Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

CA Justice Carlos Moreno Announces Retirement

Justice Carlos Moreno, 62,
Oh No! One of my heroes, California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, announced today that he is retiring from the California Supreme Court. Moreno, 62, was appointed to the court by Democratic Governor Gray Davis in October 2001. He is most well-known for being on the short list for President Obama's first Supreme Court justice pick to replace David Souter in 2009. Before that, Justice Moreno was in the 4-3 majority which legalized marriage equality in California in May 2008 and the sole dissenter in May 2009 when the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 in a 6-1 decision under state law.

Equality California put out a statement praising Justice Moreno for his service and calling on Governor Jerry Brown to appoint an LGBT replacement:

“Justice Moreno has a long and very distinguished record of public service.  He took an unequivocal stance on the judicial branch’s moral responsibility to protect minorities. During his nine-year tenure, he has been a champion of equal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians, and he will leave behind an honorable legacy with his staunch commitment to uphold justice, fairness and equality.
“Governor Brown is now presented with a unique opportunity to make history by appointing the first openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender judge to the state’s highest court, and we urge him to consider nominating an openly LGBT judge to fill the vacancy.” 

There are only three known out state Supreme Court justices nationwide, 2 in Oregon and one in Colorado.
With Moreno's departure California's 7-member highest court will have no Latino or African-American members, but will have 3 Asian members (Chin, Cantil-Sakauye, Kennard), and 4 women (Cantil-Sakauye, Corrigan, Kennard and Werdegar).

EQCA Laws Going Into Effect 1/1/11

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2010

CONTACT: Vaishalee Raja, Equality California
PHONE: (916) 284-9187 EMAIL: vaishalee@eqca.org


Four Equality California Sponsored Bills go into Effect Tomorrow
Legislation 
expands fundamental protections and freedoms for lesbian, gay, 
bisexual and transgender Californians

Sacramento – On January 1, four new Equality California sponsored bills will go into effect, advancing key rights and protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians.
“Each of these bills brings us closer to realizing our goal of achieving full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians,” said Jim Carroll, Equality California Managing Director. “In 2011, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians, especially LGBT and questioning youth will enjoy important new protections with greater equality and dignity under the law.”

The following legislation takes effect tomorrow:

Mental Health Services for At-Risk Youth (SB 543), authored by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), enables at-risk youth to access mental health services without parental consent, which will help young people get the care they need before they are in crisis. Current parental consent requirements for mental health services create a barrier to treatment that is especially harmful to LGBT youth who may be put at risk of emotional or physical abuse by coming out to their parents prematurely or without support. 
Repeal of Discriminatory Code, (AB 2199) authored by Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) calls for the repeal of a section of the California Welfare and Institutions code that instructs the State Department of Mental Health to conduct research into the “causes and cures of homosexuality,” with the implication that lesbian, gay, and bisexual Californians are sexual deviants, potential sex offenders and a threat to children. The code, which was originally authored in the 1950s, implies that lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals can and should be cured, in direct contradiction with an enormous body of research that demonstrates otherwise.
Separation Equity Act, (AB 2700), authored by Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) will amend the state's family code, allowing for couples who first registered as domestic partners and who legally married thereafter to dissolve both contracts through a single, uniform procedure. The current system forces couples to go through a separate process for each, which can take an extra one to two years for each case to be resolved and unnecessarily burdens the judicial system. 
Unemployment Benefits Act (AB 2055), authored by Assemblymember Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate), ensures that same-sex couples in California have access to unemployment benefits. Currently, couples who are engaged to be married are eligible for unemployment benefits if one of the partners must leave his or her job in order to move closer to his or her future spouse. This bill would extend the same rights to couples who plan on entering into a domestic partnership. The bill is especially beneficial for same-sex couples because they are prohibited from legally marrying and therefore unable to receive these benefits.


Equality California (EQCA) is the largest statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights advocacy organization in California. Over the past decade, Equality California has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited legal protections for LGBT individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil rights protections in the nation. Equality California has passed more than 70 pieces of legislation and continues to advance equality through legislative advocacy, electoral work, public education and community empowerment.www.eqca.org 
-30

First Comprehensive Review of U.S. Laws On HIV/AIDS Released

An interesting press release just passed my inbox announcing the release by the of a comprehensive review on all state and federal laws that impact people living with HIV or AIDS in the United States.

The Center for HIV Law and Policy today released the first comprehensive analysis of HIV-specific criminal laws and prosecutions in the United States. The publication, Ending and Defending Against HIV Criminalization: State and Federal Laws and Prosecutions, covers policies and cases in all fifty states, the military, federal prisons and U.S. territories.

“In the United States there are many shocking cases of persons being prosecuted for otherwise-legal conduct solely based on their HIV status,” said RenĂ© Bennett-Carlson, CHLP’s Managing Attorney, and one of the authors of the manual, “This singling out of people with HIV for arrests and punishment without consideration of the responsibility of all parties in a sexual relationship, the actual risk of HIV transmission, and  whether transmission even occurred is based on intolerable ignorance about HIV. These laws and prosecutions have no positive impact whatsoever on HIV infection rates or risk behavior.”

People are being imprisoned for decades, and in many cases have to register as sex offenders, as a consequence of exaggerated fears about HIV.  Most of these cases involve consensual sex or conduct such as spitting and biting that has only a remote possibility of HIV exposure.  For example, a number of states have laws that make it a felony for someone who has had a positive HIV test to spit on or touch another person with blood or saliva. “We hope that this resource will put a spotlight on this terrible injustice and make it easier for advocates to defend against these discriminatory prosecutions,” Bennett-Carlson added.

Some examples of recent prosecutions discussed in CHLP’s manual include:
·        A man with HIV in Texas is serving thirty-five years for spitting at a police officer;
·        A man with HIV in Iowa, who had an undetectable viral load, received a twenty-five year sentence after a one-time sexual encounter during which he used a condom; his sentence was suspended, but he had to register as a sex-offender and is not allowed unsupervised contact with his nieces, nephews and other young children;  
·        A woman with HIV in Georgia received an eight-year sentence for failing to disclose her HIV status, despite the trial testimony of two witnesses that her sexual partner was aware of her HIV positive status;
·        A man with HIV in Michigan was charged under the state’s anti-terrorism statute with possession of a “biological weapon” after he allegedly bit his neighbor. 

Ending and Defending Against HIV Criminalization: State and Federal Laws and Prosecutions is intended as a  resource for lawyers and community advocates on the laws, cases, and trends that define HIV criminalization in the United States. Thirty-four states and two U.S. territories have HIV-specific criminal statutes and thirty-six states have reported proceedings in which HIV-positive people have been arrested and/or prosecuted for consensual sex, biting, and spitting.  At least eighty such prosecutions have occurred in the last two years alone.

The catalog of state and federal laws and cases is the first volume of a multi-part manual that CHLP’s Positive Justice Project is developing for legal and community advocates. The goal of the Positive Justice Project is to bring an end to laws and policies that subject people with HIV to arrest and increased punishment on the basis of gross ignorance about the nature and transmission of HIV, without consideration of the actual risks of HIV exposure. 

“We support the work of the Center for HIV Law and Policy’s Positive Justice Project. This manual is a tremendous achievement and provides a desperately needed resource for the HIV community,” said Vanessa Johnson, Executive Vice President of the National Association of People with AIDS (NAPWA). “NAPWA proposed the idea of an HIV criminalization manual to CHLP because of their reputation in this area, and because criminalization acts as a disincentive to testing. It discourages testing by imposing huge risks and penalties on a positive test result. Criminalization also is an unwarranted assault on the rights and dignity of people living with HIV.” 

Catherine Hanssens, Executive Director of CHLP, added, “These laws make the statement that those who test positive for HIV are too toxic to have intimate relationships, that HIV is highly infectious, and that only those who get tested bear any responsibility for preventing the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. These laws treat people with HIV as if they are packing an unlicensed, loaded gun – as if the very fact of HIV infection is proof of criminal intent.” 

RenĂ© Bennett-Carlson concluded, “Three decades into the HIV epidemic, it is time to bring this kind of ignorance and hysteria to an end.”  

The manual can be accessed and downloaded at www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/view/564. Its completion was supported by grants for CHLP’s anti-criminalization work and Positive Justice Project from the MAC AIDS Fund and Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS.


# # #

The Center for HIV Law and Policy is a national legal and policy resource and strategy that works to reduce the impact of HIV on vulnerable and marginalized communities and to secure the human rights of people affected by HIV. We increase the advocacy power of advocates, and community members, and advance policy initiatives that are grounded in and uphold social justice, science, and the public health. We do this by providing an accessible web-based resource bank; leadership and analysis on key policy issues; and direct back-up to advocates on initiatives through our interdisciplinary support networks of experts, activists, and high-quality resources.

Celebrity Friday: Roderick Ireland

MA Gov. Deval Patrick (left) with Chief Justice-designate Roderick L. Ireland

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, the only Black governor in the country, has nominated Roderick Ireland to be the first Black Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Patrick was re-elected to a second final term as Governor on Tuesday November 3rd, and announced the nomination of Ireland to replace retiring Chief Justice Margaret Marshall. Marshall is well-known for writing the 4-3 majority opinion in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health which ended the state's prohibition on same-sex couples from marrying, the first state Supreme Court to do so in the United States in 2003.

Ireland voted with the majority and Patrick is also a strong supporter of marriage equality and LGBT rights. His teenaged daughter came out as a lesbian while he was governor and he marched with her in a gay rights parade.

ABA Endorses Marriage Equality

The American Bar Association endorsed marriage equality at its national conference today. The ABA passed the following resolution:
"RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry."
Evan Wolfson of Freedom To Marry noted:
"The American Bar Association, the largest voluntary professional organization in the world, has strongly declared that there is no good reason to continue excluding same sex couples from marriage. With today's resolution, the ABA embraces our nation's promise of liberty and equal protection under the law and signals a growing consensus in America's legal profession that marriage is a fundamental right that belongs to every citizen."
Another big win for marriage equality!

Celebrity Friday (Extra): Pamela Karlan

MadProfessah and Law Professah Pam Karlan

Today after the excellent panel at Netroots Nation 2010 in Las Vegas entitled "Liberal Perspectives on the Kagan Supreme Court Nomination" which featured Dahlia Lithwick, Nan Aron, Keith Kamisugi, Joan McCarter and Pamela Karlan. MadProfessah took a picture with one of my idols, Stanford Law Professor (and former Dean) Pamela Karlan, who has been on progressives' wet dream short list for the United States Supreme Court.

Karlan explicitly mentioned the Goodwin Liu nomination to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (which we have been following here at this blog), and said that progressives should pay careful attention as to whether the UC Berkeley Law Professor gets approved by the Senate. Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that he is putting a hold on all appellate-level federal judicial nominees before the mid-term election, so things do not look good. To support the nomination of a principled progressive to the 9th circuit, click here and here.

Take a look at the picture. Notice anything? Yes, we co-ordinated our colors. It's not pink, it's fuchsia! I think she wears the pearls better than I do, yes?

Montana Same-sex Couples Sue State For Recognition

The Montana ACLU sued the state today on behalf of seven same-sex couples to obtain state recognition of their families under the law.

Beause there is a constitutional amendment in Montana barring marriage for same-sex couples, the couples in the lawsuit are seeking the protection of state-recognized domestic partnerships, similar to those in place in several other states.

"Mary Anne and I are part of a family unit, bonded by love and mutual respect and a desire to share in a close relationship that benefits not only us, as partners, but our wider family and the entire community," said Jan Donaldson, a Helena nurse, of her 27-year relationship with her partner, pediatric neurologist Mary Anne Guggenheim. "We depend on one another, in all aspects of our life together. We want to be able to do that with grace and dignity and to feel secure that our relationship will be respected. We want our relationship to be recognized for what it clearly is – a loving commitment of responsibility worthy of security and protection by the state."

Montana law automatically grants married opposite-sex couples safeguards upon which they can depend in times of need. But, under Montana law, it is possible for same-sex couples to be barred from visiting their partners in the hospital and to be left out of conversations about emergency medical care. Montana inheritance laws refuse to recognize same-sex couples, and can leave surviving partners with nothing if their partners die without valid wills. Today's lawsuit seeks a mechanism such as the domestic partnership laws adopted by several other states to provide similar protections for committed same-sex couples.

"It's unfair for same-sex couples who have made commitments and formed families to be treated by the state like legal strangers," said Betsy Griffing, Legal Director for the ACLU of Montana. "Lesbian, gay and bisexual Montanans are valuable and productive members of society who should be treated fairly if their partner is in the hospital or dies without a will."

Hat/tip to TowleRoad

READ Gill v. OPM Decision Striking Down DOMA

A big day for supporters of marriage equality today! A federal judge struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in two cases, Gill v. OPM and Massachusetts v. DHHS today. The first case was filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) on behalf of seven same-sex couples who are married in Massachusetts and would like the federal government to recognize that status. The second case was filed by former Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Here's the text of the Gill decision:

Here's the text of the Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services case:

Mehserle Found Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter


2 to 4 years in jail for killing a Black man. 28-year-old Johannes Mehserle was found guilty (by a jury with no Black members) of involuntary manslaughter for shooting Oscar Grant.
Alameda County Deputy Dist. Atty. David R. Stein rejected the idea that the shooting was a mistake, telling jurors that Mehserle's holster was specially designed to prevent easy release of his firearm. The prosecutor contrasted the light, bright yellow Taser gun with the heavier black Sig Sauer handgun that Mehserle fired.

"He let his aggression dictate his conduct," Stein told jurors.

The prosecutor urged jurors to find Mehserle guilty of second-degree murder, pointing out that the officer never told his colleagues that night that the shooting was an accident.

Prosecutors in Los Angeles have not won a murder conviction in a police shooting case since 1983.

Celebrity Friday: Elana Kagan

Elena Kagan, President Obama's nominee to the United States Supreme Court to replace retiring John Paul Stevens is my choice for today's Celebrity Friday.

Kagan is a 50-year-old, never-married New Yorker who attended Princeton University, Harvard Law School and clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall. She was the first female Dean of Harvard Law School from 2003-2009 and became the first female Solicitor General of the United States last year.

Justice Stevens, 89, Announces Summer Retirement

John Paul Stevens, was appointed to the court
in 1975 by President Ford


Ending speculation, Justice John Paul Stevens, the oldest and longest serving member of the nation's highest court announced that he will retire at the end of this year's term in June, giving President Barack Obama a second opportunity in as many years to name a new member of the Supreme Court.

For the second summer in a row, Washington will face the "drama" of a Supreme Court nomination fight. Last year, Obama chose Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring David Souter. At 55, Sotomayor became the third woman and first Hispanic justice to serve on the Court when she was approved by a United States Senate vote of 68-31 on August 6, 2009.

The short list to replace Stevens looks like:


Merrick B. Garland

57 years old

Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Harvard College, 1974; Harvard Law School, 1977

A former federal prosecutor now on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Garland is well regarded by Democrats and influential Republican senators like Orrin G. Hatch of Utah.

Diane P. Wood

59 years old

Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago

University of Texas at Austin, 1971; University of Texas Law School, 1975

Judge Wood opposed some abortion restrictions and is respected for standing firm against strong, conservative judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She and President Obama were colleagues at the University of Chicago.

Elena Kagan

49 years old

Solicitor general

Princeton, 1981; Oxford, 1983; Harvard Law School, 1986

With no judicial record, Ms. Kagan is less known. As dean at Harvard Law School, she hired conservative professors to expand academic diversity and has supported assertions of executive power.

Jennifer M. Granholm

51 years old

Governor of Michigan

University of California, Berkeley, 1984; Harvard Law School, 1987

Ms. Granholm is nearing the end of her second term as the first female governor of Michigan. As governor, she has generally opposed legislation to restrict abortion and twice vetoed bans on partial-birth abortion. She was born in Canada and became a United States citizen at age 18.

Janet Napolitano

52 years old

Secretary of Homeland Security

Santa Clara University, 1979; University of Virginia School of Law, 1983

A former Democratic governor in Republican-dominated Arizona, Ms. Napolitano takes pride in defying easy labels and is as strongly supportive of abortion rights as she is of the death penalty. Her prospects might be hurt by criticism that she portrayed a thwarted Christmas bombing of a Detroit-bound airline as a test that the air safety system passed.

I have my money on Elena Kagan, who would also be the first openly gay member of the Court. Other lesbians under possible consideration are Kathleen Sullivan, 54, former Dean of Stanford Law School and Pamela Karlan, 50, another Stanford Law Professor.

VA GOV Issues Legally Meaningless Gay Nondiscrimination Directive





There is mass confusion in Virginia (and the traditional media and the blogosphere) about the status of LGBT citizens' civil rights to employment, public accommodations, housing and education thanks to the recent actions by its recently elected Governor and Attorney General.

Thanksfully, legal eagle Chris Geidner can clear it all up for us, in an article entitled "No, Virginia, There Is No Nondiscrimination Policy":
On Wednesday, March 10, Gov. McDonnell issued an ''Executive Directive'' regarding the ''Standard of Conduct'' for state supervisors and employees ''Concerning Employment Discrimination.''
In it, he suggests a pronouncement on the state's position on sexual orientation nondiscrimination. The set-up looks like an attempt to create some space between Cuccinelli's move as attorney general and his own administration. But it does no such thing. To the extent it mentions sexual orientation, it is simply a basic restatement of federal constitutional law. It fails to mention gender identity or expression at all. 
[...]

The law, by the governor's own words, is the same on March 11 as it was on March 9. There is no protection provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia or Gov. McDonnell to LGBT people other than the slight protection already provided to them by the U.S. Constitution. And McDonnell has taken no action to ask the legislature to do more.

[...]

In the days since Cuccinelli's letter, people across Virginia have been asking McDonnell to tell them the truth about his commitment to nondiscrimination. On Wednesday, like the Sun's editor, McDonnell gave a saccharine response aimed more at providing pleasant words than it did providing a real answer. McDonnell's directive, unfortunately, purports to give comfort to LGBT people in the state about something that is not really there.
We're not falling for your ****, Bob McDonnell, no matter how square your jaw is!

SCOTUS Refuses To Prevent DC Marriages

ScotusBlog is reporting that the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John Roberts has just denied the heterosexual supremacists' last ditch efforts to prevent Washington' D.C.'s marriage equality law from going into effect tomorrow.

Couples can begin applying for marriage licenses on Wednesday March 3rd and then wait 3 business days before getting married. The first same-sex legal marriages couples in the District of Columbia are expected to happen on Tuesday March 9th.

MD Attorney General Issues Favorable Marriage Opinion

Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler made big news on Wednesday by finally issuing an advisory opinion (53 page pdf) on whether Maryland law allows recognition of legal same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. His conclusion? It does!

Law Dork Chris Geidner analyzes the opinion:
The A.G.’s Opinion basically says that the law could be interpreted so as to allow out-of-state marriages to be recognized and that Gansler believes the Maryland courts would decide that way. He reaches this conclusion despite the state’s ban on performing same-sex marriages in the state.

[...]

Nonetheless, to the extent that Gansler determined the current legal landscape would result in a court decision upholding out-of-state recognition, the opinion set the law as it stands in Maryland unless the courts rule otherwise.

Interesting side note, some of the stilted and awkward language in the opinion comes from the opinion’s steadfast avoidance of whether recognition of out-of-state marriages is required, which would have gotten into the due process and equal protection arguments that marriage equality-watchers know also would apply to the state’s prohibition on performing same-sex marriages in the state. It is in that sense that the opinion is quite limited.

What this means is that agencies will begin adopting regulations and policies to allow for recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. This, obviously, will include the District of Columbia, where the marriage equality bill is to take effect on March 3. The opinion noted that such changes will be made to the extent possible when not constrained by federal law (primarily, the Defense of Marriage Act). In other words, there are still complications to be resolved.

Equality Maryland will be hosting a national blogger call Friday morning at 11:30am EST but I am supposed to be at the Providence airport trying to get back to Los Angeles despite the snowicane on the Eastern Seaboard.

It will be interesting to see how the Maryland news will interact with the fact that starting March 3rd (next Wednesday!) same-sex couples will start being issued marriage licences in the District of Columbia, which neighbors Maryland.

The main question to be answered is:
Starting March 3rd, 2010, can Maryland residents go to DC (which could be as easy as getting on the Metro for some of them), get legally married in DC and be considered legally married in Maryland as well?
I suspect the answer is YES. Stay tuned.

SASOD Files Lawsuit Against Guyana Cross-Dressing Law

Official flag of Guyana

Guyana's Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD) has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of that country's archaic law against "cross-dressing."
In a series of crackdowns last year between February 6 and 7, the Guyana police arrested a number of male-to-female transgender persons (MtF Trans) and charged them for ‘cross-dressing’ under the archaic Colonial section 153(1)(xlvii) statute. Unrepresented and completely unaware of their rights, the defendants were detained in police custody over the week-end and then hustled through the legal system. When they appeared before Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson on February 9, 2009, they were further ridiculed and told that they are men not women, before being fined by the learned Chief Magistrate. Seon Clarke, also known as Falatama, one of the persons arrested, said: “It was one of the most humiliating experiences of my life. I felt like I was less than human.” The motion also pleads that the Chief Magistrate was improperly influenced by irrelevant considerations, discriminated against the MtF Trans on the basis of religion, and violated a fundamental norm of Guyana as a secular state. Vigorous and wide-ranging calls within and out of Guyana for the repeal of these discriminatory laws which facilitate such injustices have been ignored by the government.

Since then, SASOD has forged partnerships with human rights interests in the local and regional arenas who have been working collectively and consistently on a voluntary basis over the past year to assist this marginalized group to obtain access to justice for the atrocities endured at the instance of the law enforcement authorities. The 2009 ‘cross-dressing’ crackdowns and prosecutions provided clear illustrations of how discriminatory laws are facilitating grave human rights’ abuses, in spite of the existence of an entrenched regime of human rights protection in the Guyana constitution. Leading the research initiatives to support strategic-impact, human-rights litigation in the region, Tracy Robinson of the University of the West Indies Rights Advocacy Project (U-RAP) based at the Cave Hill campus’ law faculty in Barbados described the arrests and prosecutions as “an unfortunate embodiment of the patriarchal use of coercive state power for no clear or rational purpose,” highlighting the need for law reform to ensure social justice and gender equity in Guyana and across the region.

SASOD has mobilized support from local and regional human rights attorneys to provide representation in what amounts to a ground-breaking constitutional case. According to Dr. Arif Bulkan, also of U-RAP and one of Guyanese attorneys involved in the litigation, “unless the wide-ranging constitutional reforms conducted in 2001 and 2003 are to be dismissed as pure window-dressing, then the emphasis placed on non-discrimination during that process should guide the High Court to interpret the expanded equality rights generously in order to protect one of our society’s most marginalised groups.”

Veronica Cenac, a St. Lucian attorney who serves as the human rights focal point on the Caribbean Vulnerable Communities Coalition board of governors, lauded SASOD for spearheading the case. “For way too long, we have allowed abuses against the most affected populations to go unchallenged,” she said, quoting the closing words of the UN Secretary-General’s message: “Lack of social justice anywhere is an affront to us all.”

At last year's Global Arc of Justice conference at UCLA Law School I met some Caribbean LGBT activists and heard first-hand from them about some of the indignities suffered by members of the LGBT community living in the British Caribbean countries (like Barbados, Grenada, Trinidad, Jamaica, Guyana etc) as well as their plans for redress.

I am glad to see the resistance to institutionalized homophobia in these jurisdictions is starting to reach a heightened level of activity (and even mainstream press coverage!) I will endeavor to keep track of the progress of this lawsuit and other efforts to combat homophobia and transphobia in the Caribbean.

REMINDER: Williams Institute LGBT Law Update Today


MadProfessah will be spending most of the day at UCLA Law School today, attending their Annual Update on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy. I may have some pictures up later tonight or tomorrow (or perhaps even live from the proceedings!)

Annual Update on Sexual Orientation Law Fri Feb 19 at UCLA

Friday February 19th at UCLA Law School, the Williams Institute will hold its 9th Annual Update on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy. Entitled "Sexuality and Gender Law: Assessing the Field, Envisioning the Future," the day-long event will feature appearances by some of the most prominent LGBT legal minds in the country, such as (just to name a few that I am looking forward to meeting and seeing again) NYU Law Professor Kenji Yohsino, University of Chicago Law Professor Mary Anne Case, Columbia Law Professor (and former Vice-Dean) Katherine Franke, American University Law Professor Nancy Polikoff, Obama appointee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chai Feldblum, Georgetown Law Professor (and blogger!) Nan Hunter, and Yale Law Professor Bill Eskridge.

There'll be a whole lotta "mad professahs" in the house!

Here's the schedule at a glance (see full schedule here):

Friday, February 19

9:00-10:20amThe Difference a Field Makes: The Impact of Sexuality and Gender Law Scholarship on the Law and Legal Scholarship

10:40-12:00pmTheories Behind Multidimensional Advocacy

1:00-2:30pmThe Impact Sexuality and Gender Law and Policy Scholarship on LGBT Rights

3:00-4:30pmIntersectionality

5:00-6:30pmFinal Round, 6th Annual Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Moot Court Competition

6:30-8:30pmAnnual Gala Reception and Awards Ceremony: Honoring Richard Taylor and Announcing Williams Institute National Moot Court Winners
*Click here for tickets.

Saturday, February 20

9:00-10:15amSexuality in a Global Culture

10:30-11:45pmThe Many Meanings of Gender

12:00-1:00pmNext Steps: The Future of Sexuality and Gender Law and Scholarship


Just a few weeks ago I was a guest judge in the early rounds of the 6th Annual National Moot Court Competition on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law. It is a very interesting case which pits religious freedom under the first amendment against equal protection interests based on gender identity in a hypothetical in which national health care has become law but includes a rider which allows a "conscience clause" allowing doctor's to not treat transgender people.
Exemption Protecting Religious Freedoms of Medical Personnel:
No physician, nurse, or other medical personnel shall be required under this or
any other law of the United States to provide hormone therapy, surgery, or any
other medical care to transgender patients that is related to their transgender
status, gender identity, or gender expression if the provision of such care violates
the sincerely held religious beliefs of the physician, nurse, or other medical
personnel requested to provide such service. This provision shall not apply in
situations in which the transgender person’s medical condition is life threatening.
This year's Moot Court problem allows students to go into the details of the Lemon test in Supreme Court jurisprudence for improper governmental establishment of religion as well as the parameters of equal protection analysis involving suspect classes and the evolving nature of rational basis review.

The finals will be judged this year by two sitting members of State Supreme Courts: Justice Carol A. Beier (Kansas Supreme Court) and Justice Joette Katz (Connecticut Supreme Court) and is always a highlight of the entire day.

Williams Institute Releases Report on DADT Estimating 66k LGBT Soldiers


One day before President Obama is being rumored to address the issue in his first State of the Union address, the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy released a report by Williams Distinguished Scholar Gary Gates, Ph.D. which estimates the number of openly LGBT people serving in the United States Armed Forces as well as the financial impact on eliminating Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Key findings from the report (pdf) include:

An estimated 66,000 lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are serving in the US military, accounting for approximately 2.2% of military personnel.

Approximately 13,000 LGB people are serving on active duty (comprising 0.9% of all active duty personnel) while nearly 53,000 are serving in the guard and reserve forces (3.4%).

While women comprise only about 14% of active duty personnel, they comprise more than 43% of LGB men and women serving on active duty.

Lifting DADT restrictions could attract an estimated 36,700 men and women to active duty service and 12,000 more individuals to the guard and reserve.

Since its inception in 1994, the “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy has cost the military between $290 million and more than a half a billion dollars.

The military spends an estimated $22,000 to $43,000 per person to replace those discharged under DADT.


The Williams Institute is one of the most important sources of unbiased, excellent research on the LGBT community and I am happy to be a supporter of its work. I encourage you to do as well!