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
ICC Slams New US Sanctions on Judges as 'Flagrant Attack' on Rule of Law
"When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk," the court said.
Dec 18, 2025
The International Criminal Court and human rights groups on Thursday condemned new US sanctions on two more of the tribunal's judges, which brought the total number of sanctioned ICC jurists to 11 amid the Trump administration's escalating campaign of retaliation against people and institutions seeking to hold Israel and the United States accountable for their alleged crimes.
"Today, I am designating two International Criminal Court (ICC) judges, Gocha Lordkipanidze of Georgia and Erdenebalsuren Damdin of Mongolia, pursuant to Executive Order 14203, 'Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court,'" US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement, referring to President Donald Trump's February edict.
"These individuals have directly engaged in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute Israeli nationals, without Israel’s consent, including voting with the majority in favor of the ICC’s ruling against Israel’s appeal on December 15," Rubio added, referencing Monday's rejection of an Israeli bid to block a probe into alleged war crimes committed during the genocidal two-year war on Gaza.
Although Israel and the US are not ICC members and do not recognize the Hague-based tribunal's jurisdiction, Palestine is a state party to the Rome Statute governing the court. The treaty says that individuals from nonsignatory nations can be held liable for crimes committed in the territory of a member state.
Last year, the ICC issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation in a war that has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, wounded, or missing.
The Trump administration had previously sanctioned nine other ICC jurists: Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan (United Kingdom), Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan (Fiji), Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang (Senegal), Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda), Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza (Peru), Judge Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini-Gansou (Benin), Judge Beti Hohler (Slovenia), Judge Nicolas Yann Guillou (France), and Judge Kimberly Prost (Canada).
The affected judges have recently described how the US sanctions have left them and their families—who are also blacklisted—"wiped out economically and socially."
Responding to the new US punitive measures, the ICC said Thursday that "these sanctions are a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution which operates pursuant to the mandate conferred by its states parties from across regions."
"Such measures targeting judges and prosecutors who were elected by the states parties undermine the rule of law," the court continued. "When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk."
"As previously stated, the court stands firmly behind its personnel and behind victims of unimaginable atrocities," the ICC added. "It will continue to carry out its mandate with independence and impartiality, in full accordance with the Rome Statute and in the interest of victims of international crimes."
Human Rights Watch also slammed the new US sanctions, which the group called "the latest attempt by the Trump administration to blatantly interfere with independent justice."
The US government has imposed sanctions on two additional ICC judges in order to shield Israeli officials from charges of grave international crimes.These sanctions are the latest attempt by the Trump administration to blatantly interfere with independent justice.
[image or embed]
— Human Rights Watch (@hrw.org) December 18, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Amnesty International's Center for International Justice lamented that "once again, the US administration is attacking international justice—sanctioning two ICC judges. This cannot be normalized."
"States must firmly oppose US threats and sanctions and uphold the court’s ability to pursue accountability," the group added, "even against the most powerful perpetrators."Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Condemns 'Terror' and 'Lawlessness' Spread by Trump's Masked Thugs
“Allowing masked, unidentified agents to roam communities and apprehend people without identifying themselves erodes trusts in the rule of law and creates a dangerous vacuum where abuses can flourish."
Dec 18, 2025
As masked government agents—an oft-employed terror tool of authoritarian regimes—run roughshod amid the Trump administration's mass deportation effort, a leading human rights group on Thursday called on Congress to investigate abuses perpetrated by federal officers against immigrants and US citizens alike.
Federal immigration enforcement agents "now commonly operate masked and without visible identification, compounding the abusive and unaccountable nature of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign," Human Rights Watch (HRW) said. "The indefinite and widespread nature of these practices is fundamentally inconsistent with the United States’ obligations to ensure that law enforcement abuses are investigated and met with accountability."
HRW continued:
Since President Donald Trump’s return to office in January 2025, his administration has carried out an abusive campaign of immigration raids and arrests, primarily of people of color, across the country. Many of the raids target places where Latino people work, shop, eat, and live. The agents have seized people in courthouses and at regularly scheduled appointments with immigration officials, as well as in places of worship, schools, and other sensitive locations. Many raids have been marked by the sudden and unprovoked use of force without any justification, creating a climate of fear in many immigrant communities.
Drawing upon interviews with 18 people who were arrested or witnessed arrests by unidentified federal agents, HRW highlighted the "terror" and helplessness felt by victims of such "lawlessness."
“It was a horrible feeling,” said Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish PhD student at Tufts University who was illegally snatched off a Massachusetts street in March and whisked off to an US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lockup in Louisiana after she published an opinion piece in a student newspaper advocating divestment from apartheid Israel as it waged a genocidal war on Gaza. With Öztürk having committed no crime, a federal judge ordered her release 45 days later.
“I didn’t think that they were the police because I had never seen police approach and take someone away like this," Öztürk said of her arrest—which bystanders likened to a kidnapping. "I thought they were people who were doxing me, and I was genuinely very afraid for my safety... As a woman who’s traveled and lived alone in various countries for my studies, I’ve never experienced intense fear for my safety—until that moment.”
Operatives with ICE—part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—and other agencies have violently attacked not only unauthorized immigrants but also members of their communities including US citizens, activists, journalists, and others. The agents are often wearing masks but not badges or other identifiers, making it very difficult to hold abusers accountable.
While ICE tries to justify its widespread practice of masking agents “to prevent doxing,” HRW stressed that "this kind of generalized, blanket justification for concealing officers’ identity is not compatible with US human rights obligations, except when necessary and proportionate to address particular safety concerns."
"Anonymity also weakens deterrence, fosters conditions for impunity, and chills the exercise of rights," the group added.
It also sows terror, as Republican-appointed US District Judge William Young noted in a ruling earlier this year: "ICE goes masked for a single reason—to terrorize Americans into quiescence. Small wonder ICE often seems to need our respected military to guard them as they go about implementing our immigration laws. It should be noted that our troops do not ordinarily wear masks. Can you imagine a masked marine? It is a matter of honor—and honor still matters."
HRW also noted that "in recent months, media outlets have reported on people posing as federal agents kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and extorting victims, exploiting fears of immigration enforcement."
“Allowing masked, unidentified agents to roam communities and apprehend people without identifying themselves erodes trusts in the rule of law and creates a dangerous vacuum where abuses can flourish, exacerbating the unnecessary violence and brutality of the arrests,” HRW associate crisis and conflict director Belkis Wille said in a statement Thursday.
HRW called on Congress to "investigate the brutality of the ongoing immigration enforcement activities, including the specific impacts of unidentifiable agents carrying out stops and arrests on impeding investigations and accountability efforts."
In addition to efforts by state legislatures to unmask federal agents, congressional Democrats have demanded ICE and other officers identify themselves, and have introduced legislation—the No Secret Police Act and No Masks for ICE Act in the House and VISIBLE Act in the Senate—that would compel them to do so.
“If you uphold the peace of a democratic society, you should not be anonymous,” No Secret Police Act lead co-sponsor Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY) said at the time of the bill's introduction in June. “DHS and ICE agents wearing masks and hiding identification echoes the tactics of secret police authoritarian regimes—and deviates from the practices of local law enforcement, which contributes to confusion in communities.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
11 House Democrats Help GOP Pass 'Disastrous' Pro-Polluter Permitting Bill
"The SPEED Act protects corporate interests, not the public, and it should be rejected by any senator who claims to stand with the people," said one campaigner.
Dec 18, 2025
Eleven Democrats on Thursday voted with nearly all Republicans in the US House of Representatives to advance a permitting reform bill that climate and frontline organizations warn is a "disastrous" attack on a landmark environmental protection law.
Democratic Reps. Jim Costa (Calif.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (NC), Chris Deluzio (Pa.), Lizzie Fletcher (Texas), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Adam Gray (Calif.), John Mannion (NY), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), and Marc Veasey (Texas) voted with all Republicans present expect Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) to pass the bill.
The Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, spearheaded by Golden and House Committee on Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), would amend the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which "is often called the 'Magna Carta' of federal environmental laws."
In a statement after the vote, Food & Water Watch legal director Tarah Heinzen said that "for decades, NEPA has ensured logical decision-making and community involvement when the federal government considers projects that could harm people and the environment. The SPEED Act would eviscerate NEPA's protections."
The group detailed key ways in which the SPEED Act attacks NEPA:
- Drastically limiting NEPA's scope of review: Removes many actions from NEPA review altogether, potentially allowing factory farms and coal plants to build and expand without any environmental review or public input;
- Limiting agency accountability: Creates unreasonably short deadlines to challenge inadequate reviews, and limits courts’ ability to stop unlawful projects; and
- Putting polluter profits above science and the environment: Turns NEPA on its head by requiring agencies to prioritize corporate interests over the public interest and limiting their ability to consider the best science.
"Today's absurd House vote is yet another handout to corporate polluters at the expense of everyday people who have to live with the real-world impacts of toxic pollution from dirty industries like fossil fuels and factory farms," Heinzen argued. "This nonsense must be dead on arrival in the Senate."
Other campaigners also looked to the upper chamber after the vote. Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, executive director of the Western Environmental Law Center, said that "renewable energy and climate advocates in the Senate must hold the line against the SPEED Act's evisceration of our bedrock environmental and community protection law."
Allie Rosenbluth, Oil Change International's US campaign manager, stressed that "our senators must stand up against the SPEED Act's attempts to undermine democratic decision-making, pollute our communities, and threaten our collective future."
For a Better Bayou's James Hiatt similarly said that "the SPEED Act protects corporate interests, not the public, and it should be rejected by any senator who claims to stand with the people."
Anthony Karefa Rogers-Wright, co-coordinator of Black Alliance for Peace's Climate, Environment, and Militarism Initiative, warned that the bill "represents yet another assault on the health of frontline, Black, Brown, Indigenous, and poor white communities that have been designated as sacrifice zones by big polluters who bribe lawmakers with big money to continue a culture of extract, slash, burn, and emit at the expense of oppressed and marginalized peoples."
"Rather than speeding up the approval of dirty projects, Congress should increase funding for federal agencies and grassroots organizations accountable to frontline communities to carry out legally defensible and accurate environmental analyses," he continued, pointing to the Environmental Justice for All Act, previously led by the late Democratic Congressmen Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) and Donald McEachin (Va.).
Mar Zepeda Salazar, legislative director at Climate Justice Alliance, also pointed to that alternative: "The SPEED Act fast-tracks harmful fossil fuel and polluting projects, not the community-led clean energy solutions families and Indigenous peoples across the country have long called for. Instead of pushing the SPEED Act—a bill that would strip away what few legal protections communities still have, weaken safeguards for clean air, land, and water near new industrial development, and sidestep meaningful consultation with federally recognized tribal nations—Congress should be advancing real, community-driven permitting reform."
"Examples include the Environmental Justice for All Act, which lays out meaningful public engagement, strong public health protections, respect for tribal sovereignty and consultation obligations, and serious investments in agencies and staff," she said.
Representatives from the Institute for Policy Studies, Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples, and Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice also spoke out against what David Watkins, director of government affairs for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, condemned as "a sizable holiday gift basket for Big Oil and Gas." He, too, urged the Senate to "reject this retrograde legislation and stand up to the deep-pocketed, polluting industries lobbying for it."
Lauren Pagel, policy director at Earthworks, pointed out that passing the SPEED Act wasn't the only way in which the House on Thursday "chose corporate interests over people, Indigenous Peoples' rights, and our environment." It also passed the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, which "will remove already-scarce protections for natural resources and sacred cultural sites in US mining law."
"Today's House votes are a step backwards for our nation, but we continue to stand firm for the rights of the people and places on the frontlines of oil, gas, and mining," Pagel said. "Communities and ecosystems shouldn't pay the price while corporations rush to profit off extraction—with a helping hand from our elected officials."
Along with those two pieces of legislation, Public Citizen pointed to the House's approval of the Power Plant Reliability Act and Reliable Power Act earlier this week. David Arkush, director of the consumer advocacy group's Climate Program, said that the bills advancing through Congress "under the guise of 'bipartisan permitting reform' are blatant handouts to the fossil fuel and mining industries."
"We need real action to lower energy bills for American families and combat the climate crisis," Arkush asserted, calling on congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump "to fast-track a buildout of renewable energy, storage, and transmission—an approach that would not just make energy more affordable and sustainable, but create US jobs and bolster competitiveness with China, which is rapidly outpacing the US on the energy technologies of the future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular