National/Federal Know Your Rights - Page 39 of 59 - GLAD Law
Überspringen Sie die Kopfzeile zum Inhalt
GLAD Logo Primäre Navigation zum Inhalt überspringen

Fulton gegen City of Philadelphia

AKTUALISIEREN: On June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a narrow and limiting ruling for Catholic Social Services that focuses on specific contractual language. The ruling leaves intact the broader principle that governments can require contractors, including religious agencies, to comply with nondiscrimination laws – including those that protect same-sex married couples – when providing taxpayer-funded social services. While the Court found Philadelphia’s contract with CSS to be unenforceable, it did so because the contract allowed individual discretionary exemptions on a case-by-base basis but would not consider CSS’s claim. The case stemmed from a claim by Catholic Social Services that it should have been allowed to decline to work with same-sex couples when providing foster care placement services under contract with the City of Philadelphia. Lesen Sie die vollständige Erklärung von GLAD.

Watch the virtual briefing about what the ruling means for the LGBTQ community.


In 2018, the City of Philadelphia suspended a contract with Catholic Social Services (“CSS”) to provide foster care placement services because the agency refused to work with married same-sex couples and unmarried couples, violating Philadelphia’s nondiscrimination ordinance. CSS sued the city, claiming, among other things, that the City’s actions violated its rights of free exercise of religion. Seeking an injunction* against the City, CSS lost in the federal trial court and then again on appeal. The case was heard by the Supreme Court on November 4, 2020 (audio available here).

Fulton is poised to be a landmark case on the question of whether religiously-based social welfare organizations that receive taxpayer dollars through local government contracts can be exempt from the government’s nondiscrimination laws. There is a possibility that a decision in Fulton could come to mean that nearly any religious entity, or even a private company asserting its religious beliefs, would have permission to refuse to serve or work with anyone simply because of who they are.

So many people rely on government-funded entities like CSS to fulfill essential needs — for food, housing, health care, and more. This case could lay the foundation for the reversal of protections on which the most vulnerable in our community rely to ensure equal access to goods and services. It could also require the government at all levels to fund discriminatory groups. That’s why GLAD, joined by 27 other national, regional, and state LGBTQ advocacy organizations, reichte eine Stellungnahme als Amicus Curiae ein on August 20, 2020 in support of the City of Philadelphia’s position, urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to introduce a broad exemption to nondiscrimination laws that would undermine Constitutional equal protection guarantees and introduce a dangerous and unworkable scheme into local, state, and federal lawmaking.

View GLAD’s brief here oder click here to read all of the filings In Fulton gegen City of Philadelphia.

YouTube #!trpst#trp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=151#!trpen#Video#!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 Und 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.”

###

Durch strategische Prozessführung, politische Interessenvertretung und Aufklärung GLBTQ-Rechtsanwälte und -Verteidiger arbeitet in Neuengland und auf nationaler Ebene daran, eine gerechte Gesellschaft ohne Diskriminierung aufgrund von Geschlechtsidentität und -ausdruck, HIV-Status und sexueller Orientierung zu schaffen. www.GLAD.org

Das Nationale Zentrum für Lesbenrechte ist eine nationale Rechtsorganisation, die sich für die Förderung der Menschenrechte und Bürgerrechte der lesbischen, schwulen, bisexuellen und Transgender-Gemeinschaft durch Rechtsstreitigkeiten, politische Interessenvertretung und öffentliche Aufklärung einsetzt. 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.

 

Der Blog

Vor vierzig Jahren, während eines anderen heißen, stürmischen Sommers, im Höhe der Disco und im Kielwasser der Orangensaftkönigin Anita Bryants GLAD war geboren. Der junge Anwalt John Ward aus Boston reichte die Gründungsurkunde für eine neue Rechtsorganisation ein, die den Namen „Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders“ tragen sollte.

Im Jahr 1978 wusste Ward, dass es revolutionär für eine Organisation war, die Worte „schwul und lesbisch“ im Namen, geschweige denn für die Rechte von LGBTQ eintreten. Aber Revolutionen entstehen aus der Notwendigkeit. Die Notwendigkeit dieses Augenblicks war eine verdeckte Operation der Bostoner Polizei Hunderte schwule Männer wurden Opfer von Übergriffen und geoutet. Sie brauchten Rechtsbeistand und John war zur Stelle.

Diese notwendige Revolution legte den Grundstein für das, was wir in den letzten vier Jahrzehnten gemeinsam erreicht haben.

In den letzten 40 Jahren hat GLAD die LGBTQ-Rechte in vielerlei Hinsicht verändert. Hier sind einige Beispiele:

  • Das Recht eines Highschool-Schülers aus Rhode Island zu gewinnen, seinen Freund 1980 zum Abschlussball mitbringen in unserem ersten Sieg vor einem Bundesbezirksgericht, plädiert von GLAD-Gründer John Ward.
  • Sicherung der Antidiskriminierung Schutz für Menschen mit HIV in unserem ersten Sieg vor dem Obersten Gerichtshof vor 20 Jahren, argumentierte GLAD-Anwalt Ben Klein.
  • Die Ehegleichheit in allen sechs Staaten Neuenglands und dann im gesamten Land zu erringen, war unser zweiter Sieg vor dem Obersten Gerichtshof vor drei Jahren, argumentierte die GLAD-Anwältin Mary Bonauto.
  • Die ersten Erfolge dieser Art im Bereich der Transgender-Rechte, darunter die erste Entscheidung des Obersten Gerichtshofs eines Bundesstaates, die das Recht von Transgender-Schülern auf die Nutzung der entsprechenden Toiletten bestätigte, argumentierte die GLAD-Anwältin Jennifer Levi. (Und das junge Mädchen, das GLAD in diesem Fall vertrat, Nicole Maines wird nun die erste Transgender-Superheldin im Fernsehen sein.
  • Schutz für Familien, einschließlich LGBTQ-Eltern, die nicht zur Familie gehören und weder geheiratet noch adoptiert haben, durch Erfolge vor Gericht und in der Legislative, angeführt von der GLAD-Anwältin Polly Crozier.
  • Gewinnen Asyl für John Wambere, einen schwulen Mann aus Uganda, dessen Leben aufgrund seines LGBTQ-Aktivismus in Gefahr war, dank der Vertretung durch die GLAD-Anwältin Allison Wright.

Diese Fälle haben das Leben vieler Menschen grundlegend verändert und das öffentliche Bild darüber erweitert, wer LGBTQ-Personen und Menschen mit HIV sind und sein können. Einige dieser Fälle werden heute an juristischen Fakultäten im ganzen Land behandelt und in Entscheidungen auf Landes- und Bundesebene zitiert.

Wir haben vieles, worauf wir stolz sein können. Aber unsere gemeinsame Arbeit ist noch lange nicht abgeschlossen. Wenn es jemals eine Zeit gab, in der wir eine weitere Revolution brauchten, dann ist es jetzt.

Wir sind mit massiven Angriffen konfrontiert.

  • In diesem Jahr wurden in den Parlamenten der Bundesstaaten im ganzen Land über 150 Gesetzesentwürfe gegen LGBTQ eingebracht.
  • Wir waren Zeugen des ersten, aber nicht des letzten Versuchs unserer Opposition, unter dem Deckmantel der „Religionsfreiheit“ Diskriminierung in unsere Verfassung zu schreiben.
  • Und wir sind auf kurz davor, eine entscheidende fünfte Stimme zu verlieren vor dem Obersten Gerichtshof der USA und bedroht damit alle rechtlichen Fortschritte, die wir in den letzten 20 Jahren im Bereich der LGBTQ-Rechte erzielt haben.

Wir haben schon früher Angriffe und Herausforderungen erlebt. Und wie unsere Siege der letzten 40 Jahre zeigen, wissen wir, wie man kämpft, wie man durchhält und wie man gewinnt.

Ein Kämpfer, den GLAD stolz vertritt, ist unser Kläger Nicolas Talbott. Der Eintritt in die Air Force war jahrelang Nics Traum gewesen. Als Präsident Trump im vergangenen Sommer sein Verbot für Transgender-Soldaten twitterte, fühlte sich Nic, als wäre seine gesamte Zukunft zerstört worden: „Das hat praktisch jeden meiner Pläne zerstört.“

Doch statt in Verzweiflung und Apathie zu verfallen, entschied sich Nic für den Kampf. Er sagt: „Endlich habe ich die Möglichkeit, aufzustehen, meine Stimme zu erheben und für meine Rechte zu kämpfen.“ Und dank Nic und seinen Mitklägern in den beiden GLAD-Fällen haben Transgender seit Januar zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte unseres Landes die Möglichkeit, sich öffentlich zu melden.

Was wir wissen und was uns Hoffnung gibt, ist Folgendes: Wir Sind die MehrheitDie Mehrheit der Amerikaner ist fair, mitfühlend und glaubt an Gleichheit und grundlegende menschliche Anständigkeit.

Diejenigen, die glauben, dass wir alle für das gefeiert werden sollten, was wir sind und wen wir lieben – wir sind die Mehrheit. Diejenigen, die verstehen, dass Einwanderer Amerika schon immer groß gemacht haben – wir sind die Mehrheit. Diejenigen, die wissen, dass die Stärke unserer Nation in unserer Vielfalt wurzelt, nicht in Spaltung und Ausgrenzung – wir sind die Mehrheit.

Doch auch wenn wir die Mehrheit sind, können wir nur gewinnen, wenn wir uns für eine gemeinsame Sache zusammenschließen.

Wir sind über unsere kühnsten Träume hinausgewachsen. Wir waren die wenigen leidenschaftlichen und entschlossenen Aktivisten, die vor 40 Jahren mit der Gründung von GLAD eine Revolution auslösten. Unsere Aufgabe ist es heute, ihre Arbeit fortzusetzen und niemals aufzuhören, für eine Zukunft zu kämpfen, die das Versprechen unserer Verfassung von Gleichheit und Gerechtigkeit für alle erfüllt.

Judge Rejects Trump’s Attempts to Quash Trans Military Ban Lawsuit and to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction

District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denies Trump administration motions to dismiss Doe v. Trump, and to dissolve the preliminary injunction preventing the ban from going into effect

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. District Court Richterin Colleen Kollar-Kotelly lehnte heute ab der Antrag der Trump-Administration, die Klage von NCLR und GLAD abzuweisen Doe gegen Trump, the first lawsuit filed challenging the Trump-Pence transgender military ban and the first to secure a preliminary injunction stopping the ban from going into effect while the case is heard by the court. Judge Kollar-Kotelly also denied the Trump administration’s motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, which would have jeopardized the careers of nearly all of the thousands of currently serving transgender troops and allowed the Trump administration to begin implementing the ban. Judge Kollar-Kotelly has not yet ruled on plantiffs’ motion for summary judgment, which would resolve the case by issuing a final judgment declaring that the ban is unconstitutional and cannot be implemented. In Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s order, she emphasized the importance of transgender military service with regard to military readiness, “It should not be forgotten that the United States military remains engaged in numerous armed conflicts throughout the world, and service members are still being injured and killed in those conflicts. The public interest and equities lie with allowing young men and women who are qualified and willing to serve our Nation to do so.” Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s also affirmed the transgender community’s capability to serve, noting, “the Mattis Implementation Plan still accomplishes an extremely broad prohibition on military service by transgender individuals that appears to be divorced from any transgender individual’s actual ability to serve. In the absence of the challenged policy, transgender individuals are subject to all of the same standards and requirements for accession and retention as any other service member. The Mattis Implementation Plan establishes a special additional exclusionary rule that precludes individuals who would otherwise satisfy the demanding standards applicable to all service members simply because they have certain traits that are associated with being transgender.” “The Trump administration’s arguments to dismiss our lawsuit and move forward with the trans military ban are full of sweeping generalizations and false stereotypes about transgender people. It’s clear Judge Kollar-Kotelly isn’t buying it—and neither should anyone else,” said Jennifer Levi, Projektleiterin für Transgender-Rechte bei GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). “Anyone who meets the standards should be able to serve. There is no reason to subject transgender people to unconstitutional and discriminatory treatment, unlike the way the military treats any other group.” “No other military policy excludes a class of persons from serving because of who they are rather than whether they can do the job,” said Shannon Minter, Rechtsdirektor des National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR). “Today’s ruling strongly rejects the Trump administration’s attempt to evade the injunction and move forward with their destructive plan to exclude qualified transgender individuals from military service. By the military’s own count, thousands of transgender servicemembers are currently serving—one of our Damhirschkuh plaintiffs has served multiple tours of duty abroad, two in Iraq. This ban is not only unconstitutional, it takes aim at dedicated servicemembers and erodes military readiness. We will keep fighting for those who fight for our country.” HINTERGRUND 30. Juni 2016: Das US-Verteidigungsministerium (DOD) hat eine Richtlinie verabschiedet, die Transgender-Personen den Militärdienst gestattet. Grundlage hierfür war eine fast zweijährige Überprüfung durch das DOD, bei der festgestellt wurde, dass es keinen triftigen Grund gibt, qualifiziertes Personal vom Militärdienst auszuschließen, nur weil es Transgender ist. 26. Juli 2017: Präsident Trump twitterte, dass „die Regierung der Vereinigten Staaten Transgender-Personen weder akzeptieren noch erlauben wird, in irgendeiner Funktion im US-Militär zu dienen.“ 9. August 2017: NCLR und GLAD eingereicht Doe gegen Trump, die erste Klage, die eingereicht wurde, um das Verbot zu stoppen. Sie focht dessen Verfassungsmäßigkeit an und forderte das Gericht auf, eine bundesweite einstweilige Verfügung zu erlassen, um die Wirksamkeit des Verbots zu verhindern, während der Fall vor Gericht verhandelt wird. 25. August 2017: Präsident Trump erließ ein Memorandum, in dem er Verteidigungsminister James Mattis aufforderte, bis zum 21. Februar 2018 „einen Plan zur Umsetzung“ des Verbots vorzulegen. Minister Mattis übergab diesen Plan (den „Mattis-Plan“ und den Bericht des Gremiums) am 22. Februar 2018 an Präsident Trump. 30. Oktober 2017: Das US-Bezirksgericht für den District of Columbia entschied, dass Doe gegen Trump Die Kläger hatten nachgewiesen, dass ihre Behauptung, das Verbot von Präsident Trump verstoße gegen den Grundsatz der Gleichbehandlung, eine Erfolgsaussicht habe, dass den Klägern ohne eine einstweilige Verfügung zur Aufhebung des Verbots irreparabler Schaden zugefügt würde und dass das öffentliche Interesse und die Abwägung der Härten für die Gewährung einer einstweiligen Verfügung und die vorübergehende Aufhebung des Verbots sprächen, während der Fall vor Gericht verhandelt werde. 23. März 2018: Präsident Trump akzeptiert den „Mattis-Plan“ und gibt ein Memorandum heraus, in dem er sein Memorandum vom 25. August „widerruft“. 20. April 2018: Die Beklagten stellen einen Antrag auf Aufhebung der vom US-Bezirksgericht für den District of Columbia erlassenen landesweiten einstweiligen Verfügung vom 30. Oktober, mit der das Militärverbot für Transgender untersagt wurde; einen Antrag auf Abweisung der zweiten geänderten Klage der Kläger; und einen Antrag auf summarisches Urteil. 11. Mai 2018: Plaintiffs file their cross-motion for summary judgment, as well as motions in opposition to Defendant’s motions to dissolve the injunction and dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. NCLR and GLAD have been at the center of the legal fight challenging the Trump-Pence transgender military ban since filing Doe gegen Trump, der erste von vier gegen das Verbot eingereichten Fällen, am 9. August 2017. For more information, go to NCLR and GLAD’s website https://notransmilitaryban.org/. ### Durch strategische Prozessführung, politische Interessenvertretung und Aufklärung GLBTQ-Rechtsanwälte und -Verteidiger arbeitet in Neuengland und auf nationaler Ebene daran, eine gerechte Gesellschaft ohne Diskriminierung aufgrund von Geschlechtsidentität und -ausdruck, HIV-Status und sexueller Orientierung zu schaffen. www.GLAD.org Das Nationale Zentrum für Lesbenrechte ist eine nationale Rechtsorganisation, die sich für die Förderung der Menschenrechte und Bürgerrechte der lesbischen, schwulen, bisexuellen und Transgender-Gemeinschaft durch Rechtsstreitigkeiten, politische Interessenvertretung und öffentliche Aufklärung einsetzt. 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.”  Mehr lesen

Bürgerrechtsorganisationen fordern den achten Gerichtsbezirk auf, die Berufung eines Mannes anzunehmen, der möglicherweise wegen seiner Homosexualität zum Tode verurteilt wurde

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 Obergefell gegen Hodges) 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 Und 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.

Gericht soll in einem Fall von Voreingenommenheit gegen die Anti-PrEP- und Anti-Homosexuellen-Politik von Mutual of Omaha entscheiden

Today GLAD filed a motion for summary judgment in a first-of-its-kind case challenging discrimination against a gay man who takes the medication Truvada as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent the transmission of HIV.

The plaintiff in Doe v. Mutual of Omaha asserts that the insurance company’s refusal to sell him a long-term care policy is based on its categorical exclusion of anyone who is HIV-negative and takes PrEP. Doe asserts that Mutual’s blanket exclusion is sexual orientation discrimination because 80% of PrEP users are gay men. He also presses a claim for discrimination on the basis of perceived disability.

“There is no legitimate reason for Mutual’s exclusionary rule. It has no business rationale and flies in the face of common sense,” said Bennett Klein, Senior Attorney and Director of GLAD’s AIDS Law Project.

“Mutual would insure the same person nicht on PrEP — who presents the higher risk of HIV. Mutual’s policy is illogical and contrary to how it treats other medications. The only explanation for the exclusion of people who take a drug associated with gay men is that it is based on aversion to gay male sexuality and nothing else. In our view, it’s pure homophobia.”

In depositions cited by GLAD, Mutual’s own experts and its medical director made multiple admissions, among them:

  • PrEP is “highly effective” against HIV;
  • Mutual’s policy is contrary to its stated underwriting goal of reducing the number of people with HIV among its insureds; and
  • While Mutual excludes applicants who take PrEP as directed and are at low risk for HIV, the company sells insurance to applicants who do not take PrEP and are thus at higher risk for HIV.

Mutual of Omaha has variously claimed that its treatment of people taking Truvada is justified because of concerns about adherence to the treatment and because of the lack of long-term data on the effects of Truvada. But these rationales are contradicted by Mutual’s provision of long-term care insurance to applicants taking drugs for other illnesses.

This case, the first to challenge the anti-gay policy that is widespread in the industry, has brought national prominence to the issue and prompted some state insurance agencies to consider action. In June, the New York Department of Financial Services issued a directive that the exclusion of people on PrEP from life, disability and long-term care insurance is unlawful discrimination.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the motion also rebuts Mutual’s jurisdictional objections.

Der Blog

July 4th 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 oder die 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, Die Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rightsund die 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.

de_DEDeutsch
Datenschutzübersicht

Diese Website verwendet Cookies, damit wir dir die bestmögliche Benutzererfahrung bieten können. Cookie-Informationen werden in deinem Browser gespeichert und führen Funktionen aus, wie das Wiedererkennen von dir, wenn du auf unsere Website zurückkehrst, und hilft unserem Team zu verstehen, welche Abschnitte der Website für dich am interessantesten und nützlichsten sind.