National/Federal Know Your Rights - Page 47 of 59 - GLAD Law
Accéder au contenu
GLAD Logo Passer à la navigation principale vers le contenu

Nouvelles

As members of the LGBTQ and Muslim communities in America, we are joined in solidarity, grief and outrage at the horrific attack that unfolded in Orlando on June 12. Our hearts, our thoughts and our prayers are with the victims, their families and the LGBTQ communities, particularly LGBTQ Latino communities.

In this moment of immense sadness and outrage, we stand together united against fear, hate and violence. We will not lose hope in the people and communities around us because we know we are stronger together.

In standing together, hand in hand, across every faith, we send a powerful message to those who seek to divide us using hatred and violence: love is stronger than hate and hope will defeat fear.

We draw our hope and our inspiration by the example set by hundreds of inspiring Floridians who lined up around city blocks in Orlando, answering the call to donate blood.

We draw our hope and our inspiration in the example set by brave first responders who ran into – not away from – harm to help the wounded and prevent further violence.

We draw our hope and our inspiration from the hundreds of interfaith vigils that have sprung up across the world with a clear message: love is stronger than hate.

In the days ahead there will be more calls to define an enemy. There will be cynical efforts to pit groups of Americans – many of whom share a history of being victims of suspicion and discrimination – against one another and to increase surveillance of entire communities, based solely on how they look or how they pray.

We stand united against these efforts to divide us. We are reminded that as our communities stand together, we are in fact one community – which includes LGBTQ Latinos and LGBTQ Muslims, who are targeted both as Muslims and as members of the LGBTQ community.

Now is the time for people of all faiths, sexual orientations, gender identities, and backgrounds, to come together and refuse to allow this tragic act of violence and hate to divide us.

We are stronger together, and together, we will move forward with love and acceptance for all.

Signed,

American Civil Liberties Union LGBT Project
American Muslim Advisory Council (AMAC)
American Muslim Health Professionals
Arcus Foundation
Bisexual Resource Center
Center for Black Equity
Center for LGBTQ and Gender Studies in Religion
Centerlink: The Community of LGBT Centers
Coalition of South Florida Muslim Organizations (COSMOS)
Courage Campaign
Emerge USA
Fédération pour l'égalité
Égalité Floride
Faith Matters Network
Family Equality Council
Garden State Equality
Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC)
Georgia Association of Muslim Lawyers
GetEQUAL
Gill Foundation
GLAAD
Défenseurs juridiques et militants LGBTQ (GLAD)
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality
GLSEN
GSA Network – Genders & Sexualities Alliance Network
Campagne pour les droits de l'homme
interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth
Islamic Networks Group (ING)
Islamic Society of Central Jersey
Lambda Legal
Marriage Equality USA
Dr. Ingrid Mattson, Former President, Islamic Society of North America; Chair of Islamic Studies in the Faculty of Theology at Huron College at Western University
MECCA Institute
Projet d'avancement du mouvement
Muslim Advocates
Muslim Alliance for Sexual and Gender Diversity (MASGD)
Muslim Bar Association of New York
Muslim Community Network
Muslim Justice League
Muslim Legal Fund of America
Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)
Muslim Wellness Foundation
Muslims for Progressive Values
Muslims Make it Plain
Muslims4peace.org
National Black Justice Coalition
Centre national pour les droits des lesbiennes
National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE)
National Coalition of Anti-­Violence Programs
Groupe de travail national LGBTQ
New Jersey Muslim Lawyers Association
New Ways Ministry
NMAC
Out & Equal Workplace Advocates
PFLAG National
Pride at Work
Religious Institute
Services & Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE)
The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
The New York City Anti-‐Violence Project
Le projet Trevor
Coalition des personnes trans de couleur
Trans United Fund
Transgender Law Center (TLC)
Universal Muslim Association of America
Evan Wolfson, Former President, Freedom to Marry
Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics, and Ritual (WATER)

Nouvelles

The open letter is also available in the following languages:

العربية | Espagnol

As U.S. government leaders continue to grapple with addressing gun violence-prevention following last weekend’s homophobic massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, LGBTQ and gun violence-prevention advocates and activists are calling for more stringent checks to keep guns out of dangerous hands.

The Orlando tragedy, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, highlights how vulnerable LGBTQ communities are to hate-fueled violence, especially LGBTQ communities of color.

Hate violence has risen sharply in recent years, with a 20% increase in reported LGBTQ homicides in the U.S. between 2014 and 2015, according to a study released this week by The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP). Of the homicides reported last year, 62% were LGBTQ people of color.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hate crime statistics tell us year after year that people are most frequently targeted for hate violence based on personal characteristics related to race, religion, and sexual orientation. According to The Williams Institute, gay men report being victims of violent hate crimes at a higher rate than any other targeted group, and these crimes are more violent and result in hospitalization more often.

And yet we cannot ignore the fact that transgender people are at great risk of being victims of hate violence because of their gender identity and this reality is even worse for those who are also targeted on the basis of their race, ethnicity, class, and citizenship status. Fifty four percent of all hate-violence related LGBTQ homicides were transgender women of color, according to the NCAVP study.

We recognize the need to address the bigotry that motivates acts of violence toward LGBTQ people, and we also recognize that such violence is far more deadly when carried out with firearms.

Any solutions to the problem of hate violence, including anti-LGBTQ violence, must address the alarmingly easy access that bigots have to such deadly weapons. For example, under current law, people convicted of violent hate crimes can legally buy and possess guns. This is unacceptable.

With each new massacre, most recently the one in Orlando, we hope the number of homicides has pushed Americans over the threshold of tolerance for hatred fueled by people who seek to divide the country; for weak gun laws that arm those with hate in their hearts; and for the more than 90 victims of gun killings nationwide each day, affecting people of all backgrounds, sexual orientations, and gender identities.

Assault-style weapons, like the Sig Sauer MCX rifle used in Sunday’s Pulse nightclub shooting, can be purchased legally in the state of Florida without a background check – as long as the purchase is made from an unlicensed seller.

Eighteen states have already taken steps to close this dangerous “unlicensed sale loophole.”  But in the remaining states, including Florida, anyone can buy a gun from an unlicensed seller with no background check, no questions asked.

Under current U.S. federal law, people on terror watch lists can legally buy guns, exploiting this “terror gap.” Since 2004, more than 2,000 terror suspects have taken advantage of this loophole.  But we also recognize how this screening mechanism has the dangerous potential to profile specific communities on the basis of their actual or perceived race, religion, national origin, and other attributes.

Orlando is the sixth mass shooting  in the U.S. since January 2009 to be investigated as an act of terrorism by the FBI. Americans are 25 times more likely than people in other developed countries to fall victim to a gun homicide.

The federal background check system established in 1994 by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act has blocked more than 2.6 million gun sales to prohibited purchasers at licensed dealers; however, an estimated 40% of gun sales across the U.S. take place without a background check, primarily at gun shows and online.

We urge Congress to make a start towards stronger protections against gun violence nationwide by enacting laws to:

1.  Prevent known and suspected terrorists and those convicted of violent hate crimes from legally buying guns.

2.  Ensure that criminal background checks are required on all gun sales, including online and at gun shows.

Signed,

Listed alphabetically as of June 16, 2016

AIDS Alabama
Americans for Responsible Solutions
The Arcus Foundation
Allié des athlètes
Auburn Theological Seminary
Believe Out Loud
BiNet États-Unis
Bisexual Resource Center
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United with The Million Mom March
Campaign To Unload
Congregation Beit Simchat Torah
La Fondation David Bohnett
Equality Alabama
Fédération pour l'égalité
Égalité Floride
Equality Illinois
Equality New Mexico
Equality North Carolina
Equality Pennsylvania
Everytown for Gun Safety
Fair Wisconsin
Faith in America
Family Equality Council
Freedom to Work
Gay Men’s Health Crisis
GLAAD
Défenseurs juridiques et avocats GLBTQ
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality
GLSEN
GroundSpark/The Respect for All Project
GSA Network – Genders & Sexualities Alliance Network
International Imperial Court System
Lambda Legal
LPAC
National Black Justice Coalition
Centre national pour les droits des lesbiennes
Centre national pour l'égalité des transgenres
National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
Groupe de travail national LGBTQ
NMAC: National Minority AIDS Council
National Religious Leadership Roundtable
New York City Anti-Violence Project
One Colorado
Open and Affirming Coalition of the United Church of Christ
Out & Equal Workplace Advocates
OutServe-SLDN
Pride at Work
Services & Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE)
Stonewall National Museum & Archives
Fonds de défense juridique et d'éducation des personnes transgenres
Le projet Trevor
United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries
Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER)

Nouvelles

The open letter is also available in the following languages:

العربية | EspagnolFrançais

We the undersigned organizations working on the front lines of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) movement share in the profound grief for those who were killed and many more who were wounded during Latin Night at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Their lives were lost or forever altered in this devastating act of violence targeting LGBTQ people. Our hearts go out to all the family and friends touched by this horrific act. We know their lives will never be the same again.

This national tragedy happened against the backdrop of anti-LGBTQ legislation sweeping this country and we must not forget that in this time of grief. Unity and an organized response in the face of hatred is what we owe the fallen and the grieving. Collective resolve across national, racial and political lines will be required to turn the tide against anti-LGBTQ violence. Our response to this horrific act, committed by one individual, will have a deep impact on Muslim communities in this country and around the world. We as an intersectional movement cannot allow anti-Muslim sentiment to be the focal point as it distracts from the larger issue, which is the epidemic of violence that LGBTQ people, including those in the Muslim community, are facing in this country.

The animus and violence toward LGBTQ people is not news to our community. It is our history, and it is our reality. In 1973, 32 LGBTQ people died in an arson fire at an LGBTQ Upstairs Lounge in New Orleans. More than forty years later, similar acts of anti-LGBTQ violence are commonplace. Crimes motivated by bias due to sexual orientation and gender identity were the second largest set of hate crimes documented by the FBI in 2015 (over 20 percent). Murders and violence against transgender people globally have taken more than 2000 lives over the last nine years. Bias crimes against US immigrant populations, which include significant numbers of LGBTQ people, have increased over the past decade as anti-immigrant rhetoric has escalated.

For those of us who carry multiple marginalized identities, the impact of this violence and discrimination has even more severe consequences. These intersectional identities and their ramifications are apparent at every level in the Orlando tragedy, which disproportionately affected Latino/a members of our communities, and has xenophobic consequences that threaten LGBTQ Muslims. According to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP), there were 24 reports of hate violence related homicides in 2015, and 62% of those victims were LGBTQ people of color. Transgender and gender nonconforming people made up 67% of the homicides, the majority of whom were transgender women of color. The violence against transgender and gender nonconforming people has continued into 2016 with 13 reported individual homicides this year alone. NCAVP research on hate violence shows that LGBTQ people experience violence not only by strangers, but also in their everyday environments by employers, coworkers, landlords and neighbors. The Orlando shooting is simply an extreme instance of the kind of violence that LGBTQ people encounter every day.

As LGBTQ people who lived through the AIDS crisis, we know what it looks like and feels like to be scapegoated and isolated in the midst of a crisis that actually requires solidarity, empathy and collaboration from all quarters. We appeal to all in our movement and all who support us to band together in rejecting hatred and violence in all its shape shifting forms. Let us stand united as a diverse LGBTQ community of many faiths, races, ethnicities, nationalities and backgrounds.

Signed,

Arcus Foundation
Believe Out Loud
BiNet États-Unis
Bisexual Resource Center
Center for Black Equity, Inc.
CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers
The Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals
The Council for Global Equality
Courage Campaign
Fédération pour l'égalité
Family Equality Council
Freedom for All Americans
Freedom to Work
Défenseurs juridiques et militants LGBTQ (GLAD)
Gay Men’s Health Crisis
The Gill Foundation
GLAAD
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality
GLSEN
Genders & Sexualities Alliance Network
The Harvey Milk Foundation
Campagne pour les droits de l'homme
interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth
The Johnson Family Foundation
Lambda Legal
MAP
Marriage Equality USA
Muslim Alliance for Sexual and Gender Diversity
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs
National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
National Black Justice Coalition
Centre national pour les droits des lesbiennes
Centre national pour l'égalité des transgenres
National Council of La Raza
Groupe de travail national LGBTQ
National Minority Aids Council (NMAC)
National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance
The New York City Anti-Violence Project
Out & Equal Workplace Advocates
OutRight Action International
The Palette Fund
PFLAG National
Pride at Work
Services & Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE)
Southerners on New Ground (SONG)
SpeakOUT Boston
The T*Circle Collective
Tarab NYC
Transgender Education Network of Texas
Coalition des personnes trans de couleur
Centre juridique transgenre
Le projet Trevor
The Williams Institute

Nouvelles

We stand in solidarity with the LGBTQ community of Florida. Our solemn thoughts are with those who have died and those who were injured and traumatized. Our hearts go out to the families and friends who have suffered senseless loss.

Those looking for resources, wishing to help, or for information please visit:

www.WeAreOrlando.org

Égalité Floride

Donate to support the victims and families

Community Statements

LGBTQ Groups Call For Unity in the Wake of Orlando Shooting

Muslim-­LGBTQ Unity Statement in Response to Divisive Rhetoric After Orlando Shooting

LGBTQ Latinx Groups and Allies Reaffirm Resolve to End Violence Against Marginalized Communities

LGBTQ and Gun Violence-Prevention Groups Call for Disarming of Terror Following Orlando Shooting

Nouvelles

GLAD has joined the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Transgender Law Center in a letter urging the Obama administration to clarify that laws such as North Carolina’s HB2 violate federal laws that prohibit sex discrimination, including both Title VII and Title IX, and should put federal funding at risk for states that adopt them:

[W]e have seen an unprecedented number of bills in state legislatures this year that target people for discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity… The administration would significantly aid efforts to repeal HB 2 – as well as prevent the passage of similar legislation in other states both this year and into the future – by providing clarity that such measures violate federal laws against sex discrimination and, as a result, jeopardize a state’s entitlement to significant federal funds.
“Transgender people are under attack across the country. These laws put their safety and their liberty at risk,” said GLAD Executive Director Janson Wu. “Now’s the time for the federal government to step up and use the tools it has to stop these attacks.”

Read the full letter

Blog

Il est difficile de prédire l'avenir de la composition de la Cour. Celle-ci terminera clairement sa législature sans un neuvième juge.

Avant même le décès du juge Antonin Scalia, le 13 février 2016, tous les regards étaient tournés vers la Cour suprême pour ce qui promettait d'être une législature exceptionnelle. Au programme de ses travaux figurent des affaires majeures touchant au redécoupage électoral, aux syndicats de fonctionnaires, au droit de vote, à l'immigration, à l'avortement et à la couverture contraceptive de l'Obamacare. scotus-2015-court-at-sunrise_2 Mais avec le décès du juge Scalia, la Cour se retrouve soudainement à fonctionner avec seulement huit membres, avec un risque d'égalité des voix dans nombre de ces affaires. Une égalité des voix signifie que la décision de la juridiction inférieure est maintenue, mais ne crée pas de précédent. Dans certains cas, ce serait une bonne nouvelle, dans d'autres, bien sûr, une mauvaise. Par exemple, alors que les syndicats de fonctionnaires anticipaient une lourde défaite, la Cour s'est divisée à 4 voix contre 4 sur cette affaire, ce qui signifie que la décision de la Cour d'appel des États-Unis en faveur des syndicats – et de leur droit de percevoir les cotisations de base de tous les employés – sera maintenue. (Dans un autre exemple, les plaidoiries dans l'affaire de la couverture de la contraception suggéraient plutôt fortement une division 4-4. Cependant, peu de temps après les plaidoiries, la Cour a émis une ordonnance demandant aux parties de soumettre des mémoires sur la viabilité potentielle d'une autre façon de traiter la demande d'exemption des entités religieuses. Il semble clair que la Cour cherche une solution qui évite une égalité et offre une solution nationale à cette controverse.) Un domaine de travail de GLAD a toujours été de participer aux mémoires d'amicus curiae (ami de la cour) à la Cour suprême. Cependant, depuis la victoire de notre communauté à la Cour dans l'affaire Obergefell - ainsi que l'implication de GLAD dans la stratégie d'amicus à la fois dans l'affaire Obergefell et dans l'affaire Windsor annulant DOMA - GLAD et les organisations juridiques LGBT se sont retrouvées très particulièrement recherchées pour peser dans les affaires en tant qu'amis de la cour. Nous sommes perçus comme ayant des perspectives à offrir en fonction de nos récents succès dans la modification de la loi jusqu'à la Cour suprême. Bien qu'aucune des affaires inscrites au rôle de la Cour ce trimestre ne soit spécifiquement LGBTQ, plusieurs d'entre elles abordent des questions qui nous préoccupent clairement. Voici quatre exemples d'affaires dans lesquelles GLAD a été impliquée de diverses manières dans le processus d'amicus curiae : Fisher c. Texas : Il s'agit d'une affaire de discrimination positive dans laquelle Abigail Fisher, candidate blanche à la faculté de droit, conteste la formule utilisée par l'Université du Texas à Austin pour garantir la diversité de son corps étudiant. L'affaire a été portée devant la Cour pour la première fois en 2013, lorsque la Cour suprême a infirmé une décision favorable à l'Université et renvoyé l'affaire pour réexamen devant le 5e circuit. Ce dernier a de nouveau confirmé le programme de discrimination positive de l'UT, et la Cour suprême a de nouveau accordé un réexamen. Les plaidoiries ont été entendues en décembre 2015. (Cette affaire est examinée par seulement sept juges, la juge Kagan s'étant récusée. Par conséquent, il n'y a pas de risque ni d'égalité des voix.) Le National Women's Law Center a contacté GLAD et Lambda Legal pour collaborer à son mémoire d'amicus curiae sur la diversité, afin de briser les stéréotypes et d'améliorer le fonctionnement des établissements d'enseignement.  Le brief L'article examine, entre autres, la « théorie du contact intergroupe », qui repose sur de nombreuses études impliquant des personnes LGBTQ (s'appuyant sur des études antérieures sur la race), démontrant que le contact intergroupe réduit les préjugés. Le mémoire soutient que les disparités raciales et ethniques peuvent être atténuées lorsque les stéréotypes sont confrontés à la réalité – les contacts quotidiens et les perspectives divergentes offertes par des étudiants d'horizons divers –, en mettant l'accent sur les femmes racisées et les personnes LGBTQ+. Whole Women's Health c. Cole : Dans cette affaire très importante, l'État du Texas a imposé de nouvelles exigences, étendues et contraignantes, aux prestataires d'avortement. Nos collègues du Centre national pour les droits des lesbiennes (NCLR) ont été les fers de lance d'un mémoire, auquel GLAD a adhéré, affirmant que lorsque des libertés fondamentales sont en jeu, les tribunaux DOIVENT examiner attentivement les justifications avancées par l'État, notamment celles relatives à la santé et à la sécurité, et ne pas les prendre au pied de la lettre. Le Texas affirme que les tribunaux doivent s'en remettre aux jugements implicites ou explicites rendus par le législateur sur ces questions. Notre brief, signé par des groupes de défense de la justice raciale et de l'équité en matière de santé, ainsi que par des groupes LGBTQ, détaille comment les personnes de couleur, les femmes et les personnes LGBTQ ont subi des pertes de liberté fondées sur des justifications soi-disant scientifiques. Nous soulignons l'idée pseudo-scientifique selon laquelle le mélange des races aurait donné naissance à des garçons « maladifs et efféminés » ; qu'il ne devrait pas y avoir de femmes avocates, de femmes barmaids, d'enseignantes enceintes – car la « science » a démontré que les femmes n'étaient pas aptes à ces rôles ; et que les personnes LGBTQ auraient des « personnalités psychopathes », ce qui a entraîné des institutionnalisations, des interdictions d'enseigner, des expulsions, etc. Le mémoire présente un argument très convaincant, avec ces exemples, selon lequel, lorsque les tribunaux sont confrontés à des menaces aux libertés, ils sont tenus d'examiner les justifications avancées. Le mémoire conclut en soulignant que les tribunaux ont retenu cette leçon ces dernières années, comme en témoigne la volonté de la Cour suprême de réfuter, par exemple, les diverses idées reçues sur les dangers des parents homosexuels, lorsqu'elle a invalidé la loi DOMA et étendu le droit fondamental au mariage à tous les citoyens. (Cette affaire pourrait se solder par un match nul 4-4, ce qui maintiendrait les nouvelles restrictions texanes, mais n'établirait la loi que pour le Texas, la Louisiane et le Mississippi.) États-Unis contre Texas : Cette affaire d'immigration concerne à la fois des personnes sans papiers ayant des enfants citoyens américains et des personnes sans papiers entrées aux États-Unis alors qu'elles étaient enfants. Les politiques de l'administration Obama, telles que le DAPA (Deferred Action for the Parents of Americans) et le DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), permettraient d'éviter l'expulsion de ces catégories de personnes et la rupture des familles. La mise en œuvre du DAPA et du DACA, contestée par 26 États, a été bloquée par un tribunal fédéral de district du Texas, et cette décision a été confirmée par le cinquième circuit. Fin 2018, le gouvernement fédéral a fait appel de cette décision devant la Cour suprême. Par solidarité, GLAD a rejoint une coalition de 326 associations œuvrant dans les domaines de l'immigration, des droits civiques, du travail et des services sociaux. mémoire d'amicus curiae qui raconte de nombreuses histoires déchirantes de personnes qui se trouvent dans cette situation et qui apportent de précieuses contributions aux communautés dans lesquelles elles vivent aux États-Unis (il s'agit d'une autre égalité potentielle 4-4, mais avec un impact dévastateur. Cela signifierait effectivement que le mandat du président Obama expirera sans aucune avancée sur les objectifs importants de ces politiques). VL contre EL : Pour conclure sur une note positive, la Cour suprême a rendu une décision très importante dans cette affaire d'adoption en mars dernier. Il s'agit d'une mère biologique qui a tenté d'invalider l'adoption de leurs enfants par son ex-partenaire. Les femmes, résidentes de l'Alabama, ont déménagé temporairement en Géorgie afin de pouvoir procéder à des adoptions par un second parent (interdites en Alabama). Elles ont obtenu gain de cause et la famille est retournée vivre en Alabama, les enfants ayant désormais deux parents légaux. Par la suite, lorsque le couple s'est séparé et que la mère biologique a cherché à restreindre les contacts entre les enfants et leur autre mère, la mère non biologique a saisi le tribunal en se fondant sur l'adoption. Le tribunal de première instance et la cour d'appel intermédiaire lui ont donné raison, mais la Cour suprême de l'Alabama (présidée par le tristement célèbre Roy Moore) a volontiers rendu un jugement favorable à la mère biologique et déclaré l'adoption en Géorgie contraire au droit géorgien et, par conséquent, non applicable en Alabama. Après que cette affaire a été déposée devant la Cour suprême (appelée requête en certiorari), les avocats de la mère non biologique (NCLR et Jenner & Block) ont demandé à GLAD de soumettre un mémoire d'amicus curiae à l'appui de la requête. (Il est de plus en plus courant de soumettre des mémoires comme celui-ci mémoire d'amicus curiae que nous avons rédigé (au stade de la requête en cert, exhortant le tribunal à entendre l'affaire. Cela peut être un moyen d'attirer l'attention de la Cour sur votre affaire lorsqu'elle fait partie des milliers qui lui parviennent et que la Cour n'entend que 70 à 80 affaires par session.) Il s'avère que cette affaire était « facile » pour la Cour. Elle n'a pas accordé de révision, ordonné de présentation de mémoires et fixé l'affaire pour les plaidoiries. Elle a simplement infirmé sommairement et à l'unanimité la décision de la Cour suprême de l'Alabama, enjoignant à cette cour de suivre la jurisprudence bien établie qui exige que chaque État accorde pleinement foi et crédit aux jugements rendus par les tribunaux des États frères. (Le décès du juge Scalia n'a évidemment rien changé à la façon dont cette affaire a été résolue, même s'il aurait peut-être été intéressant de voir s'il aurait rompu l'unanimité de la Cour.) Il est difficile de prédire ce que l'avenir réserve à la composition de la Cour. La Cour terminera clairement cette session sans un nouveau, un neuvième juge. À l'approche de la prochaine législature, qui débutera le premier lundi d'octobre 2016, si les sénateurs républicains maintiennent leur promesse que seul le prochain président pourra nommer le juge Scalia, il est probable que la Cour ne compte pas non plus de neuvième juge pour la prochaine législature. En effet, une nomination faite en février 2017 par le nouveau président a peu de chances d'être confirmée, même par un Sénat quasi-amical, en moins de trois mois. À ce moment-là, la Cour aura entendu les plaidoiries de toutes ses affaires pour la législature 2016-2017. La Cour peut y remédier : (1) en acceptant moins d'affaires jusqu'à ce que la situation s'améliore (ce qu'elle semble déjà faire) ; (2) en ordonnant de nouvelles plaidoiries dans les affaires où les voix sont partagées ; (3) en réorganisant le calendrier des affaires afin de repousser au maximum les affaires graves et controversées ; et (4) en s'efforçant, comme cela semble être le cas dans l'affaire de la couverture contraceptive, de trouver des compromis permettant d'éviter une égalité de voix. Quant à la nomination actuelle de Merrick Garland pour remplacer le juge Scalia, si je devais faire une prédiction, je dirais qu'il n'y aura ni auditions au Sénat ni vote de confirmation avant les élections de novembre, et peut-être même pas après. Mais toute prédiction est probablement une entreprise insensée dans un contexte d'instabilité à Washington.

U.S. v Texas

June 23, 2016: A disappointing 4-4 tie from the Supreme Court in this case, which means that the Fifth Circuit’s nationwide injunction against DAPA and expanded DACA remains in place by default.

Read more from the National Immigration Law Center.

GLAD joined a coalition of 326 immigration, civil rights, labor, and social service groups in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Texas, urging the court to lift the injunction that blocked the executive actions on immigration that President Obama announced in November 2014.

The Obama administration’s expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program as well as a new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) initiative were stopped by a federal district court in Texas, and that court’s order subsequently was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The lawsuit against the president’s executive actions was brought by 26 states. Late last year the federal government appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

Read more from the National Immigration Law Center

Nouvelles

In an important victory for families, the U.S. Supreme Court today reversed the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision in which it refused to recognize a lesbian mother’s Georgia adoption of her three children.

“GLAD congratulates our colleagues at NCLR and especially the plaintiff and her children,” said Mary Bonauto, GLAD Civil Rights Project Director.  “The Supreme Court has recognized, as we argued in our mémoire d'amicus curiae, that the ties between parent and child are paramount, especially for the child’s sense of security and safety in the world.  We thank our friends at Foley Hoag for helping us to make that argument.”

GLAD and Foley Hoag LLP submitted an amicus brief to the Court on behalf of Equality Alabama Foundation, Equality Federation, Georgia Equality, the Human Rights Campaign, Immigration Equality, the National Black Justice Coalition, the National Center for Transgender Equality, the National LGBTQ Task Force, PFLAG, the Stonewall Bar of Georgia, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Whole Women’s Health v. Cole

On June 27, 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the draconian restrictions that the state of Texas had imposed on abortion providers in 2013.

GLAD and a coalition of 13 other LGBT, racial justice, and health equity organizations filed an amicus brief in Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down draconian restrictions on abortion providers enacted by the State of Texas in 2013. If upheld, the restrictions would have led to the closing of most abortion clinics in the state.

The brief urged the Court to carefully scrutinize the state’s asserted justification for the law, as the Court has done with other laws that infringe upon fundamental freedoms. The State of Texas has argued that the law protects the health of women seeking abortion, but the evidence at trial showed just the opposite. Medical organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and the American Public Health Association have explained that the restrictions imposed by the new law are medically unnecessary and endanger, rather than advance, women’s health.

Pseudo-science has been used throughout American history to exclude individuals and groups from the full protection of essential constitutional liberties, including laws barring interracial marriage, excluding women from certain professions, permitting the forced sterilization of those deemed “inferior,” and criminalizing and discriminating against LGBT people. GLAD and its fellow amici urge the Court to look to this history and fulfill its constitutional obligation to examine carefully the State’s asserted justifications for restricting women’s fundamental right to reproductive autonomy.

In addition to GLAD, the organizations filing the brief are the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, the Equal Justice Society, the National Black Justice Coalition, the Family Equality Council, the Human Rights Campaign, the National LGBTQ Task Force, GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality, Equality Federation, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, Immigration Equality, the National Health Law Program, Movement Advancement Project, and Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom.

Nouvelles

GLAD and a coalition of 13 other LGBT, racial justice, and health equity organizations have filed an mémoire d'amicus curiae dans Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down draconian restrictions on abortion providers enacted by the State of Texas in 2013. If upheld, the restrictions would lead to the closing of most abortion clinics in the state.

The brief urges the Court to carefully scrutinize the state’s asserted justification for the law, as the Court has done with other laws that infringe upon fundamental freedoms. The State of Texas has argued that the law protects the health of women seeking abortion, but the evidence at trial showed just the opposite. Medical organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and the American Public Health Association have explained that the restrictions imposed by the new law are medically unnecessary and endanger, rather than advance, women’s health.

“Spurious medical claims lead only to mischief and certainly cannot justify governments infringing on people’s constitutionally-protected liberties,” said Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director. “We urge the Court to give due scrutiny to the health claims asserted by the state of Texas in supporting this injurious law which, if allowed to stand, will cause great harm to millions of women in the state for no public benefit.”

Pseudo-science has been used throughout American history to exclude individuals and groups from the full protection of essential constitutional liberties, including laws barring interracial marriage, excluding women from certain professions, permitting the forced sterilization of those deemed “inferior,” and criminalizing and discriminating against LGBT people. GLAD and its fellow amici urge the Court to look to this history and fulfill its constitutional obligation to examine carefully the State’s asserted justifications for restricting women’s fundamental right to reproductive autonomy.

In addition to GLAD, the organizations filing the brief are the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the Equal Justice Society, the National Black Justice Coalition, the Family Equality Council, the Human Rights Campaign, the National LGBTQ Task Force, GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality, Equality Federation, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, Immigration Equality, the National Health Law Program, Movement Advancement Project, and Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom.

fr_FRFrançais
Aperçu de la confidentialité

Ce site web utilise des cookies afin de vous offrir la meilleure expérience utilisateur possible. Les informations sur les cookies sont stockées dans votre navigateur et remplissent des fonctions telles que vous reconnaître lorsque vous revenez sur notre site web et aider notre équipe à comprendre les sections du site que vous trouvez les plus intéressantes et utiles.