(1) Whether courts should extend deference to an unpublished agency letter that, among other things, does not carry the force of law and was adopted in the context of the very dispute in which deference is sought; and (2) whether, with or without deference to the agency, the Department of Education's specific interpretation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.33, which provides that a funding recipient providing sex-separated facilities must “generally treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity,” should be given effect.SCOTUSblog describes the Grimm case in this way:
Although the controversy over the school board’s policy requiring students to use the restrooms and locker rooms that match the gender that they were assigned at birth instantly became the highest-profile case of the court’s term so far, the dispute actually centers on more technical (and, some would say, rather dry) legal issues. In this case, the district court ruled against G.G., relying on a 1975 regulation that allows schools to provide “separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex,” as long as those facilities are comparable to those provided to the opposite sex. But, in January 2015, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights issued an opinion letter stating that, if schools separate students in restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of their sex, a “school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.” In light of the 2015 letter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reversed and ruled for G.G. It relied on the Supreme Court’s 1997 decision in Auer v. Robbins, which held that courts generally should defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation.
In granting review today, the justices sidestepped the most prominent issue they had been asked to take on: whether they should overrule their decision in Auer, which has been the target of criticism by conservative lawyers and jurists. Instead, they agreed only to weigh in on two other, lower-profile questions presented in the school board’s petition: whether courts should defer to a letter, like the Department of Education opinion letter in this case, that was issued as part of the specific dispute before the court; and whether the Department of Education’s interpretation of the federal civil rights laws and the 1975 regulation as requiring schools to treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity should be given effect.
The school board’s case, as well as the others in which the justices granted review today, likely will be argued during the court’s February sitting, which begins on February 21.Here at MadProfessah.com we will be watching this case closely. The primary takeaway should be that although marriage equality is now the law of the land, the fight for full LGBT equality is clearly not over. And the United States Supreme Court will almost certainly play a role in accomplishing this.
The designation will create the first official National Park Service unit dedicated to telling the story of LGBT Americans, just days before the one year anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision guaranteeing marriage equality in all 50 states. Additionally, in celebration of the designation and New York City’s Pride festival, the White House, in coordination with the National Park Foundation and the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, is releasing a video that will be played on the billboards in Times Square on Saturday, June 25, beginning at 12:00pm ET.
The new Stonewall National Monument will permanently protect Christopher Park, a historic community park at the intersection of Christopher Street, West 4th Street and Grove Street directly across from the Stonewall Inn in Manhattan’s Greenwich Village. The monument’s boundary encompasses approximately 7.7 acres of land, including Christopher Park, the Stonewall Inn, and the surrounding streets and sidewalks that were the site of the 1969 Stonewall Uprising.Thanks, President Obama!
Though the Supreme Court's decision has not immediately influenced Americans' overall opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage, this is not to suggest it will not affect opinion in the long run.
Even after a 1967 Supreme Court decision that legalized interracial marriages, Gallup's polling in 1968 found that only one in five Americans (20%) approved of such marriages. It took three more decades to reach a majority of support.
The path to legality of interracial marriage differed from same-sex marriage, though, in that the Supreme Court led public opinion bylegalizing something that Americans largely disapproved of at the time. Approval of same-sex marriage, however, has ascended significantly faster, and has enjoyed majority support for a few years before the court's decision. Still, a long view of the trend on gay marriage illustrates that support for it was steady and incremental, and that the movement's big victories in statewide ballot initiatives and legislature-enacted laws had limited effect on public opinion at large.I really do not understand how one person's civil marriage affects someone else's. Hopefully even Republican Presidential candidates will figure that out eventually!
“Following the Supreme Court’s historic decision in Obergefell that every couple has the same right to participate in the institution of marriage, whether the partners are of the same-sex or opposite sexes, I directed Justice Department staff to work with the agencies to ensure that the ruling be given full effect across the federal government. Thanks to their leadership and the quick work of the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs, today I am proud to announce that the critical programs for veterans and elderly and disabled Americans, which previously could not give effect to the marriages of couples living in states that did not recognize those marriages, will now provide federal recognition for all marriages nationwide. The agencies are currently working towards providing guidance to implement this change in law. Just over a year ago, Attorney General Holder announced that agencies across the federal government had implemented the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision by treating married same-sex couples the same as married opposite-sex couples to the greatest extent possible under the law as it then stood. With the Supreme Court’s new ruling that the Constitution requires marriage equality, we have now taken the further step of ensuring that all federal benefits will be available equally to married couples in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the US Territories. The department will continue to work across the administration to fulfill our commitment to equal treatment for all Americans, including equal access to the benefits of marriage that the Obergefell decision guarantees.”
SUPPORT OUTWEIGHED CRITICISM 4 TO 1
Although overall Twitter sentiment was 55% positive, 32% neutral, and 13% negative, with neutral tweets excluded, positive opinions outweighed negative opinions 80% to 20%.
WOMEN WERE MORE SUPPORTIVE THAN MEN
While 86% of women and 72% of men were in favor of the Supreme Court ruling, 14% of women and 28% of men opposed it.
THE EAST COAST HAD THE MOST SUPPORTERS
Massachusetts (96% approval), New Jersey (87.3% approval), and New York (86.8% approval) were most vocal in their support of the Supreme Court ruling.
SOUTHERN STATES HAD THE MOST OPPONENTS
Although these three states still had more supporters than detractors, Alabama (50% disapproval), North Carolina (35.1% disapproval), and Virginia (31.5% disapproval) had the most naysayers.
OVERALL SENTIMENT WAS POSITIVE IN ALL STATES
For all states with a significant volume of tweets, the majority of sentiment was positive.Are the heterosexual supremacists in theGOP looking at these numbers? Read 'em and weep! EVERY state was positive:
I always believed we would win, but what a joy and relief it was when our victory came. As I read the Supreme Court opinion, as I followed the stories across the country of couples getting married, and as so many people wrote me with wonder, attaching pictures of their families, their kids, their weddings ... well, I cried and cried again.
We won. We did it. The freedom to marry is now the law of the land throughout our whole country. At long last, loving and committed same-sex couples are able to share in the joy, the protections, the vocabulary, and the institution of marriage.
We've been fighting this campaign for decades, and not a single step has come easily. To overcome the obstacles and to seize the opportunities, with stumbles and then successes, we built a machine that could guide and leverage a movement, driving a strategy — and machines take fuel. Without your support, this transformation and triumph would not have happened.
And our win is America's win. Love won. We all did.
Now — as Freedom to Marry prepares to wind down — we must remember that there's still much work to do in our own LGBT movement and in the broader movements we are part of.
I am grateful to my incomparable Freedom to Marry team, our close movement colleagues, the entire family of supporters and partners in the work, our allies, and our country. How lucky we are to see our work rewarded with the change and victory we sought and deserved.
All that's left is to say, with all my heart, is congratulations — mazel tov! — and thank you.
Evan WolfsonFounder, Freedom to MarryCongrats!
 |
| Source |
“The marriage bans challenged in these cases impermissibly exclude lesbian and gay couples from the rights, responsibilities, and status of civil marriage. These facially discriminatory laws impose concrete harms on same-sex couples and send the inescapable message that same-sex couples and their children are second-class families, unworthy of the recognition and benefits that opposite-sex couples take for granted. The bans cannot be reconciled with the fundamental constitutional guarantee of ‘equal protection of the laws.’”This is a significant development because it was not that long ago the federal government was defending it's own federal ban on the recognition of marriage equality in court, a position the government abandoned almost exactly four years ago, and a few years later the Supreme Court struck down the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?It is likely there will be oral arguments in April (90 minutes on Question 1, 60 minutes on Question 2) and a final decision issued in the case(s) by June 2015.
In 29 states - CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, ID, IA, IL, IN, ME, MD, MA, MN, NC, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA, RI, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV and WI, plus Washington, D.C. - same-sex couples have the freedom to marry.
In an additional six states - AK, AZ, KS, MT, SC, and WY - federal appellate rulings have set a binding precedent in favor of the freedom to marry, meaning the path is cleared for the freedom to marry there.
In sum, any relationship between Alaska’s same-sex marriage laws and the government interests asserted by Defendants is either nonexistent or purely speculative. Alaska’s same-sex marriage laws are a prime example of how “the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the legislature’s actions were irrational.” Refusing the rights and responsibilities afforded by legal marriage sends the public a government-sponsored message that same-sex couples and their familial relationships do not warrant the status, benefits, and dignity given to couples of the opposite sex. This Court finds that Alaska’s same-sex marriage laws violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because no state interest provides “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the significant infringement of rights that they inflict upon homosexual individuals.Bizarrely, Gov. Sean Parnell (R-Alaska) announced that he is going to appeal this ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which just announced on Tuesday that it was striking down Idaho's and Nevada's bans on marriage equality. Isn't insanity doing the same thing over and over again and hoping to hey a different result? Then again, Parnell is running for re-election so maybe he feels like he needs to appear as if he is "defending marriage."
For most of the twentieth century, anyone who openly identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) was banned from immigrating to the United States. HIV-positive people were also barred from entry. Until 2013, the immigration system denied recognition of LGBT families: the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevented gay, lesbian, and bisexual U.S. citizens from sponsoring their same-sex partners for permanent residence.
Slowly, over the past three decades, all of that has changed. The ban on LGBT people was repealed in 1990, and the ban on people living with HIV was lifted in 2008. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Windsor decision overturned part of DOMA, recognizing the legitimacy of binational same-sex couples, ending years of separation and uncertainty for tens of thousands of couples.
But the pathways to equality and basic quality of life is still hard for the vast majority of LGBT immigrants in the U.S., who now number an estimated 904,000. By comparison, New York State is home to 575,000 "out" LGBT adults. In fact, nearly a tenth of the nearly 9 million "out" LGBT adults are immigrants.The full report is 24-pages long but is chock-full of important information like:
Based on the most recent stay, it appears to the Court that it may well be that a message is being sent by the Supreme Court. But this Court is not some modern day haruspex skilled in the art of divination. This Court cannot – and, more importantly, it will not – tell the people of Colorado that the access to this or any other fundamental right will be delayed because it “thinks” or “perceives” the subtle – or not so subtle – content of a message not directed to this case. The rule of law demands more.Much props from this fellow sesquipedalian for the use of the word "haruspex"!
