National/Federal Know Your Rights - Page 39 of 59 - GLAD Law
تخطي العنوان إلى المحتوى
GLAD Logo تخطي التنقل الأساسي إلى المحتوى

فولتون ضد مدينة فيلادلفيا

تحديث: في 17 يونيو/حزيران 2021، أصدرت المحكمة العليا حكمًا محدودًا ومحدودًا بشأن الخدمات الاجتماعية الكاثوليكية، يُركز على لغة تعاقدية محددة. يُبقي هذا الحكم على المبدأ الأوسع الذي يقضي بإمكانية إلزام الحكومات المتعاقدين، بما في ذلك الهيئات الدينية، بالامتثال لقوانين عدم التمييز - بما في ذلك تلك التي تحمي الأزواج من نفس الجنس - عند تقديم خدمات اجتماعية ممولة من دافعي الضرائب. وبينما وجدت المحكمة أن عقد فيلادلفيا مع الخدمات الاجتماعية الكاثوليكية غير قابل للتنفيذ، فقد فعلت ذلك لأن العقد يسمح بإعفاءات تقديرية فردية على أساس كل حالة على حدة، ولكنها لم تنظر في ادعاء الخدمات الاجتماعية الكاثوليكية. نشأت القضية من ادعاء من الخدمات الاجتماعية الكاثوليكية بأنه كان ينبغي السماح لها برفض العمل مع الأزواج من نفس الجنس عند تقديم خدمات رعاية الأسر الحاضنة بموجب عقد مع مدينة فيلادلفيا. اقرأ بيان GLAD الكامل.

شاهد الإحاطة الافتراضية حول ما يعنيه الحكم لمجتمع LGBTQ.


في عام ٢٠١٨، علّقت مدينة فيلادلفيا عقدًا مع هيئة الخدمات الاجتماعية الكاثوليكية (CSS) لتقديم خدمات رعاية الأطفال بالتبني، وذلك لرفض الهيئة العمل مع الأزواج المثليين وغير المتزوجين، منتهكةً بذلك قانون فيلادلفيا لمنع التمييز. ورفعت هيئة الخدمات الاجتماعية دعوى قضائية ضد المدينة، مدّعيةً، من جملة أمور، أن تصرفات المدينة انتهكت حقوقها في حرية ممارسة الشعائر الدينية. تسعى الهيئة إلى الحصول على أمر قضائي.* ضد المدينة، خسرت شركة CSS القضية في المحكمة الفيدرالية الابتدائية، ثم في الاستئناف. نظرت المحكمة العليا في القضية في 4 نوفمبر/تشرين الثاني 2020 (الصوت متاح هنا).

فولتون من المتوقع أن تُشكّل هذه القضية نقطة تحول في مسألة ما إذا كان من الممكن إعفاء منظمات الرعاية الاجتماعية ذات الأساس الديني، والتي تتلقى أموال دافعي الضرائب من خلال عقود حكومية محلية، من قوانين عدم التمييز الحكومية. هناك احتمال أن يُتخذ قرار في فولتون وقد يعني هذا أن أي كيان ديني، أو حتى شركة خاصة تؤكد معتقداتها الدينية، سيكون لها الحق في رفض تقديم الخدمة أو العمل مع أي شخص لمجرد هويته.

يعتمد الكثير من الناس على جهات ممولة حكوميًا، مثل CSS، لتلبية احتياجاتهم الأساسية - من طعام وسكن ورعاية صحية وغيرها. قد تُمهّد هذه القضية الطريق لإلغاء الحماية التي يعتمد عليها أكثر الفئات ضعفًا في مجتمعنا لضمان المساواة في الحصول على السلع والخدمات. كما قد تُلزم الحكومة، على جميع مستوياتها، بتمويل الجماعات التي تُمارس التمييز. ولهذا السبب انضمت منظمة GLAD إلى 27 منظمة أخرى من منظمات الدفاع عن حقوق المثليين والمثليات ومزدوجي الميل الجنسي والمتحولين جنسياً على المستوى الوطني والإقليمي والدولي. قدم مذكرة صديق للمحكمة في 20 أغسطس 2020، دعماً لموقف مدينة فيلادلفيا، حث المحكمة العليا الأمريكية عدم إدخال استثناء واسع النطاق لقوانين عدم التمييز من شأنه أن يقوض ضمانات الحماية المتساوية الدستورية ويقدم مخططًا خطيرًا وغير قابل للتنفيذ في التشريع المحلي والولائي والفيدرالي.

اطلع على موجز GLAD هنا أو انقر هنا لقراءة كافة الملفات في فولتون ضد مدينة فيلادلفيا.

YouTube #!trpst#trp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=148#!trpen#فيديو#!trpst#/trp-gettext#!trpen#

NCLR and GLAD, the LGBT Legal Organizations Leading the Fight to Stop the Trump-Pence Trans Military Ban, Joint Statement on 7 Years Since the End of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

WASHINGTON, DC—Today marks seven years since the U.S. Department of Defense ended Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell—the military policy that prohibited gay, lesbian, and bisexual servicemembers from open service. National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Legal Director Shannon Minter و GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi, the attorneys who filed the first lawsuit to stop Trump’s transgender military ban and the first to secure a nationwide preliminary injunction halting the ban while the case is heard in court, issued the following joint statement:

“Seven years ago, our country discarded a baseless and discriminatory policy that forced dedicated and courageous servicemembers into the shadows.

“But under President Trump, we see history repeating itself. The same stigma and false stereotypes used to justify Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell are being reprised by the Trump-Pence administration in an attempt to force out 9,000 trained, qualified transgender troops, who are serving honorably at home and overseas.

“To date, every court to hear a case challenging the ban has recognized that these arguments ring hollow and that any servicemember who can meet the standards should be permitted to serve. But the Trump-Pence administration continues to try to push the ban forward.

“Just as we stood with our community during Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, we will continue to stand with transgender servicemembers now until Trump’s unconstitutional, discriminatory transgender military ban is relegated to the dustbin of history.”

###

من خلال التقاضي الاستراتيجي، والدعوة إلى السياسات العامة، والتثقيف، المحامون والمدافعون القانونيون عن المثليين ومزدوجي الميل الجنسي ومغايري الهوية الجنسية تعمل في نيو إنجلاند وعلى المستوى الوطني على إنشاء مجتمع عادل خالٍ من التمييز على أساس الهوية الجنسية والتعبير عنها، وحالة الإصابة بفيروس نقص المناعة البشرية، والتوجه الجنسي. www.GLAD.org

المركز الوطني لحقوق المثليات هي منظمة قانونية وطنية ملتزمة بتعزيز حقوق الإنسان والحقوق المدنية لمجتمع المثليات والمثليين ومزدوجي الميل الجنسي والمتحولين جنسياً من خلال التقاضي والدعوة إلى السياسات العامة والتثقيف العام. www.NCLRights.org

GLAD Calls for Investigation of Sexual Assault Allegation and Halt to Kavanaugh Confirmation Vote

Statement of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) Executive Director Janson Wu:

Allegations of sexual assault are serious and must be treated as such. Christine Blasey Ford has taken considerable risk by coming forward publicly. These assertions regarding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh must be thoroughly and conscientiously investigated before any further action is taken regarding his potential appointment to a lifetime term on our nation’s highest court.

We call on the leaders and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to take their duty seriously. The Committee cannot go forward with any vote until there is a full, transparent process to ensure these recently disclosed allegations receive the respectful and sober attention they warrant.

 

مدونة

Forty years ago, during a different hot, tumultuous summer, at the height of disco and in the wake of orange juice queen Anita Bryant’s national anti-gay crusade, GLAD was born. Young Boston lawyer John Ward submitted articles of incorporation for a new legal organization that would be known as “Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.”

In 1978, Ward knew that it was revolutionary for an organization to have the words “gay and lesbian” in its name, much less advocate for LGBTQ legal rights. But revolutions are born out of necessity. The necessity of that moment was a Boston police sting operation that targeted and outed hundreds of gay men. They needed legal defense and representation, and John stepped up.

That necessary revolution laid the foundation for what we have so far accomplished together in the past four decades.

Over the last 40 years, GLAD has changed the landscape of LGBTQ rights in more ways than can be summarized. But here are a few:

  • Winning the right of a Rhode Island high school senior to bring his boyfriend to the prom in 1980 in our first federal district court victory, argued by GLAD founder John Ward.
  • Securing anti-discrimination protections for people living with HIV in our first Supreme Court victory 20 years ago, argued by GLAD attorney Ben Klein.
  • Winning marriage equality in all six New England states, and then for the entire nation, in our second Supreme Court victory 3 years ago, argued by GLAD attorney Mary Bonauto.
  • Securing first-of-its-kind victories on transgender rights, including the first state supreme court decision to affirm the right of transgender students to use the appropriate restroom, argued by GLAD attorney Jennifer Levi. (And the young girl GLAD represented in that case, Nicole Maines, is now set to be TVs first transgender superhero).
  • Protecting families, including LGBTQ non-birth parents who have not married or adopted, through court and legislative victories, led by GLAD attorney Polly Crozier.
  • Winning asylum for John Wambere, a Ugandan gay man whose life was in danger due to his LGBTQ activism, thanks to representation by GLAD attorney Allison Wright.

These cases profoundly changed people’s lives, expanded the public picture of who LGBTQ people and people living with HIV are and can be. Some are now taught in law schools all over the country as well as cited in state and federal decisions.

We have a lot to be proud of. But our work together is nowhere near done. If there were ever a time when we needed another revolution, it is now.

We are facing profound attacks.

  • This year, we have seen more than 150 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced in state legislatures across the country.
  • We witnessed the first, but not the last attempt by our opposition to write discrimination into our constitution under the guise of “religious freedom.”
  • And we are on the verge of losing a critical fifth vote on the U.S. Supreme Court, threatening every legal gain we have made on LGBTQ rights over the last 20 years.

We have faced attacks and challenges before. And as our past 40 years of victories show, we know how to fight, we know how to persist, and we know how to win.

One fighter GLAD is proud to represent is our plaintiff Nicolas Talbott. Enlisting in the Air Force had been Nic’s dream for years. When President Trump tweeted his ban on transgender service members last summer, Nic felt like his entire future had been ripped away: “It essentially shattered every plan that I had.”

But instead of falling into despair and apathy, Nic chose to fight. He says, “I finally have been presented the opportunity to stand up and let my voice be heard and fight for my rights.” And thanks to Nic and his co-plaintiffs in GLAD’s two cases, as of this past January, transgender people have the chance to openly enlist for the first time in our country’s history.

What we know that gives us hope is this: نحن نكون the majority. The majority of Americans are fair, compassionate, and believe in equality and basic human decency.

Those who believe that we should all be celebrated for who we are and who we love – we are the majority. Those who understand that immigrants have always made America great – we are the majority. Those who know that our nation’s strength is rooted in our diversity, not division and exclusion – we are the majority.

But even though we are the majority, we can only win if we unite together toward a common cause.

We have grown beyond our wildest dreams, from the handful of passionate and determined activists who started a revolution 40 years ago when they founded GLAD. Our job today is to continue their work, and never, never stop fighting for a future that realizes our Constitution’s promise of equality, and justice, for all.

قاضٍ يرفض محاولات ترامب لإلغاء دعوى حظر الخدمة العسكرية للمتحولين جنسياً وحل الأمر القضائي الأولي

رفضت قاضية المقاطعة كولين كولار كوتيلي طلبات إدارة ترامب برفض قضية دو ضد ترامب، وحل الأمر القضائي الأولي الذي يمنع دخول الحظر حيز التنفيذ.

واشنطن العاصمة - المحكمة الجزئية الأمريكية رفضت القاضية كولين كولار كوتيلي اليوم اقتراح إدارة ترامب برفض قضية NCLR وGLAD دو ضد ترامب، أول دعوى قضائية تُرفع للطعن في حظر ترامب-بنس العسكري للمتحولين جنسياً والأولى للحصول على أمر قضائي أولي يمنع الحظر من الدخول حيز التنفيذ أثناء نظر المحكمة في القضية. كما رفضت القاضية كولار-كوتيلي طلب إدارة ترامب بإلغاء الأمر القضائي الأولي، والذي كان من شأنه أن يعرض للخطر حياة جميع الآلاف من الجنود المتحولين جنسياً الذين يخدمون حاليًا في الخدمة تقريبًا ويسمح لإدارة ترامب بالبدء في تنفيذ الحظر. لم تحكم القاضية كولار-كوتيلي بعد في طلب المدعين للحصول على حكم موجز، والذي من شأنه أن يحل القضية بإصدار حكم نهائي يعلن أن الحظر غير دستوري ولا يمكن تنفيذه. في أمر القاضية كولار-كوتيلي، أكد على أهمية الخدمة العسكرية للمتحولين جنسياً فيما يتعلق بالجاهزية العسكرية، "لا ينبغي أن ننسى أن الجيش الأمريكي لا يزال منخرطًا في صراعات مسلحة عديدة حول العالم، ولا يزال أفراده يُصابون ويُقتلون في تلك الصراعات. إن المصلحة العامة والإنصاف يكمنان في السماح للشباب والشابات المؤهلين والراغبين في خدمة أمتنا بالقيام بذلك". كما قضت القاضية كولار-كوتيلي أكد على قدرة مجتمع المتحولين جنسياً على الخدمة، مشيرًا إلى أن "خطة ماتيس التنفيذية لا تزال تُطبّق حظرًا واسع النطاق على الخدمة العسكرية للأفراد المتحولين جنسيًا، وهو حظر يبدو منفصلًا عن قدرة أي فرد متحول جنسيًا على الخدمة الفعلية. في غياب السياسة المُعترض عليها، يخضع الأفراد المتحولون جنسيًا لجميع المعايير والمتطلبات نفسها للانضمام والاحتفاظ بالخدمة العسكرية، مثل أي فرد آخر. تُرسي خطة ماتيس التنفيذية نظامًا خاصًا إضافي قاعدة استبعادية تستبعد الأفراد الذين يستوفون المعايير الصارمة المطبقة على جميع أفراد الخدمة لمجرد امتلاكهم سمات معينة مرتبطة بالتحول الجنسي. "إن حجج إدارة ترامب لرفض دعوانا القضائية والمضي قدمًا في حظر المتحولين جنسيًا في الجيش مليئة بالتعميمات الشاملة والصور النمطية الخاطئة عن المتحولين جنسيًا. من الواضح أن القاضية كولار-كوتيلي لا تقتنع بذلك - ولا ينبغي لأي شخص آخر أن يقتنع بذلك أيضًا"، كما قال. جينيفر ليفي، مديرة مشروع حقوق المتحولين جنسياً في منظمة المدافعين القانونيين عن حقوق المثليين ومزدوجي الميل الجنسي ومغايري الهوية الجنسية (GLAD)يجب أن يكون أي شخص يستوفي المعايير قادرًا على الخدمة. لا يوجد مبرر لمعاملة المتحولين جنسيًا معاملة غير دستورية وتمييزية، على عكس الطريقة التي يعامل بها الجيش أي فئة أخرى. قال: "لا توجد سياسة عسكرية أخرى تستبعد فئة من الأشخاص من الخدمة بناءً على هويتهم، وليس بناءً على قدرتهم على أداء الوظيفة". شانون مينتر، المدير القانوني للمركز الوطني لحقوق المثليات (NCLR)يرفض حكم اليوم بشدة محاولة إدارة ترامب التهرب من الأمر القضائي والمضي قدمًا في خطتها التدميرية لاستبعاد الأفراد المتحولين جنسيًا المؤهلين من الخدمة العسكرية. ووفقًا لإحصاءات الجيش نفسه، يخدم آلاف المتحولين جنسيًا حاليًا - أحد... ظبية خدم المدعون في عدة جولات خدمة في الخارج، اثنتان منها في العراق. هذا الحظر ليس مخالفًا للدستور فحسب، بل إنه يستهدف أيضًا العسكريين المتفانين ويُضعف الجاهزية العسكرية. سنواصل النضال من أجل من يقاتلون من أجل وطننا. خلفية 30 يونيو 2016:اعتمدت وزارة الدفاع الأمريكية سياسة تسمح للأشخاص المتحولين جنسياً بالخدمة في الجيش بناءً على مراجعة أجرتها وزارة الدفاع لمدة عامين تقريبًا والتي خلصت إلى أنه لا يوجد سبب وجيه لاستبعاد الأفراد المؤهلين من الخدمة العسكرية لمجرد أنهم متحولون جنسياً. 26 يوليو 2017:غرد الرئيس ترامب قائلاً إن "حكومة الولايات المتحدة لن تقبل أو تسمح للأفراد المتحولين جنسياً بالخدمة بأي شكل من الأشكال في الجيش الأمريكي". 9 أغسطس 2017:تم تقديم NCLR و GLAD دو ضد ترامب، وهي أول دعوى قضائية يتم رفعها لوقف الحظر، حيث تطعن في دستوريته، وتطالب المحكمة بإصدار أمر قضائي أولي على مستوى البلاد لمنعه من الدخول حيز التنفيذ أثناء نظر القضية في المحكمة. 25 أغسطس 2017أصدر الرئيس ترامب مذكرة يأمر فيها وزير الدفاع جيمس ماتيس بتقديم "خطة لتنفيذ" الحظر بحلول 21 فبراير 2018. وقد سلم الوزير ماتيس هذه (خطة ماتيس وتقرير اللجنة) إلى الرئيس ترامب في 22 فبراير 2018. 30 أكتوبر 2017:حكمت المحكمة الجزئية الأمريكية لمقاطعة كولومبيا بأن دو ضد ترامب وقد أثبت المدعون احتمال نجاح دعواهم بأن حظر الرئيس ترامب ينتهك مبدأ الحماية المتساوية، وأن المدعين سوف يتضررون بشكل لا يمكن إصلاحه في حالة عدم صدور أمر قضائي أولي بوقف الحظر، وأن المصلحة العامة وتوازن الصعوبات ترجح لصالح منح الإغاثة عن طريق الأمر القضائي ووقف الحظر مؤقتًا أثناء نظر المحكمة في القضية. 23 مارس 2018:الرئيس ترامب يقبل "خطة ماتيس" ويصدر مذكرة "ألغى" فيها مذكرته الصادرة في 25 أغسطس. 20 أبريل 2018:قدم المدعى عليهم التماسًا لحل الأمر القضائي الأولي الذي صدر في 30 أكتوبر على مستوى البلاد والذي يحظر على المتحولين جنسياً الخدمة العسكرية والذي أصدرته المحكمة الجزئية الأمريكية لمقاطعة كولومبيا؛ وطلبًا لرفض الشكوى المعدلة الثانية للمدّعين؛ وطلبًا للحصول على حكم موجز. 11 مايو 2018:قدّم المدعون طلبهم المتقابل للحكم المُختصر، بالإضافة إلى طلبات معارضة لطلبات المدعى عليه بإلغاء الأمر القضائي ورفض شكوى المدعين. كان المجلس الوطني لحقوق الإنسان (NCLR) ومنظمة GLAD في قلب المعركة القانونية التي طعنت في حظر ترامب-بنس العسكري على المتحولين جنسيًا منذ تقديم الطلب. دو ضد ترامب، وهي الأولى من بين أربع قضايا رفعت ضد الحظر، في 9 أغسطس/آب 2017. لمزيد من المعلومات، انتقل إلى موقع NCLR وGLAD الإلكتروني https://notransmilitaryban.org/. ### من خلال التقاضي الاستراتيجي، والدعوة إلى السياسات العامة، والتثقيف، المحامون والمدافعون القانونيون عن المثليين ومزدوجي الميل الجنسي ومغايري الهوية الجنسية تعمل في نيو إنجلاند وعلى المستوى الوطني على إنشاء مجتمع عادل خالٍ من التمييز على أساس الهوية الجنسية والتعبير عنها، وحالة الإصابة بفيروس نقص المناعة البشرية، والتوجه الجنسي. www.GLAD.org المركز الوطني لحقوق المثليات هي منظمة قانونية وطنية ملتزمة بتعزيز حقوق الإنسان والحقوق المدنية لمجتمع المثليات والمثليين ومزدوجي الميل الجنسي والمتحولين جنسياً من خلال التقاضي والدعوة إلى السياسات العامة والتثقيف العام. www.NCLRights.org

Rhines v. Young

GLAD joined five other civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, Lambda Legal, National Center for LGBTQ Rights, and National LGBT Bar Association, filed an amici brief today urging the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the appeal of Charles Rhines, a gay man on death row in South Dakota.

According to the filing, new evidence “suggests that at least some members of the jury accepted the notion that life in prison without parole would be fun for a gay person – so much so that they felt it was necessary to impose the death penalty instead. In other words, significant evidence suggests that the jury may have sentenced Mr. Rhines to death based not on the facts of his case, but because he is gay.”  اقرأ المزيد

Civil Rights Organizations Urge Eighth Circuit to Accept Appeal of Man Who May Have Been Sentenced to Death Because He is Gay

New evidence shows some jurors may have voted for death for Charles Rhines because they believed he would enjoy life in prison with other men

(St. Louis, Missouri) Six civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, Lambda Legal,  GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and National LGBT Bar Association, filed an amici brief today urging the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the appeal of Charles Rhines, a gay man on death row in South Dakota. According to the filing, new evidence “suggests that at least some members of the jury accepted the notion that life in prison without parole would be fun for a gay person – so much so that they felt it was necessary to impose the death penalty instead. In other words, significant evidence suggests that the jury may have sentenced Mr. Rhines to death based not on the facts of his case, but because he is gay.” “Mr. Rhines’s case represents one of the most extreme forms anti-LGBT bias can take. Evidence suggests that he has been on death row for the past 25 years because he is a gay man. The constitutional right to a fair trial must include the right to establish whether a verdict or sentence was imposed due to jury bias,” said Lambda Legal Fair Courts Project Attorney Ethan Rice. “Lambda Legal is proud to work with the ACLU, the ACLU of South Dakota, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the National LGBT Bar Association to provide important information to the Eighth Circuit on the history of bias against LGBT people and how that bias impacts LGBT rights in the criminal legal system.” The amicus brief can be viewed here: https://tinyurl.com/y8eslggc Mr. Rhines’s Application for Certificate of Appealability can be viewed at https://tinyurl.com/y778msud and its exhibits at https://tinyurl.com/y8bz8jor. During jury deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge that indicated that Mr. Rhines’s status as a gay man had become a focal point for deliberations. The note asked whether, if sentenced to life without parole, Mr. Rhines would “be allowed to mix with the general inmate population,” be able to “brag about his crime to other inmates, especially new and/or young men,” enjoy “conjugal visits” and asked other questions about Mr. Rhines’s access to other men while in prison. (Application at p. 6.) The new evidence comes in the form of three statements from jurors who served at Mr. Rhines’s capital trial and sentencing. One juror stated that the jury “knew that [Mr. Rhines] was a homosexual and thought that he shouldn’t be able to spend his life with men in prison.” Another juror recalled a juror commenting that “if he’s gay we’d be sending him where he wants to go if we voted for [life without parole].” A third juror confirmed that “[t]here was lots of discussion of homosexuality. There was a lot of disgust.” (Application at p. 8.) (See also Amici brief at p. 1). The new evidence confirms what the jury’s note strongly indicated at the time of Mr. Rhines’s sentencing: anti-gay bias played a role in some jurors’ decisions to impose the death penalty on Mr. Rhines. The brief of the amici documents America’s long and painful history of discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, which persisted at the time of trial and continues in the present day. The amici wrote to the court: “Well into the twentieth century, gay people were ‘prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.’” (Amici Brief at p. 5 quoting أوبيرجيفيل ضد هودجز) In 2017, in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states must consider evidence that jurors relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a defendant in a non-capital case. As Ria Tabacco Mar has previously discussed, “juror deliberations are considered sacrosanct, but last year the Supreme Court carved out an important exception for cases of racial bias in the jury room.” Attorneys for Mr. Rhines argue that since the principles underlying Peña-Rodriguez apply to anti-gay prejudice, the Eighth Circuit should allow Mr. Rhines the opportunity to present evidence that anti-gay bias was a factor in some jurors’ decisions to sentence him to death. The need for review is especially compelling because the anti-gay bias in Mr. Rhines’s case may have made the difference between life and death. Charles Rhines Case Overview Charles Rhines is a gay man on death row in South Dakota. New evidence shows that some of the jurors who sentenced him to death “knew that he was a homosexual and thought he shouldn’t be able to spend his life with men in prison” and thought that “if he’s gay we’d be sending him where he wants to go if we voted for [life in prison].” The jury’s anti-gay bias deprived him of his rights to a fair trial and due process under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Before trial, Mr. Rhines’s attorneys asked prospective jurors if they had any anti-gay bias that would prevent them from giving Mr. Rhines a fair trial. The jurors selected to hear his case said they could be fair and free of prejudice. This turned out not to be true. At trial, the jury heard through witnesses presented by the state that Mr. Rhines was gay and had relationships with other men. They were asked to choose between life in prison without parole and the death penalty for a murder committed when an employee surprised Mr. Rhines in the course of a commercial burglary. During their deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge indicating that deliberations had become infected with anti-gay stereotypes and prejudices. (Application at p. 6.) The judge did not address these questions and failed to head off the anti-gay bias that the questions revealed. The same day, about eight hours later, the jury voted to sentence Mr. Rhines to death. (Application at pp. 5-6.) New evidence confirms that some of the jurors who voted to impose the death penalty on Mr. Rhines did so because they thought the alternative – a life sentence in a men’s prison – was something he would enjoy as a gay man. Three jurors have made statements indicating that anti-gay prejudices played a significant role in the jury’s decision-making. (Amici brief at p. 1.) As Chief Justice Roberts has explained, the core premise of our criminal justice system is that “[o]ur law punishes people for what they do, not who they are.” (Buck v. Davis) Bias based on a characteristic that cannot be changed, such as race or sexual orientation, goes against this foundational principle. Allowing bias to play any role in sentencing is especially alarming when the bias may have made the difference between life and death. After a verdict and sentencing, the courts do not usually inquire into jury deliberations. However, in 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized an exception to this rule and directed states to consider evidence that jurors relied on racial stereotypes or prejudice in convicting a defendant. (Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado) In Peña-Rodriguez, after the jury voted to convict a person in a non-death penalty case, two jurors said that another juror believed that the defendant was guilty of unlawful sexual contact and harassment “because he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want.” (Amici brief at pp. 2-3.) The Court found that evidence of anti-Mexican bias “cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations and resulting verdict” and set the verdict aside. (Amici brief at p. 3, quoting Peña-Rodriguez.) On July 26, 2018, Mr. Rhines filed an Application for Certificate of Appealability with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit asserting that Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado applies to his evidence that at least one juror relied on anti-gay stereotypes and animus to sentence him to death. On August 2, 2018, six civil rights groups with a vital interest in eradicating anti-gay bias from America’s legal system filed an amici brief with the Eighth Circuit urging the court to afford Mr. Rhines the opportunity to establish whether bias based on his sexual orientation was a motivation for some jurors in sentencing him to death. As the amici document explains, the jury’s decision to allow Mr. Rhines to live or die occurred in the context of the history of discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in the United States. (Amici brief at pp. 7- 9.) While many of the laws that allowed or required discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were repealed or found unconstitutional after Mr. Rhines’s trial, recent years have seen renewed efforts to ban same-sex couples from adopting children, allow discrimination against them by public and private actors, and otherwise maintain their inferior status under the law. (Amici brief at p. 5.) Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people continue to experience negative consequences because of their sexual orientation. Despite significant progress, eliminating bias based on sexual orientation on the part of the government and private individuals continues to be difficult. For example, the current Attorney General of the United States has argued that employers should be able to fire lesbian, gay, and bisexual people because of their sexuality under federal law and that businesses open to the public should be able to discriminate against same-sex couples. (Amici brief at pp. 11-12.) Today, the federal government and 28 states have no laws that expressly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, leaving lesbian, gay, and bisexual people at risk for discrimination in jobs, housing, education, credit, healthcare, jury service, retail stores, and other aspects of public life. (Amici brief at p. 12.) In 2017, 46 percent of LGBTQ employees reported remaining closeted at work. (Amici brief at p. 13.) 2016 was the deadliest year on record for hate crimes against this community with more than 1,000 incidents of hate violence reported. (Amici brief at p. 15.) Historic and present-day anti-gay bias infects the justice system, just as it does other aspects of life. In a 2008 study, a majority of police chiefs said they believed that being gay constitutes “moral turpitude” and a “perversion.” This continuing bias helps explain why gay men are still targeted for lewdness offenses and why young lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are more likely to get stopped by police or arrested than their heterosexual peers. (Amici brief at pp. 14-15.) Research shows that discriminatory attitudes against lesbians, gays, and bisexual people negatively affect their experiences in the civil and criminal courts as jurors, litigants, court employees, and other participants. For example, in a 2001 study of the California court system, more than a third of lesbian, gay, and bisexual court users “felt threatened in the court setting because of their sexual orientation.” (Amici brief at p. 17.) (See also Application at p. 12.) Of jurors who participated in mock trials between 2002 and 2008, a jury research firm found that 45 percent believed that being gay “is not an acceptable lifestyle.” (Amici brief at p. 19.) These persistent attitudes open the door to a gay defendant who is convicted of murder to receive the death penalty, instead of a sentence of life without parole, because of his sexual orientation, rather than the nature of the crime. Punishing people based on who they are is fundamentally “inconsistent with our commitment to the equal dignity of all persons.” (Amici brief at p. 4, quoting Peña-Rodriguez.) The court should accept Mr. Rhines’s case to allow him to show whether anti-gay prejudice factored into the jury’s decision to sentence him to death.  ### For more information, or to speak with Mr. Rhines’s attorneys or one of the amici civil rights organizations, please contact Margot Friedman at mfriedman@dupontcirclecommunications.com or 202-332-5550 or 202-330-9295 (c).

GLAD & NCLR Statement on the Transgender Military Ban, a Year After Trump’s Tweets

“One of our plaintiffs, Jane Doe 3, served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and said she was having breakfast after completing her morning PT [physical training] when she first saw news coverage of Trump’s tweets. She remembered taking a sip of coffee and wondering if at that exact moment her commander was signing her separation paperwork.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today marks one year since President Trump tweeted that the U.S. Government would not allow transgender individuals “to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.” Two weeks later, NCLR and GLAD filed the first lawsuit to stop Trump’s ban and then were first to secure a nationwide preliminary injunction halting the ban while it is being heard by the court. To date, four lawsuits have now been filed against Trump’s ban, each respectively securing a preliminary injunction. While this fight continues, there are more than 9,000 currently serving transgender troops and transgender Americans are openly seeking to enlist. National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Legal Director Shannon Minter و GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi, two transgender attorneys at the center of the fight to stop Trump’s ban, issued the following joint statement in response: “One year ago, President Trump launched an attack on his own troops. No other military policy excludes a class of persons from enlisting or serving. The Trump-Pence ban discriminates against people based on who they are—not whether they can do the job. “One of our plaintiffs, Jane Doe 3, served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and said she was having breakfast after completing her morning PT [physical training] when she first saw news coverage of Trump’s tweets. She remembered taking a sip of coffee and wondering if at that exact moment her commander was signing her separation paperwork. Her life and career had been turned upside down in an instant. “This reckless, impulsive ban wreaked havoc on the lives and families of the more than 9,000 currently serving trans troops. During the course of litigation, discovery has confirmed that the ban took even the most senior military leaders by surprise. It contradicts military research and experts and undermines our nation’s military readiness. “So far, this ban has failed in court at every level. But the Trump administration continues to dig in its heels, and so this fight must continue on behalf of our brave trans troops and those transgender Americans willing to sacrifice everything to serve.” For more information, go to www.notransmilitaryban.org.

طلب من المحكمة الحكم ضد سياسة شركة ميوتشوال أوف أوماها المناهضة للوقاية قبل التعرض (PrEP) والمعادية للمثليين في قضية التحيز

اليوم قدمت شركة GLAD طلبا طلب الحكم الموجز في قضية هي الأولى من نوعها تتحدى التمييز ضد رجل مثلي الجنس يتناول دواء تروفادا كعلاج وقائي قبل التعرض (PrEP) لمنع انتقال فيروس نقص المناعة البشرية.

المدعي في دو ضد شركة ميوتشوال أوف أوماهيؤكد "أ" أن رفض شركة التأمين بيعه بوليصة رعاية طويلة الأجل يستند إلى استبعادها القاطع لأي شخص غير مصاب بفيروس نقص المناعة البشرية ويتناول علاج ما قبل التعرض. ويؤكد "دو" أن استبعاد شركة "ميوتشوال" الشامل يُعد تمييزًا على أساس التوجه الجنسي، لأن 80% من مستخدمي علاج ما قبل التعرض هم من الرجال المثليين. كما يرفع دعوى قضائية للتمييز على أساس الإعاقة المُتصوَّرة.

قال بينيت كلاين، كبير المحامين ومدير مشروع قانون الإيدز في منظمة GLAD: "لا يوجد سبب مشروع لقاعدة الاستبعاد التي فرضتها شركة ميوتشوال. فهي تفتقر إلى أي مبرر تجاري وتتعارض مع المنطق السليم".

"سوف تقوم شركة التأمين المتبادلة بالتأمين على نفس الشخص" لا بشأن الوقاية قبل التعرض (PrEP) - من يُمثل خطرًا أعلى للإصابة بفيروس نقص المناعة البشرية؟ سياسة شركة ميوتشوال غير منطقية وتتعارض مع طريقة تعاملها مع الأدوية الأخرى. التفسير الوحيد لاستبعاد الأشخاص الذين يتناولون دواءً مرتبطًا بالرجال المثليين هو أنه قائم على النفور من التوجه الجنسي المثلي للذكور فقط. في رأينا، إنه رهاب المثلية المحض.

وفي الإفادات التي استشهدت بها منظمة GLAD، اعترف خبراء شركة Mutual ومديرها الطبي بالعديد من الأمور، من بينها:

  • يعتبر العلاج الوقائي قبل التعرض فعالاً للغاية ضد فيروس نقص المناعة البشرية؛
  • إن سياسة شركة ميوتشوال تتعارض مع هدفها المعلن المتمثل في تقليل عدد الأشخاص المصابين بفيروس نقص المناعة البشرية بين المؤمن عليهم؛ و
  • في حين تستبعد شركة Mutual المتقدمين الذين يتناولون PrEP حسب التوجيهات والذين هم معرضون لخطر منخفض للإصابة بفيروس نقص المناعة البشرية، تبيع الشركة التأمين للمتقدمين الذين لا يتناولون PrEP وبالتالي هم معرضون لخطر أعلى للإصابة بفيروس نقص المناعة البشرية.

ادعت شركة ميوتشوال أوف أوماها بشكل متباين أن علاجها للأشخاص الذين يتناولون تروفادا مبررٌ بسبب مخاوف بشأن الالتزام بالعلاج ونقص البيانات طويلة المدى حول آثار تروفادا. إلا أن هذه المبررات تتناقض مع توفير ميوتشوال لتأمين الرعاية طويلة الأجل للمتقدمين الذين يتناولون أدويةً لأمراض أخرى.

هذه القضية، وهي الأولى التي تتحدى سياسة مناهضة المثليين المنتشرة في هذا القطاع، سلطت الضوء على هذه القضية على المستوى الوطني، ودفعت بعض هيئات التأمين الحكومية إلى التفكير في اتخاذ إجراء. في يونيو/حزيران، أصدرت إدارة الخدمات المالية في نيويورك التوجيه أن استبعاد الأشخاص الذين يتلقون العلاج قبل التعرض من التأمين على الحياة والعجز والرعاية طويلة الأمد يعد تمييزًا غير قانوني.

وقد تم تقديم هذا الاقتراح إلى المحكمة الجزئية الأمريكية في مقاطعة ماساتشوستس، وهو يدحض أيضًا اعتراضات ميوتشوال القضائية.

مدونة

July 4ذ has always been one of my favorite holidays.

I’ve always loved fireworks on the Esplanade, grilling in friends’ backyards, and Sousa marches – no surprise after many years of marching band.

But loving “Independence Day” has also meant reconciling two conflicting truths: one, that America was founded on the genocide of a continent’s native people, the enslavement of Africans for use as a labor force, and the subjugation of women; the other, that America’s trajectory toward our ideals of equality and justice led us to elect our first African-American president, despite having Hussein as a middle name.

It is because I have faith in our country to be better, that I do the work that I do.

And yet, these past weeks have shaken me. I have felt anger, and cynicism, and despair.

Two weeks ago, we saw the unfolding of a humanitarian catastrophe with the separation of refugee children – including toddlers and babies – from their parents. The response across the U.S. – horror, outrage, condemnation – was palpable.

It’s hard not to give into despair.

But then I remember: we are the majority in this country.

Those who believe that immigrants have always made America great, are the majority.

Those who understand that the free press protects all of us, are the majority.

Those who understand that our nation’s strength is rooted in our diversity, not division and exclusion – we are the majority.

The majority of Americans are fair, compassionate, and believe in equality.

So then, if we are the majority, how is it that supporters of fairness and democracy have lost power and influence within all three branches of our federal government?

A large part of the explanation is that our opponents have cheated. They have picked their own voters to ensure their reelection, through redistricting and voter disenfranchisement; they have willfully distorted perceptions of reality, appealing to fear rather than truth; they have stolen a Supreme Court seat to solidify their power.

It is infuriating. And while a part of me wants to fight fire with fire, to stoop to their level – we must be better. We must take the higher road.

The way we can win is by being even more disciplined than we already are.

First, we have to be more disciplined in our principles.

We are stronger when we are together, and we can’t afford to leave anyone behind, especially the most vulnerable communities. We are one justice movement. That is how we will fight, and that is how we will win.

Second, we have to be more disciplined in our focus.

Two weeks ago, we saw the unfolding of a humanitarian catastrophe with the separation of refugee children – including toddlers and babies – from their parents. The response across the U.S. – horror, outrage, condemnation – was palpable.

Perhaps for the first time, we saw a real chink in President Trump’s armor of amorality.

Then, in the midst of this moment, the conversation turned to what the First Lady was wearing.

To be clear, no person of any decency would have thought that jacket was acceptable.

But it also shifted the news coverage from the horrific videos of crying children ripped from their parent’s arms, which we know alarmed some soft Trump supporters.

And just as expected – or perhaps intended – soft Trump supporters yet again fell back along tribal lines, the second they felt our attacks against the First Lady as attacks against themselves.

We cannot afford to allow our nation to forget about those children for one second. They deserve that chance.

The marches and rallies that took place across the U.S. on June 30 are part of that sustained focus. And as the advocates who have been fighting unjust immigration practices for years can tell us, we have to keep showing up.

Third, we have to be more disciplined in our tactics. In a word, we have to vote.

We must do everything we can to protect the fundamental right to vote for every one of us. That means working for the restoration of the Voting Rights Act, and to remove barriers to registration. It means pushing back against unconstitutional gerrymandering.

We must stay engaged in the electoral process at the local, state and federal level. We must communicate with our representatives. And we must get ourselves and our neighbors to the polls every single election day.

We have to be more disciplined in our tactics. In a word, we have to vote.

Finally, we have to be more disciplined in our social justice habits.

Just like a runner training for a marathon, we must build habits that incorporate social justice into our daily lives.

Join a community of social justice friends, such as Indivisible أو ال Movement for Black Lives. Make friends to go with you to rallies, knock on doors, or attend a fundraiser. Because evidence shows it is easier to form habits when you have a community of accountability and support.

Become a sustaining donor to an organization. Given Justice Kennedy’s impending retirement, I would recommend three organizations at the front lines of that battle –Alliance for Justice، ال Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights، و American Constitution Society.

We cannot afford to wait until it is too late. Now is the time to fight, with everything we’ve got.

Creating habits also requires rest. Take the sabbath off – whatever that means for you. Spend time with loved ones. Enjoy a favorite hobby. Take a walk.

When I need a break at work, I often take a walk to the Old South Meeting House, where the seeds of the American Revolution were planted. It was a site for protest, dissent, and resistance. At the time, those planting the seeds did not know for sure whether they would prevail. But they knew that authoritarianism was too great an evil to ignore.

Likewise, we must act now, not to forge a new nation, but rather to save one that we have fought so hard to make better. To preserve a union that generations of freedom fighters have given their lives to make fairer and more just. To free a society from the shackles of hatred, resentment, and distrust.

We cannot afford to wait until it is too late.

Now is the time to fight, with everything we’ve got.

arالعربية
نظرة عامة على الخصوصية

يستخدم هذا الموقع ملفات تعريف الارتباط (الكوكيز) لنقدم لك أفضل تجربة استخدام ممكنة. تُخزَّن معلومات ملفات تعريف الارتباط في متصفحك، وهي تؤدي وظائف مثل التعرّف عليك عند عودتك إلى موقعنا، ومساعدة فريقنا على فهم أقسام الموقع التي تجدها الأكثر إثارة للاهتمام والأكثر فائدة.