Latest news with #DefenseofMarriageAct
USA Today
2 days ago
- General
- USA Today
He was at the center of a Supreme Court case that changed gay marriage. Now, he's worried.
He was at the center of a Supreme Court case that changed gay marriage. Now, he's worried. Show Caption Hide Caption Jim Obergefell talks LGBTQ+ rights 10 years after Supreme Court ruling Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that legalized gay marriage nationwide, looks back on its impact 10 years later. When Jim Obergefell was sitting in the gallery at the Supreme Court on June 26, 2015, he was waiting to hear his name. The justices were preparing to rule on Obergefell v. Hodges, a case that became a landmark in the progress toward LGBTQ+ rights in the U.S. The case, which considered the rights of same-sex couples to marry, ultimately won favor with a majority of the justices, but for Obergefell, the moment wasn't, and could never be, totally complete. His husband, John Arthur, died years before the ruling was announced. Now, 10 years on, he sat down with USA TODAY to reflect on how their love for each other helped shape the fight for marriage equality in the U.S., and what progress there is to still be made in the fight for equality. Obergefell and Arthur met in 1992 and became engaged in 1993. That's when their journey as marriage equality pioneers first began – and for Obergefell, continues into the present. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Question: You got engaged with a traditional diamond ring, even though there was no formal option for marriage. What did that ring mean to you in 1993? Answer: You know, that diamond ring signified you're the person I choose. You're the person I want to spend my life with, and we don't have the ability to do anything legal, but at least you know that's how I feel. And from there, what was your journey to get married? John and I just built a life together. We bought our first house. We built a great circle of friends and family in Cincinnati, people who saw us and treated us as a couple, as a committed couple. It wasn't until 2011 that things really took an unexpected turn. John was diagnosed with ALS. Instead of seeing a few decades more together, we knew our time together was limited to two to five years or less. John progressed fairly rapidly, and by April of 2013 he started at home hospice care. We could have put him in a facility, but we had to think about things that other couples didn't have to think about. How would he be treated as a gay man in a facility? How would I be treated as his partner of almost 21 years? We had nothing legal, no rights and we made the decision: Let's do at-home hospice care because that meant I could keep him safe and comfortable. At what point did you really start to feel like you needed to fight for this for legal marriage recognition? On June 26, 2013, I was standing next to his bed holding his hand when news came out from the Supreme Court that with their decision in the United States v. Windsor, they struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That was that law that defined marriage as between only one man and one woman. And we hadn't talked about marriage again since the mid-90s. But as that news was sinking in, I realized, wait, we've always wanted to get married. Here's our chance we could get married and at least have the federal government see us, recognize us, treat us as a married couple. So I spontaneously proposed and he said, yes. How did you go from this discussion to eventually suing the state and ultimately winding up in the Supreme Court? Because we lived in Ohio, which had its own state-level Defense of Marriage Act, we couldn't get a marriage license or get married at home. Through the generosity of our family and friends, they covered the cost of a chartered medical jet. And we flew from Cincinnati to Baltimore-Washington International Airport on July 11, 2013. We stayed in that medical jet (on the tarmac). And I got to take his hand, and we got to say "I do." A local civil rights attorney read about our story in the Cincinnati Enquirer, and he reached out through mutual friends to say, 'hey, I would like to come talk to you because you have a problem you probably haven't thought about.' Five days after we got married, Al Gerhardstein came to our home and he pulled out a blank Ohio death certificate. 'When John dies, this document, his last record as a person, will be wrong,' he said, 'because here, where it says marital status at time of death, Ohio will fill this out and say that John was unmarried. In the space for surviving spouse name, Jim, your name won't be there.' John and I knew Ohio wouldn't recognize our marriage. But that was abstract. That document, knowing that John's last record would be wrong, made that abstract understanding real. And it hurt. It made us angry. So when (Al) said, 'Do you want to do something about it?' (John and I) talked about it for less than a minute and said yes. So that was Tuesday, five days after we got married. On Friday, eight days after we got married, we filed a lawsuit in federal district court suing the governor of Ohio, John Kasich, and the attorney general, Mike DeWine. Because of John's health, the federal judge had to clear his docket, and he heard arguments on the case on Monday, 11 days after we got married. And that very day, he ruled in our favor. And then John died three months later to the day, but he died a married man. So the record was correct at his time of death. And your name is on his death certificate, but the the fight didn't stop there. The judge ruled in your favor, but it went on to an appeal and got overturned. How did you decide at that point, once the record was correct in your paperwork, that you were going to keep on with the fight? When Al said, 'do you want to keep fighting?' my immediate answer was, 'of course I do.' If I don't, I'm not living up to my promises to John. I promised to love, honor and protect him. And if I don't keep fighting this to make sure our marriage can't be erased, then I'm failing in my promises. How did gay marriage become legal? Civil unions in this state paved the way 25 years ago. I've seen in other interviews you've said that you never really considered yourself an activist. So how did you go from Jim from Ohio, to suing the state of Ohio and becoming a gay rights figurehead? It's because of John, because we loved each other and we wanted to exist. Learning that our right to call each other husband and to have it mean something wasn't going to be reflected on his death certificate, it broke our hearts, but I think the more important thing is it really made us angry. I loved John. He loved me back. We finally had the chance to say I do. But then understanding how our home state, the state where I was born and raised, would completely disregard us, made me angry, made us both angry. It's amazing what will happen when you love someone enough, when you're willing to fight for what you know is right. You were in D.C. the day the decision came down, like, what was that experience like, and what were you thinking about? I thought about John missing him, loving him. I thought about so many people who I had met over the course of the case, the people who were coming up to me and sharing photos and telling me stories and talking about what this potential decision meant to them and what it meant to the person they loved. And then just the unexpected realization that for the first time in my life as a gay man, I actually felt like an equal American. I wasn't expecting to feel that, and that was a really beautiful realization. I feel equal. In case you missed: Portion of Americans satisfied with US stance on LGBTQ is lowest in decade And now you are in the history books. What does that feel like? When I really feel the the importance of this is every single time someone stops me, hugs me, starts crying, shares photos of their family, of their spouse, of their child, and tells me stories. It's a gift every single time it happens, because I see in their faces what marriage equality meant to them, to their family, to their loved ones. Are you nervous that Obergefell might be overturned one day? And what do you think the biggest fight our community faces right now is? Yes, I'm worried about marriage equality. If Obergefell is overturned, we go back to a time or a place where a queer couple in Ohio, where I live, might want to get married, but Ohio could refuse to issue a marriage license because Ohio still has a state level Defense of Marriage Act on the books. Our biggest challenge is making sure we don't lose the progress we have made. We have to be fighting together to make sure every marginalized community keeps the rights that they have gained. We can't do this alone. We have to be fighting for every marginalized community, not just ours. And unfortunately, right now, the trans community, they're bearing the brunt of it. What do you tell young people now, given all of the challenges that we just discussed, what do you say to give them continued hope? The most important thing is they're not alone. There are countless people like me who are activists, who are involved, who care and are out there fighting on the street, in our state legislatures, in the halls of government. There are millions of people out there who believe in their humanity, in their dignity and their right to a future. Zach Wichter is a travel reporter and writes the Cruising Altitude column for USA TODAY. He is based in New York and you can reach him at zwichter@
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Virginia Congressman Gerald Connolly dies at age 75 after cancer battle
Virginia Congressman Gerry Connolly died on Wednesday, according to a statement from his family. He was 75 years old. The northern Virginia representative stepped down from the House Oversight Committee's ranking member position in April amid a battle with throat cancer. 'It is with immense sadness that we share that our devoted and loving father, husband, brother, friend, and public servant, Congressman Gerald E. Connolly, passed away peacefully at his home this morning surrounded by family,' read a statement from the Democrat's family. 'Gerry lived his life to give back to others and make our community better. He looked out for the disadvantaged and voiceless. He always stood up for what is right and just. He was a skilled statesman on the international stage, an accomplished legislator in Congress, a visionary executive on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, a fierce defender of democracy, an environmental champion, and a mentor to so many,' the statement continued. He was a longtime figure in Virginia politics and was rated one of the most effective members of Congress in terms of the total impact he had on legislation that made its way through the chamber. A staunch liberal, Connolly was a reliable party-line vote for Democrats. The congressman revealed his diagnosis in November. He would go on to win a fraught political battle for the top Democratic position on the powerful Oversight panel, the main vessel for congressional investigations in the House of Representatives. Despite concerns about his health, he was selected by his colleagues over New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the party's younger rising stars. At the time, Connolly's colleagues assured his critics that he would be an effective leader of the panel. In April, when he stepped down from that role after just three months, Connolly said that he would also not seek reelection. Before joining Congress, he served in local government for more than a decade. He steered the redevelopment of Tyson's Corner during that time, and after joining Congress saw the DC Metro's Silver Line constructed and extended to Dulles airport and Tyson's, realizing a long-held transit dream for Capitol-area residents. 'When I announced my diagnosis six months ago, I promised transparency. After grueling treatments, we've learned that the cancer, while initially beaten back, has now returned. I'll do everything possible to continue to represent you and thank you for your grace,' Connolly had said in April. Connolly was born in Boston and attended Harvard, where he received a masters from the school of public policy. He would go on to serve his first stint in government before ever being elected to Congress when he joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as a staffer, then going on to lead a nonprofit. In 1995, he was elected to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. In Congress, he had a hand in fighting against anti-LGBT legislation including the Defense of Marriage Act and the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. During the 2009-2010 debate on health care reform, he was an early supporter of a public health insurance option and eventually voted for the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. He also supported both impeachments of President Donald Trump.
Boston Globe
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Same-sex marriage is legal, but some states are debating it anyway
In half a dozen states, Republican lawmakers have introduced resolutions urging the Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges. In Tennessee, a Republican legislator has proposed a new category of 'covenant' marriages between 'one male and one female.' And in several states, including Virginia and Oregon, Democrats are laying the groundwork to repeal old state statutes and constitutional amendments that prohibited same-sex marriage, which could come back into effect should Obergefell be overturned. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up No one is suggesting that reconsideration of the decision in Obergefell is imminent. Still, the number of state measures proposed signals an effort to shift the perception of same-sex marriage as an established civil right, leaders on both sides of the issue say. Related : Advertisement 'We have to prepare for the worst,' Jeremy Moss, the state's first openly gay state senator, wrote in a piece for The Detroit Free Press under the headline, 'Gay marriage isn't safe in Michigan.' Moss, a Democrat, called for a ballot initiative to protect same-sex marriage after Rep. Josh Schriver, a state House Republican, introduced a resolution asserting that the Supreme Court's decision had 'confused the American family structure' and proposing that the Michigan Legislature condemn it. Advertisement Resolutions like Schriver's, calling on the Supreme Court to undo Obergefell, carry no legal authority, and no state has approved such a resolution so far. 'Our reason for doing it is that it pushes the whole idea forward publicly,' said Brian Camenker, the founder of a Massachusetts organization, MassResistance, who has worked with state lawmakers to write the resolutions. 'It's a powerful statement for legislators to say, 'This was a flawed decision,' even if that statement has no legal standing.' Maureen Brodoff, left, and Ellen Wade kissed at the end of their wedding ceremony in Newton on May 17, 2004. Matthew J. Lee/Globe Staff After decades of legal and legislative battles across multiple states, Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004 as a result of a state court decision. More than two dozen states tried to fend off such an outcome by embedding a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman into their constitutions. Others passed statutes modeled on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, which denied federal recognition and benefits to same-sex couples. Some states did both. Soon, though, the legal and cultural momentum behind opposition to same-sex marriage shifted. In 2013, the Supreme Court found that same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits, and by 2015, at least 36 states had legalized same-sex marriage through a combination of legislation, court rulings and ballot initiatives. In June of that year, the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Obergefell enabled couples across the country to marry even if their states had banned it. Related : Advertisement The decisiveness with which the nation seemed to then move on has left a lot of people baffled that same-sex marriage is again a matter for debate. The number of married same-sex couples in the United States doubled to 774,000 in the last decade, according to government data. Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group that had helped coordinate opposition to same-sex marriage, refocused its efforts on seeking protections for business owners who decline to serve same-sex couples on religious grounds. And for the last several years, the fiercest debates on LGBTQ+ issues in many state legislatures revolved around the rights of transgender adolescents and families. 'After marriage equality was achieved, I think a lot of folks thought, 'OK, this is it, we did the thing,'' said Narissa Rahaman, executive director of Equality Virginia, an LGBTQ+ rights group pushing to repeal the state's old prohibition on same-sex marriage in case Obergefell is overturned. 'So I think everyone's kind of been transported to a mental space, especially younger generations, of not having to fight this hard.' A celebration of Twenty Years of the Freedom to Marry was held at the Arlington Street Church on May 17, 2024. John Tlumacki/Globe Staff David Wilson, left, and Robert Compton were married on May 17, 2004, and they hugged The Rev. Kim Crawford Harvie after she signed the Certificate of Marriage (held by Wilson). (The Boston Gay Men's Chorus is in the background at Arlington Street Church Unitarian Universalist.) Greenhouse, Pat Globe Staff Questions about the vulnerability of the Obergefell decision began emerging in 2022 after the Supreme Court opinion that revoked a constitutional right to abortion. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote then that the court had a duty to reconsider decisions that relied on similar legal footing, including those on same-sex marriage, same-sex sexual activity and contraception. Decisions in those cases depend on the due process clause in the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that states shall not 'deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.' In Roe v. Wade, the court found in 1973 that the right to privacy, including a woman's decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy, falls under the 'liberty' concept in the due process clause. In Obergefell, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority that the clause protects the right to marry, calling it 'a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person.' Related : Advertisement But in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the 2022 decision that overturned Roe, the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito observed that the question of which rights are covered by the due process clause 'has long been controversial.' Any rights that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the justices determined, must be 'rooted in the nation's history and tradition,' a category that they found not to include abortion. In a concurring opinion, Thomas went further, laying out his view that the due process clause protects only procedures, not outcomes. 'Substantive due process,' the supposed basis for both the right to abortion and to same-sex marriage, he wrote, is an oxymoron that lacks any basis in the Constitution. Experts say that any real challenge to Obergefell would probably come not from state legislative recommendations but from lawsuits that aim to highlight conflicts between the rights of same-sex couples to marry and religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. In 2020, Thomas and Alito denounced harm they said Obergefell had caused for religious freedom even as they turned down an appeal in a case involving a Kentucky county clerk who was jailed after refusing to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. Last year, Alito appeared to more directly urge the court to reconsider Obergefell on a case in which a Missouri judge had allowed the dismissal of potential jurors based on their religious objections to same-sex relationships. The case, which Alito joined in turning down for review on unrelated grounds, 'exemplifies the danger' posed by Obergefell, he wrote, that the government will treat 'as bigots' Americans who 'do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct.' Advertisement 'The opinion of the Court in that case made it clear that the decision should not be used in that way,' Alito wrote, 'but I am afraid that this admonition is not being heeded by our society.' Supporters of same-sex marriage already have begun taking steps for the possibility that Obergefell might someday be undone. In 2022, Congress passed a law mandating that marriages performed by states be given recognition by the federal government, and by other states. Last year, voters in California, Colorado and Hawaii passed ballot measures repealing constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. It is uncertain whether any challenge to Obergefell at this point would receive the four votes required for the Supreme Court to agree to a review. And the Trump administration has seemed to project mixed messages on LGBTQ+ rights. Even as he has made limiting official recognition of transgender identity a priority, Trump swapped the long-standing definition of marriage in the GOP platform for an assertion that 'Republicans will promote a culture that values the sanctity of marriage.' 'Millions of people have changed their lives and relationships as a result of Obergefell,' said Brad Sears, senior scholar at the Williams Institute, a UCLA Law School program that studies LGBTQ+ demographics. 'I believe that a majority of the members of the court will take that seriously.' But state lawmakers who introduced resolutions calling for Obergefell to be overturned said they were undeterred by the notion that a state recommendation carries no legal weight with the Supreme Court or by setbacks in their statehouses. In both Idaho and North Dakota, the resolutions passed in one chamber of the legislature before failing to advance. Advertisement Several lawmakers said they were motivated by a desire to defend a right they believe belongs to states, and a belief that society benefits by limiting marriage to including one man and one woman. 'To me, it is the proper fight to take up, because it kind of takes care of both pieces,' said state Rep. Tony Randolph, a Republican from South Dakota, where the resolution failed to emerge from a House committee this session. 'This is not a light subject, so it has the potential to bring quite a bit of heat to an individual,' he said. 'I will work to get more support this next time around.' This article originally appeared in
The Hill
02-04-2025
- Business
- The Hill
The right's legal heavyweight takes on Trump
President Trump has an unlikely foe in his efforts to target Big Law firms: Paul Clement. Clement is a conservative legal heavyweight who served as solicitor general in President George W. Bush's administration and has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court. He has notched major conservative victories at the court, including expanding the Second Amendment, ending deference to federal agencies and enabling a high school football coach to pray on the field with students. Now, Clement is taking on WilmerHale as a client as it sues the president over his executive order restricting the firm's attorneys' security clearances and access to federal buildings. 'The Order is not only a threat to WilmerHale, but inimical to our Nation's constitutional order and the rule of law,' Clement wrote in court filings. It's an interesting position for Clement, who twice resigned from Big Law firms to keep representing conservative positions. In 2011, Clement left King & Spalding when it withdrew from representing the House of Representatives in defending the Defense of Marriage Act. And years later, he resigned from Kirland & Ellis after it announced it would no longer handle cases implicating the Second Amendment. 'It's especially admirable of Paul Clement to be standing up for BigLaw when BigLaw didn't have the courage to stand up for him,' Ed Whelan, a noted conservative legal commentator and friend of Clement, wrote on X. As Trump began targeting firms, questions ran abound about who would represent them and risk placing themselves in the president's crossfire. Cooley LLP, a Silicon Valley-based firm that also frequently collaborates with the American Civil Liberties Union, is representing Jenner & Block. Williams & Connolly, another elite law firm known for its aggressive fights against the federal government, represents Perkins Coie. And now Clement & Murphy represents WilmerHale, providing the firm with strong conservative bonafides in its fight. 'It probably is true, I think, WilmerHale has more self-identified liberal partners than conservative partners,' Seth Waxman, who leads the firm's Supreme Court practice, said at a 2022 Federalist Society panel event. Also on the panel? Clement. 'Big law firms are becoming increasingly woke because some of their clients are becoming increasingly woke,' Clement said. But he later cautioned, 'I'm not I'm not begrudging anyone, I'm just trying to point out that we have a problem here, and the reason I think we have a problem here is because I think the adversarial system depends on having the best possible representation from sort of both sides of the V.' You're reading The Gavel, The Hill's weekly look at the courts from Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. If you like what you've read so far, you can follow us on social media for updates or send us news tips via email or Signal (we'll keep you anonymous!). In Focus The legal movement's newest influencers: Dem AGs Court proceedings might often unfold behind closed doors, but the Democratic attorneys general challenging President Trump's expansive agenda want to bring their work to your feed. Dem AGs are turning to new media to mount their resistance to Trump 2.0, using untraditional means to win in the court of public opinion as they fight legal battles in courtrooms across the country. 'This is an opportunity for us to ensure that the federal government is held to account when they violate the rights of our respective states and the residents of our states,' Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel told The Gavel in an interview, citing the burst of lawsuits brought by attorneys general nationwide. 'We just thought it was more important than ever to make sure that people are understanding, like, 'What does an attorney general even do?'' So, what does an attorney general do? Start a podcast, of course. Earlier this year, Nessel and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes launched a podcast together called 'Pantsuits and Lawsuits,' where they dissect key legal-political battles and explain their roles as the first line of defense against a president who also enjoys party control in both chambers of Congress, leaving liberal legislators with few tools to fight back. Branching out on messaging has become a 'significant conversation' among Dem AGs, Nessel said, which includes elevating Democratic voices in the podcasting world, dominated by conservative household names like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson and fratty creators like Joe Rogan and Theo Von, who lent Trump a hand come election season. 'If you're not meeting people where they are, then you're not going to get your viewpoints across,' Mayes said in an interview with The Gavel. 'We, in general, need to do a better job of creating our own content, but also not being afraid to go on conservative podcasts. 'I personally would love to go on Theo Von,' she added. 'A message to Theo Von: if you want me to come on, just let me know.' (And, Theo, if you're reading this — shout out The Gavel, while you're at it, too.) The shift toward new media comes after a distinctly digital presidential election. Trump's coalition of right-wing influencers and podcast bros helped serve up his populist agenda to new, like-minded demographics, while former Vice President Harris's adaptation of popstar CharliXCX's 'brat' branding and online memes gave Democrats a fighting chance after President Biden's campaign dramatically faltered. Democrats have long struggled to harness the enthusiasm of younger audiences, who often lean left but view the party as an unreliable ally on progressive demands. The Democratic attorneys general's online efforts come as national Democrats also seek to redefine their digital strategy, taking lessons from progressive creators online and experimenting with new content – sometimes successfully, sometimes not. We could talk about this forever — and lucky for you, reader, we did! Read the full story here. So Many Emergencies The Supreme Court's emergency docket is jam-packed with the requests from the Trump administration to lift lower judge's injunctions blocking various executive orders and policies. Unlike merits cases, these emergency applications are handled 'on the papers,' meaning the court rules once each side gets to stake out their position in writing. Here's a look at where each stands: Birthright citizenship: Filed: March 13; Plaintiffs' responses due: April 4, 4 p.m. EDT The administration is asking to narrow three nationwide injunctions (upheld by the 1st, 9th and 4th Circuits) blocking Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. The Justice Department wants the injunctions to only cover the plaintiffs and allow officials to enforce Trump's order otherwise. Probationary employees: Filed: March 24; Plaintiffs' response due: April 3, 12 p.m. EDT The administration is asking to lift a San Francisco-based district judge's injunction (upheld by the 9th Circuit) ordering more than 16,000 fired probationary employees at six federal agencies to be reinstated. If the request succeeds, the employees would be terminated once again. Teacher grants: Filed: March 26; Plaintiffs' response due: Already filed on March 28 The administration wants to wipe a Boston-based district judge's temporary restraining order enabling eight Democratic-led states to draw down $65 million under federal teacher development grant programs the administration froze as part of its diversity, equity and inclusion crackdown. Alien Enemies Act: Filed: March 28; Plaintiffs' response due: No deadline set yet The administration wants to lift a series of orders issued by a Washington, D.C.-based district judge blocking Trump from invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used, wartime law, to swiftly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. Chamber of Silence The federal judiciary Monday released the long-awaited results of a 2023 workplace survey sent to all nearly 28,000 judiciary employees. Half responded. The survey contained a headline-grabbing statistic that 8.3 percent of respondents reported experiencing harassment, discrimination or abusive conduct. But the judges involved in managing the survey weren't too concerned with that number, emphasizing to reporters that it is favorable compared to similar surveys conducted by the other two branches. 'We were also gratified to learn that our employees, and something that we as judiciary leaders have long believed that for our employees, wrongful conduct is not pervasive in our workplaces,' Senior U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson, an appointee of the younger Bush, told reporters. Instead, the Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group was more worried about another stat: Only 42 percent of respondents agreed that employees are willing or very willing to report wrongful conduct. 'We want to see a much higher number of people that feel confident in reporting and also in using the procedures,' Robinson said. 'The reluctance to report is a very strong barrier,' said Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown, an appointee of former President Clinton and another member of the working group. Petitions Pile A convicted serial killer's petition has been relisted for the first time. David Villarreal, who was convicted of torturing and killing five gay men and is suspected of killing others, argues his trial judge violated his Sixth Amendment right. The judge prohibited Villarreal from discussing his ongoing testimony with his counsel while the court was in a 24-hour recess. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Geders v. United States that a judge can't bar a defendant from conferring with their counsel in the middle of their testimony during an overnight recess. But in Villarreal's case, the judge permitted him to meet with his attorney about other subjects, so long as they did not discuss his testimony. He appealed after the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas rejected his argument. 'Prohibiting counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess is tantamount to preventing counsel from doing his or her job,' Villarreal's lawyers at the UCLA School of Law Supreme Court Clinic wrote in his petition. The court has also relisted again six other petitions we've discussed in previous editions of The Gavel. But we want to return to one petition that has been relisted again. And again. And again. Up for its 11 th consecutive conference is Apache's Stronghold's attempt to stop a sacred Apache religious site from being turned into a copper mine. So what's going on? Here's how things have played out for previous petitions listed so many times: Summary opinion: The court is able to issue its final decision in a case without hearing oral arguments, known as a 'summary opinion.' The justices did so in November, when they vacated a decision blocking Joseph Clifton Smith's execution in a case that tested the limits of the death penalty and the intellectually disabled. Smith's petition had been listed more than 20 times. Strategic delay: Last term, a similar mystery played out as the court listed death row inmate Richard Glossip's petition more than 10 times. The court ultimately granted the case just after the deadline passed for a case to be granted in time to be considered that term. Instead, Glossip's case was put on this term's docket, and a decision in his favor was handed down late last month. Written dissent: In a pair of cases last term challenging New York City's rent control that hit a double-digit number of listings, Thomas ultimately issued a solo dissent. It remains unclear why the court held onto the case for so long; Thomas's d issent was just two paragraphs long. We're not sure what's going on this time, but it's surely one two watch as the plaintiffs say the plan substantially burdens their religious exercise, violating both the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (Remember Clement? His firm is part of the legal team, which is led by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty) In/Out: The Order List IN: Nothing The Supreme Court took up no new cases at its recent weekly conference OUT: Death row case The court declined to take up Missouri death row inmate Lance Shockley 's petition seeking a legal pathway to claim his lawyer was ineffective. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, both members of the court's liberal minority, dissented. It's the latest example of how the duo dissent in death row and criminal defense cases more regularly compared to some of their colleagues. 'Unfortunately, the Court leaves the issue for another day,' Sotomayor wrote. A jury convicted Shockley for murdering a police officer who was investigating his role in a drunken driving incident that killed his sister-in law's fiancé. Shockley's lawyer did not discover until after the verdict that the jury foreperson had authored a fictionalized autobiography describing the 'brutal and graphic revenge murder of a defendant who killed the protagonist's wife in a drunken-driving accident' and handed it out to several jurors during deliberations. Shockley argues he had ineffective counsel because his attorney was given an opportunity to question jurors during a mistrial hearing but did not call any witnesses. To advance his claims, Shockley filed a federal habeas petition, which challenges the legality of his detention, but it was rejected by a district judge. Federal law provides that prisoners can only appeal such a denial if 'a circuit justice or judge' issues a certificate of appealability. When Shockley asked the 8 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel to do so, it refused in a 2-1 decision. In some circuits, Shockley would've prevailed, since 'a' judge agreed. But the 8 th Circuit uses a stricter standard that requires a majority. That test drew criticism from the two liberal justices Monday, who called it an 'entrenched Circuit split over an important question of statutory interpretation.' 'This case exemplifies the problems with the Eighth Circuit's contrary approach,' Sotomayor wrote. But without two other colleagues, they fell short of the four votes required to take up Shockley's claims. On the docket Don't be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here's what we're watching for now: Today The Supreme Court will announce opinions. The justices will also hear oral arguments over whether Medicaid recipients have the right to choose a specific provider. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who also oversaw Trump's now-dismissed federal election subversion criminal case, will hold a preliminary injunction hearing in Climate United Fund's lawsuit over its Environmental Protection Agency grant funding that Citibank has refused to disburse. Another federal judge in Washington, D.C. will hold a hearing for injunctive relief in two lawsuits challenging the Trump administration and DOGE's takeover of the Inter-American Foundation. Thursday Hayden Haynes, chief of staff to House Speaker Mike Johnson, is set to be arraigned in D.C. Superior Court on a DUI charge. A federal judge in Rhode Island is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit challenging the administration's freeze in funding for the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Act. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, the latest subject of Trump's ire, is set to hold a hearing over whether the Trump administration violated his temporary restraining order. Friday A D.C. federal judge is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit challenging the recission of a DHS memo that prohibited ICE raids in places of worship. Monday The Supreme Court will announce orders. Tuesday A federal judge in Maryland will hold two days of hearings on pending motions in the criminal case of a California man accused of attempting to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh at his home. A D.C. federal judge will hold a preliminary injunction hearing on whether to block a Trump administration rule that requires millions of noncitizens to submit biometric information and at all times carry proof they have done so. What we're reading The New York Times's Adam Liptak: Will Religion's Remarkable Winning Streak at the Supreme Court Continue? Questions? Tips? Love letters, hate mail, pet pics?
New York Times
25-03-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Michael Boudin, Independent Judge From a Family on the Left, Dies at 85
Michael Boudin, a federal appeals court judge who was a scion of one of America's best-known leftist families but who forged an independent path on the bench, died on Monday in Boston. He was 85. His death, in a memory care facility, resulted from complications of dementia and Parkinson's disease, said his nephew Chesa Boudin, the former district attorney of San Francisco. Judge Boudin — the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which covers most of New England and Puerto Rico, from 2001 to 2008 — was the odd man out in a family devoted to left-leaning causes. A former corporate lawyer with Covington & Burling, where he worked for 21 years, he was the brother of Kathy Boudin, a member of the radical Weather Underground. She served 22 years in prison for her part in the 1981 holdup of a Brink's armored truck in which two policeman and a guard were killed. His father was Leonard B. Boudin, one of the most celebrated civil liberties lawyers of the 1950s, '60s and '70s, who took a public stand against McCarthyism and whose clients included Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, and the Rev. Philip Berrigan, the antiwar activist. His parents, in their Greenwich Village home, hosted a salon for fellow liberals and leftists. And as San Francisco's district attorney, Chesa Boudin, Kathy Boudin's son, became known for his efforts to cut down on incarcerations and his intolerance of police brutality. To conservatives, he became a symbol of progressive overreach and served less than three years, before a recall election ended his tenure in 2022. Judge Boudin was not easy to pigeonhole ideologically. On the bench, he once concurred in a ruling against affirmative action at Boston Latin School — a conservative position that might have rankled his father. In private practice, he 'defended companies accused of being monopolies,' Chesa Boudin said in an interview, though Judge Boudin himself was a nephew of the independent journalist I.F. Stone, who exposed government scandals and the corporate-Defense Department nexus during the Vietnam War era and before. Judge Boudin's best known opinion dealt a critical blow to the Defense of Marriage Act, the Clinton-era law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. In 2012, he and two other judges on the First Circuit court ruled that the law's denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples was unjust. The decision was narrow, and not necessarily an endorsement of same-sex marriage, but legal scholars considered it a significant step on the road to normalizing it. In his opinion, Judge Boudin wrote of his reservations about the law's 'effort to put a thumb on the scales and influence a state's decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws.' The decision was upheld by the United States Supreme Court a year later. The judge's caution reflected his diverse professional antecedents: He had been a law clerk to Judge Henry J. Friendly, a conservative Republican, whom he revered; nominated to the federal bench by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a Democrat; and appointed by a Republican president, George H.W. Bush. 'He was pretty pragmatic and mainstream,' his nephew said. 'He was an intellectual who brought his full brain power to the law.' Where his parents' salon in some ways epitomized the 1960s spirit of revolt and freedom, Judge Boudin had a rather strict view of duties and responsibilities to society. In 2007, for instance, he rebuked a lower court judge for sparing a drug trafficker from prison. 'Sentences with no (or trivial) prison time have been scrutinized severely on appellate review,' Judge Boudin wrote in his ruling, adding, 'Even taking account of both cooperation and contrition, it is far from clear that adequate basis could be furnished for a near-zero prison sentence.' Chesa Boudin said: 'We're all our own people. He got along very well with his father. He was very angry with his sister for what she did. She caused a tremendous amount of harm.' Nonetheless, he added, during Ms. Boudin's years at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility in Westchester County, N.Y. — she was released in 2003 — Judge Boudin would occasionally visit her. 'He cared about her well-being, but he was a disappointed older brother,' Chesa Boudin said. Ms. Boudin, who died in 2022 at 78, first achieved public notoriety in March 1970, when the Greenwich Village townhouse where she was living blew up. Her colleagues had set up a makeshift bomb factory there; three were killed on the spot, and Ms. Boudin, who had been showering, had to scramble away half-naked. Her brother, meanwhile, was immersed in his corporate law firm. 'While Michael was making partner at Covington & Burling, Kathy was making bombs in Greenwich Village,' David Margolick wrote in a 1992 profile of Michael Boudin in The New York Times. On Monday, his colleagues on the bench celebrated his intellectual acuity and devotion to the law. 'Judge Michael Boudin was one of the greatest federal judges of his generation, known and widely respected for his brilliance and wisdom,' Judge Sandra L. Lynch, a former First Circuit chief judge, wrote in a news release. 'His work embodied the virtues of judicial restraint and showed extraordinary mastery of the doctrines undergirding the Constitution.' Michael Boudin was born in Manhattan on Nov. 29, 1939. His mother was Jean (Roisman) Boudin, who was the sister of I.F. Stone's wife, Esther Stone. Michael attended Elisabeth Irwin High School in Manhattan and graduated from Harvard College in 1961 with a bachelor's degree. He was president of the Harvard Law Review and graduated from Harvard Law School in 1964. He was a clerk to Judge Friendly, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, covering New York, Connecticut and Vermont, from 1964 to 1965, and clerk to Justice John Harlan of the Supreme Court from 1965 to 1966. He joined Covington & Burling that year, and in 1987 became deputy assistant attorney general in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice until 1990. He was appointed that year to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where he served until 1992, when he was appointed to the circuit court. Apart from his nephew, Judge Boudin is survived by his wife, Martha A. Field, a Harvard Law professor, from whom he was separated. Judge Boudin was not keen on interviews. But Mr. Margolick, in his 1992 Times article, cited a questionnaire the judge had filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee when it was considering his nomination. 'He described the tenets of his judicial thinking: self-discipline in defining and exercising authority, particularly over statutes, but vigilance where constitutional rights are concerned,' Mr. Margolick wrote. In a tribute on Monday, Judge Boudin's friend the retired Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer wrote: 'What Michael loved was to learn, through reading and discussion, about our nature — we human beings — how we lived together in societies. How we maintained our freedom.'
