Connect with us

News

Eyes on 10th Circuit for Utah, Okla. marriage arguments

Set to become first appeals court to hear post-DOMA case

Published

on

Regnerus, gay juror, National LGBT Bar Association, Gay News, Washington Blade

(Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons).

The progression of a marriage equality lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court will reach a significant milestone this month when, for the first time since landmark rulings last year, a federal appeals court will consider arguments on the issue of gay nuptials.

The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments on April 10 in Denver in the case of Kitchen v. Herbert, the lawsuit that brought marriage equality briefly to the state of Utah, and will hear arguments April 17 in Bishop v. Smith, in which a lower court ruled Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Doug NeJaime, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said he expects arguments from attorneys on behalf of same-sex couples during these arguments to focus on the impact of the states’ marriage bans on children.

“I expect we will see significant attention on the child centered rationales put forward by the state with responses regarding the detrimental impact on children raised by same-sex couples. Children are figuring prominently in these cases,” NeJaime said. “I also expect discussion about how Windsor affects the analysis of state bans on marriage.”

The harm to children raised by same-sex parents as a result of the Defense of Marriage Act was a significant factor in U.S. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision last year against the ban. Numerous district courts have cited that language in their decisions striking down marriage bans.

The Tenth Circuit is one of five circuits where marriage equality cases are pending, but it’s hearing oral arguments sooner than the others following a decision to hear the litigation on an expedited basis.

Camilla Taylor, marriage director for Lambda Legal, said she’s optimistic both the Utah and Oklahoma cases are likely to succeed on the merits following the arguments.

“The briefing is extremely strong,” Taylor said. “There’s been a huge array of amicus briefs to go in. This will be the first oral argument in a federal circuit court, and so, of course it will be closely watched.”

Although the arguments mark the first time a federal appeals court has heard arguments on the marriage issue since the decisions against DOMA and California’s Proposition 8 last year, it’s not the first time ever a federal appeals court has heard arguments on whether a state can ban same-sex marriage. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case against Prop 8 in 2011 before striking down the amendment the following year.

The three-panel judge who’ll hear the marriage equality arguments in both cases consists of Judge Paul Kelly Jr., an appointee of President George H.W. Bush; Judge Carlos Lucero, a Clinton appointee; and Judge Jerome Holmes, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

Notably, Holmes was one of two judges that denied Utah’s request for a stay on same-sex marriages in Utah after a district court ruled the state’s marriage ban unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to institute a stay.

Observers will likely be examining judges’ questions to make a prediction on the outcome of the ruling, though Lambda’s Taylor cautioned against placing too much emphasis on the line of questioning during the arguments.

“I think it’s always difficult to tell from oral arguments which way a court is likely to rule,” Taylor said. “I’m hoping folks won’t draw too many conclusions from which questions are asked because judges during oral arguments ask questions because they’re seeking the best formulated answer that they themselves wish to give in an opinion, so a question isn’t necessarily an indication of which way a court is likely to rule.”

Arguments in other appeals courts are somewhere down the line. The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is hearing the Virginia case, have set arguments for May 13. The appeals courts for the Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Circuits have not set a date as of Wednesday for arguments to hear the marriage equality issues.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, at least 55 marriage equality court cases are working their way through the courts across the country. These cases have been filed in 28 states — as well as Puerto Rico — and account for nearly 250 plaintiffs taking on state marriage bans.

As all of these cases make their way back to the Supreme Court, observers expect justices to take up one — if not all — of them during the year-long term beginning in fall 2014. That would likely mean a nationwide decision on marriage equality by the middle of 2015.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule

Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act now protects LGBTQ people

Published

on

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra (Public domain photo)

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights has issued a final rule on Friday under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act advancing protections against discrimination in health care prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics), in covered health programs or activities. 

The updated rule does not force medical professionals to provide certain types of health care, but rather ensures nondiscrimination protections so that providers cannot turn away patients based on individual characteristics such as being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or pregnant.

“This rule ensures that people nationwide can access health care free from discrimination,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. “Standing with communities in need is critical, particularly given increased attacks on women, trans youth, and health care providers. Health care should be a right not dependent on looks, location, love, language, or the type of care someone needs.”

The new rule restores and clarifies important regulatory protections for LGBTQ people and other vulnerable populations under Section 1557, also known as the health care nondiscrimination law, that were previously rescinded by the Trump administration.

“Healthcare is a fundamental human right. The rule released today restores critical regulatory nondiscrimination protections for those who need them most and ensures a legally proper reading of the Affordable Care Act’s healthcare nondiscrimination law,” said Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, counsel and health care strategist for Lambda Legal.

“The Biden administration today reversed the harmful, discriminatory, and unlawful effort by the previous administration to eliminate critical regulatory protections for LGBTQ+ people and other vulnerable populations, such as people with limited English proficiency, by carving them out from the rule and limiting the scope of entities to which the rule applied,” Gonzalez-Pagan added. “The rule released today has reinstated many of these important protections, as well as clarifying the broad, intended scope of the rule to cover all health programs and activities and health insurers receiving federal funds. While we evaluate the new rule in detail, it is important to highlight that this rule will help members of the LGBTQ+ community — especially transgender people, non-English speakers, immigrants, people of color, and people living with disabilities — to access the care they need and deserve, saving lives and making sure healthcare professionals serve patients with essential care no matter who they are.”

In addition to rescinding critical regulatory protections for LGBTQ people, the Trump administration’s rule also limited the remedies available to people who face health disparities, limited access to health care for people with Limited English Proficiency, and dramatically reduced the number of healthcare entities and health plans subject to the rule.

Lambda Legal, along with a broad coalition of LGBTQ advocacy groups, filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration rule, Whitman-Walker Clinic v. HHS, and secured a preliminary injunction preventing key aspects of the Trump rule from taking effect.

These included the elimination of regulatory protections for LGBTQ people and the unlawful expansion of religious exemptions, which the new rule corrects. The preliminary injunction in Whitman-Walker Clinic v. HHS remains in place. Any next steps in the case will be determined at a later time, after a fulsome review of the new rule.

GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis released the following statement in response to the news:

“The Biden administration’s updates to rules regarding Section 1557 of the ACA will ensure that no one who is LGBTQI or pregnant can face discrimination in accessing essential health care. This reversal of Trump-era discriminatory rules that sought to single out Americans based on who they are and make it difficult or impossible for them to access necessary medical care will have a direct, positive impact on the day to day lives of millions of people. Today’s move marks the 334th action from the Biden-Harris White House in support of LGBTQ people. Health care is a human right that should be accessible to all Americans equally without unfair and discriminatory restrictions. LGBTQ Americans are grateful for this step forward to combat discrimination in health care so no one is barred from lifesaving treatment.”

Continue Reading

Maryland

Md. governor signs Freedom to Read Act

Law seeks to combat book bans

Published

on

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (Public domain photo/Twitter)

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore on Thursday signed a bill that seeks to combat efforts to ban books from state libraries.

House Bill 785, also known as the Freedom to Read Act, would establish a state policy “that local school systems operate their school library media programs consistent with certain standards; requiring each local school system to develop a policy and procedures to review objections to materials in a school library media program; prohibiting a county board of education from dismissing, demoting, suspending, disciplining, reassigning, transferring, or otherwise retaliating against certain school library media program personnel for performing their job duties consistent with certain standards.”

Moore on Thursday also signed House Bill 1386, which GLSEN notes will “develop guidelines for an anti-bias training program for school employees.”

Continue Reading

Mexico

Mexican Senate approves bill to ban conversion therapy

Measure passed by 77-4 vote margin

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

The Mexican Senate on Thursday approved a bill that would ban so-called conversion therapy in the country.

Yaaj México, a Mexican LGBTQ rights group, on X noted the measure passed by a 77-4 vote margin with 15 abstentions.  The Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of Mexico’s congress, approved the bill last month that, among other things, would subject conversion therapy practitioners to between two and six years in prison and fines.

The Senate on its X account described conversion therapy as “practices that have incentivized the violation of human rights of the LGBTTTIQ+ community.”

“The Senate moved (to) sanction therapies that impede or annul a person’s orientation or gender identity,” it said. “There are aggravating factors when the practices are done to minors, older adults and people with disabilities.”

Mexico City and the states of Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Jalisco and Sonora are among the Mexican jurisdictions that have banned the discredited practice. 

The Senate in 2022 passed a conversion therapy ban bill, but the House of Deputies did not approve it. It is not immediately clear whether President Andrés Manuel López Obrador supports the ban.

Canada, Brazil, Belgium, Germany, France, and New Zealand are among the countries that ban conversion therapy. Virginia, California, and D.C. are among the U.S. jurisdictions that prohibit the practice for minors.  

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular