JD Journal » gay rights

King & Spalding Withdraws from Defense of DOMA; Partner Paul Clement Resigns

rebneely — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:03:54 +0000

King & Spalding, the law firm hired to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by House Republicans, has withdrawn from the case. As a result, the partner hired to lead the case, Paul Clement, a former Bush administration Solicitor, has resigned from the firm, saying, “I resign out of the firmly held belief that” a lawyer should not abandon his client “because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters”, according to the April 25th article at npr.org, “Law Firm Drops Defense Of DOMA”.

The Atlanta based law firm has become the target of harsh criticism by gay rights activists ever since it accepted the case.

King & Spalding Chairman Robert Hays was quoted as saying that the decision to withdraw came after it was determined the firm’s vetting process was “inadequate.”

However, Clement stated in his resignation letter that “if there were problems with the firm’s vetting process, we should fix the vetting process, not drop the representation.” He was also quoted as saying: “I would have never undertaken this matter unless I believed I had the full backing of the firm. I recognized from the outset that this statute implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides. But having undertaken the representation, I believe there is no honorable course for me but to complete it.”

In an interview with NPR, Clement stated: “More important than any one issue is the idea that we have an adversary system of justice, and it just doesn’t work if you say that defending one side of the controversy is completely out of bounds.”

Following his resignation from King & Spalding, Clement has joined the firm of Bancroft PLLC, which was founded by Viet D. Dinh, a fellow Bush administration official. There, he will continue to represent the House in defense of DOMA.

Jeff Graham, the executive director of the gay-rights group Georgia Equality was quoted as saying: “Many of us were stunned, shocked and angered when it became known that King & Spalding had taken on this case, and we are gratefully relieved to find out they had withdrawn. The legal case is something that is really a thinly veiled political attack on gay and lesbian couples and families.”

DOJ Will Not Defend DOMA

joshua — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:55:35 +0000

In a letter to the Speaker of the House, Attorney General Eric Holder has informed Congress that on his advice President Obama has ordered the Department of Justice not to defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, on the grounds that it violates the equal protection clause of the 5th amendment to the US Constitution. While this clause has withstood challenges in past appellate cases, there are two cases pending in circuits for which this is a matter of first impression.

The two cases, brought in New York and Connecticut respectively, are Windsor v. United States and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management. The DOJ’s deadline for filing a brief in each case is coming up but according to AG Holder, the administration will not be defending the law in court.

Morning Roundup

joshua — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:57:53 +0000

Good morning everyone! Today is Monday, September 13th. Here’s a quick recap of Friday’s stories.

The ACLU will represent defense lawyers against U.S. Homeland Security…

According to a CT TyMetrix Inc. and The Corporate Executive Board survey, billing rates in Washington, D.C. are the second highest in the U.S….

The Quellos Group owners pled guilty to fraud and tax evasion…

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was ruled unconstitutional in California’s 9th District…

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan disqualified herself from 10 more cases…

Law School admissions officers survey tells prospective students how to prepare…

Burleson Cooke added nine attorneys to its Pittsburgh office…

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Ruled Unconstitutional in California’s 9th District

ashley — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 19:32:26 +0000

Judge Virginia A. Philips of the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the law behind the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on Thursday. The law that forbids openly homosexual members from serving in the United States military was ruled unconstitutional due to its violation of the rights of lesbians and gays under the First and Fifth Amendment.

The ruling occurs two months after the United States government was brought to trial by the gay rights grassroots organization Log Cabin Republicans. White & Case partner and lead attorney on the case Daniel J. Woods said in a statement, “This is a major victory in the fight for equality and means that military service will be available to all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation.”

However, United States government lawyers are questioning whether Judge Philips’s ruling will hold true for the rest of the nation. The government now has the opportunity to nix the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy by repealing it before Congress, and constitutional law expert and dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, says, “Given the position of the Obama administration, there’s a great likelihood he will not appeal the ruling. If it isn’t appealed to the 9th Circuit, it has an excellent chance of standing.”

Challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act Begins in Massachusetts

daniel — Fri, 07 May 2010 01:05:42 +0000

A challenge to the US Defense of Marriage Act began in a federal courtroom in Massachusetts on Thurday. The outcome of the case will decide if gay couples that are currently legally married under state law are entitled to the same benefits heterosexual couples currently receive.

The thrust of the argument is simple: that the law is unconstitutional and denies equal protection under the law.

President Obama has said he would like to see DOMA repealed.

“The government does not presently support DOMA and would like to see it repealed, But we do argue for its constitutionality,” said W. Scott Simpson, Justice Department attorney.

Simpson filed a motion to dismiss the case, stating the US government has the right and responsibility to apply federal law as it sees fit, regardless of what states may do with their own laws.

California’s Proposition 8 Trial Will be Broadcast

joshua — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:29:02 +0000

The 9th Circuit recently put in place new rules that give federal judges in the circuit the option of allowing trials to be broadcast. Judge Vaughn Walker announced today that he will allow the upcoming trial over the constitutionality of California’s proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to ban same sex marriages, to be broadcast on youtube. Defenders of proposition 8 objected to the judge’s ruling, saying that it could lead to witness harassment.

The trial is set to begin on January 11, and features the all star duo of David Boies and Ted Olson, who argued against each other in the Supreme Court case Bush v Gore, as co-attorneys for the plaintiffs. For more of our coverage of this case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, click here.

Uganda Considers Death Penalty Law for Homosexuality

joshua — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:10:06 +0000

The Wall Street Journal is reporting on pending legislation in Uganda that would impose strict penalties on homosexuals, up to and including the death penalty for homosexuals infected with HIV. Merely engaging in a homosexual act would mandate a life sentence under the new law. Even more pernicious is the law’s provisions for those that “aid or abet” a homosexual or anyone that rents living quarters to someone that is gay. Meeting those criteria could land you in jail for seven years. Anyone in a position of “religious, political, economic or social authority” that fails to report violations of the proposed law would also face seven years in prison.

Nigeria has already enacted similar legislation and is considering strengthening it.

Gay Marriage Defeated in Maine

joshua — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:24:32 +0000

Yesterday, voters in Maine cast ballots on Proposition 1. Proposition 1 was a “voter veto” bill, which means it was written to strike down a law passed by the legislature that would have allowed gay marriage within the state. The final tally was 53-47 in favor of striking down the law. Because this has the same effect as a veto, the legislature can override it in their next session if they choose to do so.

Five states currently allow same sex marriages, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut, but all five are the result of legislative or court decisions. Gay marriage has been denied in each of the 31 states where the decision has been left to popular vote.

Prop 8 Challenge Allowed to Proceed

joshua — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:19:21 +0000

Opponents of California’s Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to heterosexual couples, have overcome a motion to dismiss their challenge of the law in federal court. Prop 8′s backers argued that the challenge should be dismissed because the Supreme Court let a similar law stand in Minnesota in a 1972 challenge. The judge rejected that argument, saying that much has changed in the Court’s position on a variety of issues in the intervening time. The judge also rejected the notion that couples who can not procreate shouldn’t be married, noting that the last wedding he presided over was between a couple of ages 95 and 83.

The lawyers standing for the opponents of Prop 8 are notable in their own right. Ted Olson, the Solicitor General under President George W. Bush has teamed up with David Boies, who argued against him in front of the Court in the Bush v Gore case.

Marshall Gerstein Attorney Establishes LGBT Scholarship

Erik Even — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:17:57 +0000

Jeremy D. Protas, an attorney with the intellectual property law firm of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, has announced the establishment of a patent law scholarship specifically for LGBT (“lesbian, gay, bisexual, & transgender”) law students intending to pursue careers in the field of patent law.

Candidates must be second-year students for the 2009-2010 academic year at an American Bar Association-accredited law school, and be eligible to sit for the patent bar exam.

Applications for the $1,000 scholarship are due July 31.

Protas joined the firm as a summer associate in 2003 and 2004, and in 2005 joined the firm as a full-time associate.

Chicago’s Marshall, Gerstein & Borun was ranked in the top 15% among 352 law firms as a “Top Patent Firm” by Intellectual Property Today (March 2008).

New York Gubernatorial Aide to Join Kirkland & Ellis

Erik Even — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:43:55 +0000

Sean Patrick Maloney, the first deputy secretary to New York Governor David Paterson, resigned this week, effective at the end of the year. Maloney, who is openly gay, was a holdeover from the Eliot Spitzer administration.

Maloney, a senior West Wing advisor to the Clinton Administration, will become a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, where he will join Michael Garcia, the Spitzer prosecutor.

Paterson has been a vocal supporter of LGBT issues in the past, but with gay marriage a contentious issue in the state Senate, community advocates are wondering how losing a top gay insiders in Albany will affect the community’s representation.

On March 10, 2008, The New York Times reported that Spitzer was a client of a prostitution ring under investigation by the federal government. Two days later, he announced his resignation as governor of New York.

Via The New York Blade.

Gay Marriage Controversy Reaches UM Law School

Erik Even — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:55:37 +0000

There seems to be a fracas in the making at the University of Michigan Law School, ignited by the controversy over California’s Proposition 8.

Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition that changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman, and eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publicly supported the proposition, along with other religious organizations.

It seems that an advertisement [PDF] recently appeared in the New York Times that was signed by one of the UM Law School’s professors, Douglas Laycock. It read, in part:

The violence and intimidation being directed against the LDS or “Mormon” church, and other religious organizations – and even against individual believers – simply because they supported Proposition 8 is an outrage that must stop. …

Regrettably, some public voices have even sought to excuse the threats and disruptions simply as “demonstrations” that got out of hand. Perhaps that’s true in some cases. Far too many, however, have never been demonstrations in the first place, but more nearly mobs, seeking not to persuade but to intimidate.

In fact, various media outlets have documented civil rights demonstrations against the LDS Church and others, and civil rights groups attempts to “out” Prop. 8 supporters. But even the group behind the ad can’t identify a single documented case of violence, short of anonymous petty vandalism.

The UMLS Outlaws LGBT Students & Friends Association response:

Outlaws and the Law School want to use this occasion to stress that Michigan Law School is an institution that is welcoming of LGBTQA students and that the Law School values the diversity that our community helps provide.

And from Sarah C. Zearfoss, Assistant Dean and Director of Admissions:

Bottom-line, if you are concerned, based on Professor Laycock’s signing of the letter in the New York Times, that the University of Michigan Law School is a place where a prospective LGBTQ law student wouldn’t feel welcome or would feel under siege, then I think your concerns are misplaced. We have an excellent and very active Outlaws student group, and a faculty and administration that are committed to maintaining LGBTQ diversity at this Law School.

The fact is, Proposition 8 was hateful, and opposition to gay marriage is bigotry, no matter the basis for your beliefs. Californians, and all Americans, have the inalienable right to protection from enforced religious law. If homophobes were being victimized with violence, that would absolutely be wrong, although some blame would have to rest with the “victims,” whose “victimizers” would never have even known of their existence if the “victims” had not interfered with their private lives. But that scenario is not playing out. At all.

Having your political contributions publicized is not harassment, violence or intimidation. Protests at public locations, even angry protests, are not harassment, violence or intimidation.

Activists who wish to use the government to enforce their religious beliefs on others should instead do some soul-searching, and ask why they seek to overthrow the religious and personal liberties this nation was founded upon.

- Erik David Even