Connect with us

National

Calif. high court: Prop 8 supporters can continue case

Justices unanimous in opinion

Published

on

The California Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion on Thursday that proponents of the state’s same-sex marriage ban have standing to defend the measure against litigation in court.

In theĀ decision, the court determined that anti-gay groups that were responsible for putting Proposition 8 before California voters in 2008 can defend the measure in the case of Perry v. Brown.

“[W]hen the public officials who ordinarily defend a challenged state law or appeal a judgment invalidating the law decline to do so … the official proponents of a voter-approved initiative measure are authorized to assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity,Ā enabling the proponents to defend the constitutionality of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative,” the court wrote.

Each of the seven justices penned their name to the court’s opinion. Associate Justice Joyce Kennard wrote a concurring opinion to “highlight the historical and legal events” that led to the decision.

Groups responsible for Prop 8, including ProtectMarriage.com, are seeking the ability to defend the measure in court because state officials have elected not to participate in litigation against the measure. California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and Attorney General Kamala Harris (D) have decided not to defend the law — just as former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and Brown in his previous capacity as attorney general chose not to defend it.

The case is pending before a three-judge panel with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which in JanuaryĀ asked the California Supreme Court to consider whether Prop 8’s proponents had standing to defend the amendment in court.

The California Supreme Court ruling is a recommendation; standing remains a question of federal law. The state court is simply providing advice to the Ninth Circuit on the legal rights of ballot initiative proponents under state law.

After an indeterminate time passes, the Ninth Circuit will make its own decision on whether Prop 8 proponents have standing to defend the measure as it considers the case. Observers say the Ninth Circuit will likely concur that Prop 8 backers can continue the case, then proceed to consider the case on its merits. From there, the case could be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The case arrived at the Ninth Circuit on appeal after now retired U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled against Prop 8 last year on the basis that the measure violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution because it singles out gays for unfair treatment under the law.

The lawsuit was filed by the American Federation for Equal Rights, which selected Ted Olson, a U.S. solicitor general under former President George W. Bush, and David Boies, a private attorney and chairman of the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner, to lead the case.

In a statement, Olson said he’s “pleased” the California high court has responded to Ninth Circuit’s question and expects swift action from the appellate court.

ā€œImportant questions of federal law remain pending before the Ninth Circuit, including, most significantly, the constitutionality of Proposition 8,” Olson said. “We now anticipate a prompt and thorough resolution of those questions by the federal appeals court, which, we expect, will affirm the trial court’s comprehensive and compelling decision that Proposition 8 violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. We hope that the long wait for justice by gay and lesbian Californians will soon be over.ā€

Chad Griffin, AFER’s board president, expressed similar confidence and said the lawsuit “is now back on the fast track.”

ā€œWe are back in federal court and on the cusp of victory for loving, committed gay and lesbian couples whose constitutional rights are being violated every minute of every day,” Griffin said. “The anti-marriage proponents have no case. We are confident that the higher courts will uphold the District Court’s opinion that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.ā€

LGBT advocates have had mixed views on whether granting standing to proponents of Prop 8 would be beneficial for same-sex couples, although most had said they didn’t want the anti-gay groups to be allowed to defend the law in court.

If the Ninth Circuit finds that Prop 8 supporters don’t have standing, the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and California’s marriage ban is lifted. However, some have said granting these groups standing and enabling the case to continue could take it to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could then decide on whether U.S. Constitution provides marriage rights to gay couples throughout the country.

Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, called the ruling “disappointing,” but said he anticipates “a quick victory” in the Ninth Circuit for same-sex couples.

“The ruling addresses only a procedural legal question,” Davidson said. “The key question underlying this case is whether the U.S. Constitution permits a state electorate to treat one group of people unequally to everyone else by depriving them of what the state’s high court has held to be a fundamental right.Ā A federal court has already ruled that it may not. We look forward to seeing that decision upheld so that same-sex couples in California may once again enjoy the freedom to marry.”

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the ruling a “terrible decision” in terms of its impact on California law.

“The court has given initiative proponents unprecedented and virtually unlimited power, and the people of California will be living with the dangerous consequences of that decision for years to come,” Minter said.

While LGBT groups found the court decision unpalatable, the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage praised the Supreme Court for determining that proponents of Prop 8 should have standing.

Brian Brown, NOM’s president, said “it was shameful” state officials would “abdicate their constitutional responsibility” and elect not to defend the marriage ban in court.

ā€œAlthough today’s ruling from the California Supreme Court confirms that the proponents of Prop 8 have the right to defend their initiative when the state officials refuse to fulfill their sworn duty, it is gratifying to know that the over 7 million Californians who supported the initiative will have a vigorous defense of their decision in our federal courts,” Brown said.

Brown expressed confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn against any decision against the marriage ban made by the Ninth Circuit.

“Once this case gets out of San Francisco and reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, we fully expect to be victorious,” Brown said.

 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

HHS to retire 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth

Trevor Project warns the move will ‘put their lives at risk’

Published

on

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. appears on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" in April 2024. (Screen capture via YouTube)

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is planning to retire the national 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth on Oct. 1, according to a preliminary budget document obtained by the Washington Post.

Introduced during the Biden-Harris administration in 2022, the hotline connects callers with counselors who are trained to work with this population, who are four times likelier to attempt suicide than their cisgender or heterosexual counterparts.

ā€œSuicide prevention is about risk, not identity,” said Jaymes Black, CEO of the Trevor Project, which provides emergency crisis support for LGBTQ youth and has contracted with HHS to take calls routed through 988.

“Ending the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline’s LGBTQ+ youth specialized services will not just strip away access from millions of LGBTQ+ kids and teens — it will put their lives at risk,ā€ they said in a statement. ā€œThese programs were implemented to address a proven, unprecedented, and ongoing mental health crisis among our nation’s young people with strong bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by President Trump himself.ā€

“I want to be clear to all LGBTQ+ young people: This news, while upsetting, is not final,” Black said. “And regardless of federal funding shifts, the Trevor Project remains available 24/7 for anyone who needs us, just as we always have.ā€

The service for LGBTQ youth has received 1.3 million calls, texts, or chats since its debut, with an average of 2,100 contacts per day in February.

ā€œI worry deeply that we will see more LGBTQ young people reach a crisis state and not have anyone there to help them through that,ā€ said Janson Wu, director of advocacy and government affairs at the Trevor Project. ā€œI worry that LGBTQ young people will reach out to 988 and not receive a compassionate and welcoming voice on the other end — and that will only deepen their crisis.ā€

Under Trump’s HHS secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the agency’s departments and divisions have experienced drastic cuts, with a planned reduction in force of 20,000 full-time employees. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has been sunset and mental health services consolidated into the newly formed Administration for a Healthy America.

The budget document reveals, per Mother Jones, “further sweeping cuts to HHS, including a 40 percent budget cut to the National Institutes of Health; elimination of funding for Head Start, the early childhood education program for low-income families; and a 44 percent funding cut to the Centers for Disease Control, including all the agency’s chronic disease programs.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court hears oral arguments in LGBTQ education case

Mahmoud v. Taylor plaintiffs argue for right to opt-out of LGBTQ inclusive lessons

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case about whether Montgomery County, Md., public schools violated the First Amendment rights of parents by not providing them an opportunity to opt their children out of reading storybooks that were part of an LGBTQ-inclusive literacy curriculum.

The school district voted in early 2022 to allow books featuring LGBTQ characters in elementary school language arts classes. When the county announced that parents would not be able to excuse their kids from these lessons, they sued on the grounds that their freedom to exercise the teachings of their Muslim, Jewish, and Christian faiths had been infringed.

The lower federal courts declined to compel the district to temporarily provide advance notice and an opportunity to opt-out of the LGBTQ inclusive curricula, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the parents had not shown that exposure to the storybooks compelled them to violate their religion.

ā€œLGBTQ+ stories matter,” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said in a statement Tuesday. ā€œThey matter so students can see themselves and their families in the books they read — so they can know they’re not alone. And they matter for all students who need to learn about the world around them and understand that while we may all be different, we all deserve to be valued and loved.”

She added, “All students lose when we limit what they can learn, what they can read, and what their teachers can say. The Supreme Court should reject this attempt to silence our educators and ban our stories.ā€

GLAD Law, NCLR, Family Equality, and COLAGE submitted a 40-page amicus brief on April 9, which argued the storybooks “fit squarely” within the district’s language arts curriculum, the petitioners challenging the materials incorrectly characterized them as “specialized curriculum,” and that their request for a “mandated notice-and-opt-out requirement” threatens “to sweep far more broadly.”

Lambda Legal, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, PFLAG, and the National Women’s Law Center announced their submission of a 31-page amicus brief in a press release on April 11.

ā€œAll students benefit from a school climate that promotes acceptance and respect,ā€ said Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal.  ā€œEnsuring that students can see themselves in the curriculum and learn about students who are different is critical for creating a positive school environment. This is particularly crucial for LGBTQ+ students and students with LGBTQ+ family members who already face unique challenges.ā€

The organizations’ brief cited extensive social science research pointing to the benefits of LGBTQ-inclusive instruction like “age-appropriate storybooks featuring diverse families and identities” benefits all students regardless of their identities.

Also weighing in with amici briefs on behalf of Montgomery County Public Schools were the National Education Association, the ACLU, and the American Psychological Association.

Those writing in support of the parents challenging the district’s policy included the Center for American Liberty, the Manhattan Institute, Parents Defending Education, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Trump-Vance administration’s U.S. Department of Justice, and a coalition of Republican members of Congress.

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

LGBTQ groups: SCOTUS case threatens coverage of preventative services beyond PrEP

Kennedy v. Braidwood oral arguments heard Monday

Published

on

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Following Monday’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., LGBTQ groups issued statements warning the case could imperil coverage for a broad swath of preventative services and medications beyond PrEP, which is used to reduce the risk of transmitting HIV through sex.

Plaintiffs brought the case to challenge a requirement that insurers and group health plans cover the drug regimen, arguing that the mandate “encourage[s] homosexual behavior, intravenous drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.ā€

The case has been broadened, however, such that cancer screenings, heart disease medications, medications for infants, and several other preventive care services are in jeopardy, according to a press release that GLAAD, Lambda Legal, PrEP4All, Harvard Law’s Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation (CHLPI), and the Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP) released on Monday.

The Trump-Vance administration has argued the independent task force responsible for recommending which preventative services must be covered with no cost-sharing for patients is constitutional because the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services can exercise veto power and fire members of the volunteer panel of national experts in disease prevention and evidence-based medicine.

While HHS secretaries have not exercised these powers since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, Braidwood could mean Trump’s health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., takes a leading role in determining which services are included in the coverage mandate.

Roll Call notes the Supreme Court case comes as the administration has suspended grants to organizations that provide care for and research HIV while the ongoing restructuring of HHS has raised questions about whether the ā€œEnding the HIV Epidemicā€ begun under Trump’s first term will be continued.

ā€œToday’s Supreme Court hearing in the Braidwood case is a pivotal moment for the health and rights of all Americans,” said GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis. “This case, rooted in discriminatory objections to medical necessities like PrEP, can undermine efforts to end the HIV epidemic and also jeopardize access to essential services like cancer screenings and heart disease medications, disproportionately affecting LGBTQ people and communities of color.”

She added, “Religious exemptions should not be weaponized to erode healthcare protections and restrict medically necessary, life-saving preventative healthcare for every American.ā€

Lambda Legal HIV Project Director Jose Abrigo said, ā€œThe Braidwood case is about whether science or politics will guide our nation’s public health policy. Allowing ideological or religious objections to override scientific consensus would set a dangerous precedent. Although this case began with an attack on PrEP coverage, a critical HIV prevention tool, it would be a serious mistake to think this only affects LGBTQ people.”

“The real target is one of the pillars of the Affordable Care Act: The preventive services protections,” Abrigo said. “That includes cancer screenings, heart disease prevention, diabetes testing, and more. If the plaintiffs succeed, the consequences will be felt across every community in this country, by anyone who relies on preventive care to stay healthy.”

He continued, “What’s at stake is whether we will uphold the promise of affordable and accessible health care for all or allow a small group of ideologues to dismantle it for everyone. We as a country are only as healthy as our neighbors and an attack on one group’s rights is an attack on all.ā€

PrEP4All Executive Director Jeremiah Johnson said, “We are hopeful that the justices will maintain ACA protections for PrEP and other preventive services, however, advocates are poised to fight for access no matter the outcome.”

He continued, “Implementing cost-sharing  would have an enormous impact on all Americans, including LGBTQ+ individuals. Over 150 million people could suddenly find themselves having to dig deep into already strained household budgets to pay for care that they had previously received for free. Even small amounts of cost sharing lead to drops in access to preventive services.”

“For PrEP, just a $10 increase in the cost of medication doubled PrEP abandonment rates in a 2024 modeling study,” Johnson said. “Loss of PrEP access would be devastating with so much recent progress in reining in new HIV infections in the U.S. This would also be a particularly disappointing time to lose comprehensive coverage for PrEP with a once every six month injectable version set to be approved this summer.ā€

ā€œToday’s oral arguments in the Braidwood case underscore what is at stake for the health and well-being of millions of Americans,” said CHLPI Clinical Fellow Anu Dairkee. “This case is not just about legal technicalities — it is about whether people across the country will continue to have access to the preventive health services they need, without cost sharing, regardless of who they are or where they come from.”

She continued, “Since the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services provision took effect in 2010, Americans have benefited from a dramatic increase in the use of services that detect disease early, promote healthy living, and reduce long-term health costs. These benefits are rooted in the work of leading scientists and public health experts, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose recommendations are based on rigorous, peer-reviewed evidence.”

“Any shift away from cost-free access to preventive care could have wide-ranging implications, potentially limiting access for those who are already navigating economic hardship and health disparities,” Dairkee said. “If Braidwood prevails, the consequences will be felt nationwide. We risk losing access to lifesaving screenings and preventive treatments that have become standard care over the past decade.”

“This case should serve as a wake-up call: Science, not politics, must guide our health care system,” she said. “The health of our nation depends on it.ā€

ā€œWe are grateful for the Justices who steadfastly centered constitutionality and didn’t allow a deadly political agenda to deter them from their job at hand,” said CHLP Staff Attorney Kae Greenberg. “While we won’t know the final decision until June, what we do know now is not having access to a full range of preventative healthcare is deadly for all of us, especially those who live at the intersections of racial, gender and economic injustice.”

“We are crystal clear how the efforts to undermine the ACA, of which this is a very clear attempt, fit part and parcel into an overall agenda to rollback so much of the ways our communities access dignity and justice,” he said. “Although the plaintiffs’ arguments today were cloaked in esoteric legal language, at it’s heart, this case revolves around the Christian Right’s objection to ‘supporting’ those who they do not agree with, and is simply going to result in people dying who would otherwise have lived long lives.”

“This is why CHLP is invested and continues in advocacy with our partners, many of whom are included here,” Greenberg said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular