National
What will the Tenth Circuit do with Utah marriages?
Don’t read too much into court decision to reject a stay: experts
It’s unclear what the Tenth Circuit will do over Utah same-sex marriages. (Image via wikimedia)
As celebrations continue in Utah following its surprise entry as a marriage equality state, one lingering question is whether the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals will allow gay couples to continue to marry there.
The court will face two questions regarding the ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. First, whether to institute a stay on Utah’s same-sex marriages as it considers the decision on appeal, and second, whether to overturn or uphold the district court decision.
Suzanne Goldberg, a lesbian and co-director of Columbia University’s Center for Gender & Sexuality Law, said Sunday the Tenth Circuit’s previous rejections of a stay are no indication it’ll decide the same way the next time around.
“I know the 10th circuit declined to issue a stay today, but that decision is consistent with standard procedure, which provides that the district court should rule on a stay request before the appellate court responds,” Goldberg said. “The decision does not tell us what the court will do if and when the stay request is properly presented.”
Appeals courts have made various decisions on whether to institute a stay on same-sex marriages as marriage equality litigation has advanced. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay on same-sex marriages after it determined California’s Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. But the New Jersey State Supreme Court refused to stay a lower court’s ruling in favor of marriage equality, prompting New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to drop his defense of the marriage ban.
State officials — Utah Gov. Gary Herbert and the Utah attorney general’s office — have repeatedly sought stays on the weddings, but have been rebuffed by both the district court and the Tenth Circuit. However, the appeals court allowed officials to refile yet again. The Tenth Circuit could make a decision on a stay at any time and is expected to do so soon, perhaps on Christmas Eve.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, is calling on the Tenth Circuit to issue a stay on the same-sex marriages.
“This decision provokes a constitutional crisis,” Brown said. “Not only is it unlawful, it roils the body politic and does great damage to the people’s confidence in the judicial system itself as a lone federal judge attempts to usurp the sovereignty of the state. We call on the Tenth Circuit to grant an immediate stay so that our higher courts can carefully and thoughtfully consider the profoundly important issues raised by this case.”
In the event that the Tenth Circuit rejects a stay, state officials could take their request to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Rick Hasen, a professor of law and politics at University of California, Irvine, said via Twitter that the request would go to U.S. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who could refer the issue to the entire court.
Justice Sotyomayor would be first at #SCOTUS to get stay request in Utah gay marriage case http://t.co/FzTPUVRosu
— Rick Hasen (@rickhasen) December 23, 2013
Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, said determining which way the Supreme Court will rule on a stay is difficult — even with the precedent of declaring Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
“Given that couples are now marrying in many other states without any harm to anyone, the Court might choose simply not to get involved at this point, but, as I’ve said, I can’t make any prediction at this point with any degree of confidence,” Davidson said.
Regardless of whether or not the court issues a stay, state officials — Gov. Gary Herbert and newly appointed Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes — have the right to automatic appeal, so the Tenth Circuit has no option but to take up the case on its merits.
The makeup of the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals is split just about down the middle between judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans. Three were appointed by President Obama, one by President Clinton, one by President George H.W. Bush, and four by President George W. Bush, making for a 4/5 split of Democratic vs. Republican appointees. There are also two vacancies on the court.
Davidson nonetheless said the political affiliation of the president who appointed a judge doesn’t necessarily predict the way they will decide a case.
“Of course, who appointed a judge does not necessarily tell you how a judge would rule, as some appointees of Democratic presidents have been quite moderate or even, in some states, somewhat conservative, and a number of Republican judges throughout the country have ruled in favor of marriage equality,” Davidson said.
It’s also hard to predict which combination of judges will decide the Utah case. Just as two judges on the court have denied previous stay requests in the case, certain motions, including motions to stay, are randomly assigned to a rotating two-judge panel. In the event of a tie, those judges may request that a third judge be added to decide the matter.
The consistency of the Tenth Circuit stands in contrast to the U.S. Ninth Circuit of Appeals, which has a 27-15 split of Democratic vs. Republican appointees and has a reputation for being a liberal court. The court affirmed California’s Proposition 8 was unconstitutional on the basis that marriage rights for gay couples can’t be rescinded once initially offered, and upheld California’s law prohibiting widely discredited “ex-gay” conversion therapy for minors.
As far as previous rulings, as state officials have noted in their requests for a stay on Utah same-sex marriages, no judge in the Tenth Circuit — at the district or the appeals level — has ever issued an opinion on marriage equality besides Shelby. As the judge noted in his ruling, the Tenth Circuit had determined in 2008 that sexual orientation discrimination doesn’t merit heightened scrutiny, but Shelby said that doesn’t matter because Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage doesn’t pass rational basis review.
But there is precedent for pro-gay rulings in the Tenth Circuit. In 2007, the appeals court in the case of Finstuen v. Crutcher struck down under the Full Faith & Credit Clause an Oklahoma statute barring recognition of adoptions by same-sex couples finalized in another state.
The timing for when the Tenth Circuit will make a decision regarding the appeal also remains in question. As Columbia University’s Goldberg noted, the process can take about a year, but there’s no standard timeline.
“Usually it can take up to a year, or even more, for an appeal to be briefed, argued and decided,” Goldberg said. “In marriage cases, there is a compelling reason for courts to act more quickly because people are being actively denied their rights, but there are no strict rules on the timetable.”
Davidson said it will take at least three months before a briefing is completed in the Kitchen case, but it could be considerably longer if parties seek an extension. More time is needed for oral arguments and for judges to write their decisions.
“Sometimes the period between notice of appeal and decision can be as short as six months or so, and sometimes it can be a matter of years,” Davidson said.
Shelby’s ruling had the distinction of being the first ruling on a marriage ban as a result of a federal lawsuit following the Supreme Court decision against DOMA. While other courts in New Jersey and New Mexico instituted marriage equality following the high court decision, these lawsuits were in state court, not federal court.
However, it’s not the most advanced marriage equality lawsuit. The case against Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage, Sevcik v. Sandoval, is pending before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It remains to be seen which of these two cases, or yet another, will be the first marriage equality lawsuit to reach the Supreme Court in the aftermath of the decisions this year.
However the Tenth Circuit decides, the decision from Shelby is expected to have an impact on other courts evaluating the issue of marriage equality.
Davidson said Lambda Legal submitted a copy of the ruling to the U.S. District Court for the Western District Court just before it allowed a lawsuit challenging a state ban on same-sex marriage in Virginia to proceed.
“Judge Shelby’s opinion is very persuasive, in my view, and I think it will be given significant consideration by other judges deciding these issues,” Davidson said.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
