s not clear if “Them” staff would take over editorial responsibilities for the Advocate and Out.
-
Federal Government5 days agoTwo very different views of the State of the Union
-
Virginia5 days agoVa. activists preparing campaign in support of repealing marriage amendment
-
Opinions5 days agoThe global cost of Trump’s foreign aid ideology
-
Opinions4 days agoCriteria for supporting a candidate in D.C.
