January, 05 2009, 07:40pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
The
National Center for Lesbian Right: www.nclrights.org
Lambda Legal: www.lambdalegal.org
ACLU: www.aclu.org
EQCA: www.eqca.org
New Filing in Prop 8 Legal Challenge
Reply brief reiterates that Prop 8 should be struck down
WASHINGTON
Today, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Lambda Legal filed a reply
brief in the California Supreme Court, the next step in the lawsuit
seeking to overturn Proposition 8, which passed by a mere 52 percent on
November 4.
The brief argues that Proposition 8 is
invalid because it seeks to eliminate a fundamental right only for a
targeted minority, which cannot be done through the initiative process.
The brief also agrees with California Attorney General Jerry Brown that
certain fundamental rights, including the right to marry, are
inalienable and can not be put up for a popular vote. The brief also
argues --again in agreement with the Attorney General -- that Proposition
8 cannot be applied to invalidate existing marriages because new laws
and amendments are presumed to apply only on a prospective basis.
"If Prop 8 is permitted to stand, it would be the first time an
initiative has successfully been used to change the California
Constitution to take away an existing right only from a historically
targeted minority group," said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter.
"Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and
fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority
rights."
On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted review in
the legal challenges to Proposition 8, and established an expedited
briefing schedule, under which briefing will be completed in January
2009, with amicus curiae or "friend-of-the-court" briefs due on January
15. Oral argument potentially could be held as early as March 2009.
Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU, added "Prop 8 is a
radical and unprecedented change to the California Constitution that
puts all Californians at risk. It actually mandates government
discrimination against a minority."
In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that laws that treat
people differently based on their sexual orientation violate the equal
protection clause of the California Constitution and that same-sex
couples have the same fundamental right to marry as other Californians.
Proposition 8 would completely eliminate this fundamental right only
for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed
the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted
minority group.
"Prop 8 is not valid and never has been," said Jennifer Pizer, Lambda
Legal National Marriage Project Director. "California's Equal
Protection clause was not written in sand, to be erased by shifting
political tides. It's a solid guarantee that we all have the same
rights and it's the foundation of our government. Exceptions can't be
carved by simple majority vote or the equality guarantee becomes a
discrimination guarantee. No initiative can cause such a profound
change in our legal system."
NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed this challenge on November 5,
representing Equality California, whose members include many same-sex
couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six
same-sex couples who want to marry in California. The California
Supreme Court has also agreed to hear two other challenges filed on the
same day: one filed by the City and County of San Francisco (joined by
Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles, and subsequently by Los
Angeles County and other local governments); and another filed by a
private attorney. These three cases are jointly under review by the
California Supreme Court.
Serving as co-counsel on the case with NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU
are the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP,
and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.
For more information on this case, go to: https://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm
###
The
National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization
committed to advancing the civil and human rights of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender people and their families through litigation,
public policy advocacy, and public education. www.nclrights.org
Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full
recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals,
transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation,
education and public policy work. www.lambdalegal.org
The American Civil Liberties Union is America's foremost advocate of
individual rights. It fights discrimination and moves public opinion on
LGBT rights through the courts, legislatures and public education. www.aclu.org
EQCA
works to achieve equality and secure legal protections for LGBT people.
To improve the lives of LGBT Californians, EQCA sponsors legislation
and coordinates efforts to ensure its passage, lobbies legislators and
other policy makers, builds coalitions, develops community strength and
empowers individuals and other organizations to engage in the political
process. www.eqca.org
LATEST NEWS
Asked If He Must Uphold the US Constitution, Trump Says: 'I Don't Know'
"I'm not a lawyer," the president said in a newly aired interview.
May 04, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump refused in an interview released Sunday to affirm that the nation's Constitution affords due process to citizens and noncitizens alike and that he, as president, must uphold that fundamental right.
"I don't know, I'm not a lawyer," Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker, who asked if the president agrees with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement that everyone on U.S. soil is entitled to due process.
When Welker pointed to the Fifth Amendment—which states that "no person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"—Trump again replied that he's unsure and suggested granting due process to the undocumented immigrants he wants to deport would be too burdensome.
"We'd have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials," Trump said, echoing a sentiment that his vice president expressed last month.
Asked whether he needs to "uphold the Constitution of the United States as president," Trump replied, "I don't know."
Watch:
WELKER: The 5th Amendment says everyone deserves due process
TRUMP: It might say that, but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or two million or three million trials pic.twitter.com/FMZQ7O9mTP
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 4, 2025
Trump, who similarly deferred to "the lawyers" when asked recently about his refusal to bring home wrongly deported Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia, has unlawfully cited the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly remove undocumented immigrants from the U.S. without due process. Federal agents have also arrested and detained students, academics, and a current and former judge in recent weeks, heightening alarm over the administration's authoritarian tactics.
CNNreported Friday that the administration has "been examining whether it can label some suspected cartel and gang members inside the U.S. as 'enemy combatants' as a possible way to detain them more easily and limit their ability to challenge their imprisonment."
"Trump has expressed extreme frustration with federal courts halting many of those migrants' deportations, amid legal challenges questioning whether they were being afforded due process," the outlet added. "By labeling the migrants as enemy combatants, they would have fewer rights, the thinking goes."
Some top administration officials have publicly expressed disdain for the constitutional right to due process. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, wrote in a social media post last month that "the judicial process is for Americans" and "immediate deportation" is for undocumented immigrants.
The New Republic's Greg Sargent wrote in a column Saturday that "Miller appears to want Trump to have the power to declare undocumented immigrants to be terrorists and gang members by fiat; to have the power to absurdly decree them members of a hostile nation's invading army, again by fiat; and then to have quasi-unlimited power to remove them, unconstrained by any court."
"The more transparency we have gained into the rot of corruption and bad faith at the core of this whole saga, the worse it has come to look," Sargent continued. "Trump himself is exposing it all for what it truly is: the stuff of Mad Kings."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Republicans Set to Give Self-Described 'DOGE Person' Keys to Social Security Agency
"A vote for Trump's Social Security Commissioner is a vote to destroy Social Security," warned one advocacy group.
May 04, 2025
The U.S. Senate on Tuesday is set to hold a confirmation vote for President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Social Security Administration—an ultra-rich former Wall Street executive who has aligned himself with the Elon Musk-led slash-and-burn effort at agencies across the federal government.
"I am fundamentally a DOGE person," Frank Bisignano told CNBC in March, amplifying concerns that he would take his experience in the financial technology industry—where he was notorious for inflicting mass layoffs while raking in a huge compensation package—to SSA, which is already facing large-scale staffing cuts that threaten the delivery of benefits for millions of Americans.
In an email on Saturday, the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works warned that Bisignano "is not the cure to the DOGE-manufactured chaos at the Social Security Administration."
"In fact, he is part of it, and, if confirmed, would make it even worse," the group added. "We're not going down without a fight. Republicans may have a majority in the Senate, but we're going to rally to send a message: A vote for Trump's Social Security Commissioner is a vote to destroy Social Security!"
"If Mr. Bisignano can get away with lying before he's even in place as commissioner, who knows what else he'll be able to get away with once he's in office."
Bisignano, the CEO of payment processing giant Fiserv, has been accused during his confirmation process of lying under oath about his ties to DOGE, which has worked to seize control of Social Security data as part of a purported effort to root out "fraud" that advocates say is virtually nonexistent.
As The Washington Post reported in March, Bisignano testified to the Senate Finance Committee that "he has had no contact" with DOGE.
"But Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the claim is 'not true,' citing an account the senator said he received from a senior Social Security official who recently left the agency," the Post noted. "The former official... described 'numerous contacts Mr. Bisignano made with the agency since his nomination,' including 'frequent' conversations with senior executives."
Wyden pointed again to the former SSA official's statement in a floor speech Thursday in opposition to Bisignano, saying that "according to the whistleblower, Mr. Bisignano personally appointed his Wall Street buddy, Michael Russo, to be the leader of DOGE's team at Social Security."
The Oregon Democrat said Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee refused his request for a bipartisan meeting with the whistleblower to evaluate their accusations unless "we agreed to hand over any information received from the whistleblower directly to the nominee and the Trump administration."
"All Americans should be concerned that a nominee for a position of public trust like commissioner of Social Security is accused of lying about his actions at the agency and that efforts to bring this important information to light are being thwarted," Wyden said Thursday. "If Mr. Bisignano can get away with lying before he's even in place as commissioner, who knows what else he'll be able to get away with once he's in office."
"He could lie by denying any American who paid their Social Security taxes the benefits they've earned, claiming some phony pretense," the senator warned. "He could lie about how sensitive personal information is being mishandled—or worse, exploited for commercial use."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Chilling Attempt to Normalize Fascism': Groups Decry Trump Official's Arrest Threats
"We must not allow intimidation and authoritarian tactics to take root in our political system."
May 04, 2025
A coalition of advocacy organizations on Saturday expressed support for Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers and warned that the Trump border czar's threat against the Democratic leader marks a "dangerous escalation" of the administration's assault on the rule of law across the United States.
The groups—including All Voting Is Local and the ACLU of Wisconsin—said in a joint statement that Evers' guidance to state officials on how to handle being confronted by federal agents was "a prudent measure aimed at ensuring compliance with state and federal laws while protecting the rights of state employees."
The suggestion by Tom Homan, a leader of President Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign, that Evers could be arrested for issuing such guidance undermines "the foundational principles of our democracy, including the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the right of state governments to operate without undue federal interference," the groups said Saturday.
"To threaten our governor over his legal directive is gross overreach by our federal government, and it is not occurring in a vacuum," they continued, warning that the administration's rhetoric and actions represent a "chilling attempt to normalize fascism."
"Similar occurrences are happening across the nation, including within our academic systems," the groups added. "If we do not reject these actions now, states and other institutions will only lose more and more of their autonomy and power. This is exactly why we underscore Gov. Evers' claim that this event is 'chilling.'"
The threats against Gov. Evers in Wisconsin undermine the foundational principles of our democracy: the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the right of state governments to operate without undue federal interference. We must reject this overreach. allvotingislocal.org/statements/w...
[image or embed]
— All Voting is Local (@allvotingislocal.bsky.social) May 3, 2025 at 9:58 AM
Trump administration officials and the president himself have repeatedly threatened state and local officials as the White House rushes ahead with its lawless mass deportation campaign, which has ensnared tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants and at least over a dozen U.S. citizens—including children.
In an executive order signed late last month, Trump accused "some state and local officials" of engaging in a "lawless insurrection" against the federal government by refusing to cooperate with the administration's deportation efforts.
But as Temple University law professor Jennifer Lee recently noted, localities "can legally decide not to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement."
"Cities, like states, have constitutional protections against being forced to administer or enforce federal programs," Lee wrote. "The Trump administration cannot force any state or local official to assist in enforcing federal immigration law."
Administration officials have also leveled threats against members of Congress, with Homan suggesting earlier this year that he would refer Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to the U.S. Justice Department for holding a webinar informing constituents of their rights.
During a town hall on Friday, Ocasio-Cortez dared Homan to do so.
"To that I say: Come for me," she said to cheers from the audience. "We need to challenge them. So don't let them intimidate you."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular