DOCSLIB.ORG

Hollingsworth V. Perry, ___ U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hollingsworth V. Perry, ___ U.S No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Petitioners, v. KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ANDREW P. PUGNO CHARLES J. COOPER LAW OFFICES OF Counsel of Record ANDREW P. PUGNO DAVID H. THOMPSON 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 HOWARD C. NIELSON, JR. Folsom, California 95630 PETER A. PATTERSON COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC DAVID AUSTIN R. NIMOCKS 1523 New Hampshire JAMES A. CAMPBELL Avenue, NW ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM Washington, D.C. 20036 801 G Street, NW, Suite 509 Tel: (202) 220-9600 Washington, D.C. 20001 Email: ccooper@ cooperkirk.com Counsel for Petitioners ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of Cali- fornia from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW Petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Mark A. Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, A Project of Cali- fornia Renewal (“ProtectMarriage.com”) intervened as defendants in the district court and were the appellants in the court below. Respondents, plaintiffs Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo and intervening plaintiff City and County of San Francis- co, were the appellees below. Official-capacity defendants Edmund G. Brown, Jr., as Governor of California, Kamala D. Harris, as Attorney General of California, Ron Chapman, as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics, Linette Scott, as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health, Patrick O’Connell, as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda, and Dean C. Logan, as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, and intervening defendant Hak-Shing William Tam were not parties to the appeal below.1 1 The Attorney General of California, although not a party to the appeal, was on the service list and filed documents in the court below and filed an amicus brief addressing the question certi- fied to the California Supreme Court. See Dkt. Entries 8, 311, 352. The court below did not, however, certify to the Attorney Gen- eral of California that the constitutionality of a law of the State of California was drawn into question. See 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b). iii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT No corporations are parties, and there are no parent companies or publicly held companies owning any corporation’s stock. Petitioner ProtectMarriage. com is a primarily formed ballot committee under California law. See CAL. GOV. CODE §§ 82013 & 82047.5. Its “sponsor” under California law is Cali- fornia Renewal, a California nonprofit corporation, recognized as a public welfare organization under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4). iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW ..... ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ....... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. vi OPINIONS BELOW ............................................. 1 JURISDICTION ................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED ..... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................ 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................. 8 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ........... 13 I. The Question Presented Is Exceedingly Important ................................................... 13 II. The Decision Below Conflicts with Craw- ford v. Board of Education ........................ 15 III. The Decision Below Fundamentally Mis- applies Romer v. Evans and Conflicts with the Decisions of Other Appellate Courts ..... 17 IV. The Decision Below Conflicts with This Court’s Decision in Baker v. Nelson and with Uniform Appellate Authority Up- holding State Marriage Laws .................... 23 V. The Ninth Circuit’s Holding That Propo- sition 8 Serves No Legitimate Governmen- tal Purpose Conflicts with the Decisions of This and Other Appellate Courts .......... 25 v TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page A. The Traditional Definition of Marriage Furthers Society’s Vital Interest in Responsible Procreation and Child- rearing ................................................. 26 B. Proposition 8 Serves California’s Legit- imate Interest in Proceeding Cau- tiously When Considering Redefining the Institution of Marriage ................. 35 C. The Purpose of Proposition 8 Is Not To “Dishonor” Gays and Lesbians ....... 37 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 39 INDEX TO APPENDIX Opinion, Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012), filed Feb. 7, 2012 ................................... 1a Opinion, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), filed Aug. 4, 2010 ............. 137a Opinion, Perry v. Brown, 52 Cal. 4th 1116 (Cal. 2011), filed Nov. 17, 2011 .................................... 318a Order, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 628 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2011), filed Jan. 4, 2011 ....................... 413a Order, Perry v. Brown, 681 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2012), filed Jun. 5, 2012 ...................................... 441a vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) (plurality) ...................................................... 30 Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) ............... 3, 23, 24 Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971) .... 23, 24 Board of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) ........................................................ 30 Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587 (1987) ..................... 33 Central State Univ. v. American Ass’n Univ. Professors, 526 U.S. 124 (1999) .............................. 33 Citizens for Equal Prot. v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) .......................................... passim City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) .................................................. 30, 31 City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (1976) ....................................................................... 33 Crawford v. Board of Educ., 458 U.S. 527 (1982) .... passim De Burgh v. De Burgh, 250 P.2d 598 (Cal. 1952) ....... 28 Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C. 1995) .................................................................. 24, 29 District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) .................................................................... 5 Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1995) ....................... 31, 37 Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006) ......... 31 In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) ..... 3, 8, 32 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page In re Marriage of J.B. and H.B., 326 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010) .............................. 17, 24, 29 Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974) ....... 30, 31, 32 Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973) .......... 24 Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) ................. 7, 39 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) ......................... 28 Lyng v. Automobile Workers, 485 U.S. 360 (1988) ...... 33 Massachusetts v. United Sates Dep’t of HHS, 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) .................................... 7, 24 Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) ........................ 13 Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) .................................................................. 30, 31 New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932) ......................................................................... 3 Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001) ............................ 31 Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) ................. passim Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974) .................................................................. 24, 29 Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975) ............................ 13 Standhardt v. Superior Court of Ariz., 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003) ....................... 17, 24, 29, 30 Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009) ..... 21, 22, 37 Tully v. Griffin, Inc., 429 U.S. 68 (1976) .................... 23 United States R.R. Ret. Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980) ................................................................ 37 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) ........... 18 Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) .......... 3 Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942) ....... 13 Ysura v. Pocatello Educ. Ass’n, 555 U.S. 353 (2009) ....................................................................... 33 CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 .............................. passim 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ....................................................... 1 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................... 8 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) ....................................................... 1 CAL. CONST. art. I, § 7.5 ...............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prop 8 Trial Video 9Th Circuit Ruling Presskit
    CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: MATT DORSEY THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012 (415) 554-4662 Herrera expresses disappointment with ruling on Prop 8 trial video ‘Public trial records—including video records—should serve to inform our national debates, not be withheld from them,’ Herrera says SAN FRANCISCO (Feb. 2, 2012)—A federal appeals court today ruled against publicly releasing the video record of a 2010 U.S. District Court trial challenging the validity of Proposition 8, the narrowly passed state constitutional amendment that eliminated marriage rights for same-sex couples in California. The decision is only one aspect in the broader legal battle currently before a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel. No ruling has yet been issued on the merits of the appeal of former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s Aug. 4, 2010 holding that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. In response to the Ninth Circuit panel’s decision to withhold the video record of the trial, City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued the following statement: “A free society deserves maximum transparency in the conduct of the public’s business to the full extent our technology allows, and that’s why I’m disappointed with today’s decision. The issue of marriage equality continues to be one of national importance, as we’re seeing now in the State of Washington. Public trial records—including video records—should serve to inform our national debates, not be withheld from them.” Herrera’s brief in the dispute argued against giving credence to Prop 8 proponents’ continuing narrative in the case to justify withholding the video record, “the myth that they, rather than gay men and lesbians whose equal citizenship they have continued to deny, are the victims here; that they or their witnesses are at risk of persecution or harassment because of their speech or religious beliefs….” The City intervened in the federal challenge to Prop 8 alongside the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which filed the case on behalf of two California couples in May 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Testimony
    DRAFT 11.02.2015 -Confidential- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION _________________________________________ SEXUAL MINORITIES UGANDA Civil Action 3:12-CV-30051 (MAP) Plaintiff, v. SCOTT LIVELY, individually and as President of Abiding Truth Ministries Defendant. _________________________________________ EXPERT REPORT OF DR. ILAN H. MEYER 1 I have been retained by the Center for Constitutional Rights to provide written opinion and possible live testimony as an expert witness on behalf of Plaintiff Sexual Minorities Uganda (“Plaintiff”) in connection with the pending action entitled Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Scott Lively, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, No. 3:12-cv-30051 and any related litigation. My work for this report is provided pro bono. I am not being compensated for research and the writing of this report. However, Plaintiff is reimbursing me for all reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket expenses incurred in relation to this work, including expenses related to any travel that would be necessary related to my work in this case. In addition, in the event Plaintiff or its counsel recovers attorneys’ fees or costs in this action and/or any related litigation, Plaintiff or its counsel will compensate me at an hourly rate of $250.00 per hour. Reimbursement of my expenses or other compensation is not in any way conditioned upon or affected by either the substantive results or conclusions of my work, or by the final outcome of this action. I. Qualifications I am the Williams Distinguished Senior Scholar of Public Policy at the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law in Los Angeles, California.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court's Treatment of Same-Sex Marriage in United States V. Windsor and Hollingsworth V. Perry: Analysis and Implications, Introduction
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 64 Issue 3 Article 6 2014 The Supreme Court's Treatment of Same-Sex Marriage in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry: Analysis and Implications, Introduction Jonathan L. Entin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jonathan L. Entin, The Supreme Court's Treatment of Same-Sex Marriage in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry: Analysis and Implications, Introduction, 64 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 823 (2014) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol64/iss3/6 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Western Reserve Law Review·Volume 64·Issue 3·2014 — Symposium — The Supreme Court’s Treatment of Same-Sex Marriage in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry: Analysis and Implications INTRODUCTION Jonathan L. Entin† For many years, gay rights advocates focused primarily on overturning sodomy laws. The Supreme Court initially took a skeptical view of those efforts. In 1976, the Court summarily affirmed a ruling that upheld Virginia’s sodomy law.1 And a decade later, in Bowers v. Hardwick,2 the Court not only rejected a constitutional challenge to Georgia’s sodomy law but ridiculed the claim.3 That precedent lasted less than two decades before being overruled by Lawrence v.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Generations Quantitative Survey Methods V.21 Methodology And
    Generations Quantitative Survey Methods v.21 Methodology and Technical Notes Gallup Quantitative Survey May 26, 2021 Version 21 Evan A. Krueger Andy Lin Krystal R. Kittle Ilan H. Meyer 1 Table of Contents About the Generations Study ................................................................................................... 4 Generations Recruitment .......................................................................................................... 4 Data sources described in this document .............................................................................. 6 Generations eligibility ................................................................................................................ 6 Generations Sample ................................................................................................................... 9 How to characterize the sample? ...................................................................................................... 9 Sample: Baseline (Wave 1) .............................................................................................................. 10 Sample: Wave 2 .................................................................................................................................. 10 Sample: Wave 3 .................................................................................................................................. 11 Data Processing and Transformation ................................................................................. 12 New
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines to Help Lawyers Practicing in the Court of Chancery
    GUIDELINES TO HELP LAWYERS PRACTICING IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY The vast majority of attorneys who litigate in and appear before the Court conduct themselves in accordance with the highest traditions of Chancery practice. These Guidelines are intended to ensure that all attorneys are aware of the expectations of the Court and to provide helpful guidance in practicing in our Court. These Guidelines are not binding Court Rules, they are intended as a practice aid that will allow our excellent Bar to handle cases even more smoothly and to minimize disputes over process, rather than the substantive merits. These Guidelines do not establish a “standard of conduct” or a “standard of care” by which the performance of attorneys in a given case can or should be measured. The Guidelines are not intended to be used as a sword to wound adversaries. To the contrary, they are intended to reduce conflicts among counsel and parties over non-merits issues, and allow them to more efficiently and less contentiously handle their disputes in this Court. Accordingly, the Court does not intend that these Guidelines, or the sample forms attached hereto, be cited as authority in the context of any dispute before the Court. These guidelines reflect some suggested best practices for moving cases forward to completion in the Court of Chancery. They have been developed jointly by the Court and its Rules Committee to provide help to practitioners. The members of the Court and its Rules Committee recognize that a particular situation may call for the parties to proceed in a different manner.
    [Show full text]
  • The Divergence of Standards of Conduct and Standards of Review in Corporate Law
    Fordham Law Review Volume 62 Issue 3 Article 1 1993 The Divergence of Standards of Conduct and Standards of Review in Corporate Law Melvin Aron Eisenberg Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Melvin Aron Eisenberg, The Divergence of Standards of Conduct and Standards of Review in Corporate Law, 62 Fordham L. Rev. 437 (1993). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol62/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Divergence of Standards of Conduct and Standards of Review in Corporate Law Cover Page Footnote This Article is based on the Robert E. Levine Distinguished Lecture which I gave at Fordham Law School in 1993. I thank Joe Hinsey, Meir Dan-Cohen, and a number of my colleagues who attended a colloquium at which I presented an earlier version of this Article, for their valuable comments. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol62/iss3/1 ARTICLES THE DIVERGENCE OF STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW IN CORPORATE LAW MELVIN ARON EISENBERG * In this Article; ProfessorEisenberg examines how and why standardsof conduct and standards of review diverge in corporate law. Professor Eisenberg analyzes the relevant standardsof conduct and review that apply in a number of corporate law contexts.
    [Show full text]
  • September 20, 2019 Program Design Branch, Program
    September 20, 2019 Program Design Branch, Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service United States Department of Agriculture 3101 Park Center Dr., Alexandria, VA 22302 Re: Notice of Proposed Rule Making -- Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) RIN 0584-AE62 Dear Program Design Branch: The undersigned lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) and allied organizations urge the USDA to withdraw its proposed rule, Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). If implemented, the proposed rule would harm millions of low-income Americans, with particularly negative implications for the LGBTQ community. Since 1996, over forty jurisdictions have implemented a process known as “broad-based categorical eligibility” (BBCE), for households receiving some in-kind services funded through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program. While federal requirements restrict SNAP assistance to households with net incomes under 100% of the federal poverty level (FPL), gross incomes under 130% of the FPL, and in many cases liquid assets below $2,250, the BBCE option gives states flexibility to adjust these thresholds.i Most states have opted to eliminate the asset test and increase the gross income limit (up to 200% of the FPL) for SNAP. In this manner, states can: 1) extend SNAP eligibility to families with gross incomes working their way up the economic ladder but still struggling with high costs for basics, and 2) incentivize families to save by loosening restrictions on assets. Congress has consistently upheld BBCE since its inception, most recently during the 2018 Farm Bill.ii The proposed rule would greatly undercut the scope of BBCE, effectively sidestepping Congress’ bipartisan efforts to maintain the option.
    [Show full text]
  • Hollingsworth V. Perry
    1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER, PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J 5 ZARRILLO, 6 Plaintiffs, 7 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 8 Plaintiff-Intervenor, 9 v 10 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his 11 official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in 12 his official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B No C 09-2292 VRW 13 HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND 14 Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital TRIAL EVIDENCE 15 Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her g official capacity as Deputy 16 Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS California Department of Public g United States District Court United 17 Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk- For the Northern District of California For 18 Recorder of the County of FINDINGS OF FACT 19 Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in his g official capacity as Registrar- 20 Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 21 g Defendants, 22 DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J ORDER 23 KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAK- SHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A 24 JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA 25 RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8, 26 Defendant-Intervenors. 27 / 28 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 BACKGROUND TO PROPOSITION 8 ................ 1 3 PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS ACTION ............. 3 4 PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8 ........... 5 5 PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8 ...........
    [Show full text]
  • The Story of in Re Marriage Cases (2010), Available At
    Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 6-1-2010 Six Cases in Search of a Decision: The tS ory of In re Marriage Cases Jean C. Love Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] Patricia A. Cain Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs Part of the Law Commons Automated Citation Jean C. Love and Patricia A. Cain, Six Cases in Search of a Decision: The Story of In re Marriage Cases (2010), Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs/617 This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Six Cases in Search of a Decision: The Story of In re Marriage Cases Patricia A. Cain and Jean C. Love ―Whatever is a reality today, whatever you touch and believe in and that seems real for you today, is going to be — like the reality of yesterday — an illusion tomorrow.‖1 On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California handed down its decision in the much awaited litigation officially known as In re Marriage Cases.2 The case was actually a consolidation of six individual cases, all raising the same issue: Is denial of marriage to same-sex couples valid under the California Constitution? These six cases, as with Pirandello‘s six characters in search of an author, took center stage for a time, not in a real theater, but rather in the evolving drama over extending equal marriage rights to gay men and lesbians.
    [Show full text]
  • Organizations Endorsing the Equality Act
    647 ORGANIZATIONS ENDORSING THE EQUALITY ACT National Organizations 9to5, National Association of Working Women Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC A Better Balance Asian American Federation A. Philip Randolph Institute Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA) ACRIA Association of Flight Attendants – CWA ADAP Advocacy Association Association of Title IX Administrators - ATIXA Advocates for Youth Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists AFGE Athlete Ally AFL-CIO Auburn Seminary African American Ministers In Action Autistic Self Advocacy Network The AIDS Institute Avodah AIDS United BALM Ministries Alan and Leslie Chambers Foundation Bayard Rustin Liberation Initiative American Academy of HIV Medicine Bend the Arc Jewish Action American Academy of Pediatrics Black and Pink American Association for Access, EQuity and Diversity BPFNA ~ Bautistas por la PaZ American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Brethren Mennonite Council for LGBTQ Interests American Association of University Women (AAUW) Caring Across Generations American Atheists Catholics for Choice American Bar Association Center for American Progress American Civil Liberties Union Center for Black Equity American Conference of Cantors Center for Disability Rights American Counseling Association Center for Inclusivity American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Center for Inquiry Employees (AFSCME) Center for LGBTQ and Gender Studies American Federation of Teachers CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers American Heart Association Central Conference
    [Show full text]
  • Debate on Birthright Citizenship
    Florida International University College of Law eCollections Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2011 Debate on Birthright Citizenship John Eastman Dr. Chapman University Fowler School of Law, [email protected] Ediberto Román Florida International University College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Fourteenth Amendment Commons Recommended Citation John Eastman Dr. and Ediberto Román, Debate on Birthright Citizenship , 6 FIU L. Rev. 293 (2011). Available at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications/304 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCollections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 6 FIU L. Rev. 293 2010-2011 Provided by: FIU College of Law Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Thu Jun 22 14:05:02 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. Debate on Birthright Citizenship Dr. John Eastman*& Professor Ediberto Roman' Dr. John C. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University School of Law, specializing in Constitutional Law and Legal History. He also served as Dean from 2007 to 2010, when he stepped down to pursue a campaign for Califor- nia Attorney General. He is also the founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Juris- prudence, a public interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Porter V. Knickrehm
    Case 4:03-cv-00812-SWW Document 66 Filed 07/27/04 Page 1 of 34 • , &.8rufo!4ED ERN OlsTRICcTT COURT 'ARIW/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT couRJUL 272 SAs EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARI(MI(~§ W 00+ WESTERN DIVISION BY:~~ACI( CL£:RI( ~ HARVE PORTER, et aI., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) No.4:03 CV008l2SWW ) KURT KNICKREHM, et al., ) ) Defendants, ) ) and ) ) FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF CARE FACILITY ) RESIDENTS AND ELLEN SUE GIBSON ) ) Defendant Intervenors. ) PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS AND EOUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS Plaintiffs seek summary jUdgment on their Due Process and Equal Protection claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Arkansas Local Rule 56.1. As demonstrated below, the motion should be granted on both claims because there are no disputed issues of material fact and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, lnc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Arnold v. City oj" Columbia, Mo., 197 FJd 1217, 1220 (8 th Cir. 1999). Case 4:03-cv-00812-SWW Document 66 Filed 07/27/04 Page 2 of 34 , I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs brought this action to challenge the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. § 20- 48-401 et seq. (Michie 2003 Supp!.) and Development Disability Services Director's Office Policy Manual ("Manual") numbers 1020, 1037, 1053, and 1086 because Arkansas law and policies fail to provide adequate judicial hearings at which adults whose liberty is at stake can contest the state's effort to institutionalize them. Plaintiff Harve Porter is an adult diagnosed with moderate mental retardation who is currently involuntarily confined at the state's Alexander Human Development Center ("ALHDC).
    [Show full text]