The Court affirmed the ruling of former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker that Prop 8 discriminates against same-sex couples in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court also rejected Prop 8 supporters’ offensive argument that Judge Walker should have refused to preside over the case because he is gay and in a relationship with a man.

“It is a unique and honored position to be an eyewitness to history,” said NCLR Executive Director Kate Kendell, Esq. (Kate is chair of the EJS board of directors.)

“The Ninth Circuit’s ruling finding that Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of this nation marks the first time a federal appellate court has held that a law excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry runs counter to our highest ideals of equality and fairness. With today’s ruling we are a giant step closer to the day when the promise of our Constitution squares with the lived reality of LGBT people.”

The court ruled that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution because it “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

The supporters of Prop 8 have 15 days to ask the Ninth Circuit panel to reconsider its decision or to ask for reconsideration by a larger panel of judges on that court. Alternatively, they have 90 days to request that the Supreme Court of the United States review the case.

NCLR, Lambda Legal, ACLU of Northern California, and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders filed an amicus brief urging the court to affirm Judge Walker’s decision.

EJS and more than forty public interest organizations represented pro bono by the law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP also filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing on behalf of gay and lesbian plaintiffs in the case. The brief argued that Proposition 8 excludes an entire class of people – gay men and lesbians – from the long-standing institution of marriage, pushing them instead to the inherently unequal category of domestic partnership.

Source: NCLR

The Opportunity Agenda joined AARP, ACLU, The Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights Under Law and the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund in filing briefs with the court. (The Equal Justice Society signed on to the Opportunity Agenda brief.) Twelve state attorneys general also filed briefs in favor of fair housing law enforcement.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in this case on February 29.

What’s at stake in Magner is the obligation of cities and towns to protect equal opportunity in housing. That responsibility includes avoiding unnecessary policies that discriminate in practice, as well as those that are intentionally discriminatory.

For more than 40 years, our courts have said that the Fair Housing Act prohibits both old school bigotry in housing, and policies that have the unnecessary effect of excluding qualified people based on their race, disability, or other factors. In Magner, the Supreme Court will be deciding whether that longstanding, commonsense interpretation will continue, or whether only intentional discrimination can ever violate the Fair Housing Act.

The plaintiffs in the case are building owners in St. Paul, Minn., who rent their properties to working class people, including many African Americans. They say that the city is trying to push them and other rental owners out of town, in favor of owner-occupied housing, with the practical effect of excluding many African Americans from any housing in the city. According to the property owners, the city is using excessive and often false code enforcement against these owners, but leaving alone owners who live in their homes.

The plaintiffs challenged the City of St. Paul’s policy in federal court under the Fair Housing Act. The Act, part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability.

Passage of the Fair Housing Act was not easy. From 1966 to 1967, Congress was unable to garner a strong enough majority for its passage. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was closely associated with the fair housing legislation since the 1966 open housing marches in Chicago. When Dr. King was assassinated on April 4, 1968, President Johnson urged Congress to pass the fair housing act as a tribute to Dr. King.

During this same time period, the deaths of our soldiers in Vietnam fell heaviest upon young, poor African Americans and Hispanics. The families of these soldiers could not purchase or rent homes in certain residential developments on account of their race or national origin. Senators Edward Brooke and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts argued strongly for the passage of this legislation. In particular, Senator Brooke, the first African American ever to be elected to the Senate by popular vote, spoke personally of his return from World War II and his inability to provide a home of his choice for his new family because of his race.

Despite the progress we’ve made as a nation more than four decades after passage of the Fair Housing Act, significant obstacles to equal opportunity still exist, particularly when it comes to housing and homeownership. There are still some real estate agents, landlords, and others who practice intentional discrimination against people of color, families with children, people with disabilities, and other Americans.

But more often these days, local governments and real estate corporations engage in unjustified and unnecessary practices with the practical effect of discriminating against well-qualified Americans. Some cities and towns, for example, prohibit the building of smaller homes or apartments that working people could afford, which in many places excludes most people of color. That means certain Americans are unfairly and unnecessarily cut off from opportunities like quality schools, jobs, and business possibilities.

That’s bad for all of us, and the Supreme Court should reaffirm that the law forbids it by ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in Magner.

Sources: The Opportunity Agenda, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

The brief was filed Monday (PDF) in the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which is considering the constitutionality of the law after a federal judge upheld key provisions of the law in September. “HB 56 is nothing less than a modern-day incarnation of some the most abhorrent types of institutionalized discrimination to have emerged in the history of the United States,” read the brief.

The brief argues that HB 56 encourages or even forces Alabama law enforcement, schools, public offices, and ordinary citizens to discriminate based on race, ethnicity and national origin. In the context of Alabama’s “long and disturbing history of civil rights violations,” the brief compares HB 56 to Alabama’s Jim Crow laws that “required law enforcement officials to enforce discriminatory laws, and criminalizing the exercise of fundamental human liberties.”

The law excludes children of color, particularly Latino children and children of other immigrant communities, from public schools, mandates racial profiling, and permits the detention of U.S. citizens and lawfully present immigrants if they fail to establish their immigration status to the satisfaction of local law enforcement.

HB 56 threatens public safety by eroding relationships between law enforcement and immigrant communities, resulting in underreporting of crime, especially hate crimes. It also threatens the personal liberty and property for anyone that may appear or sound foreign.

The legislation represents a form of legalized racism that threatens the Latino community in Alabama most directly, but also impacts all people of color, including Middle Eastern and Asian Americans.

In its brief, EJS argues that Proposal 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution by creating procedural barriers for people of color.

“Since its founding, certain interests in America have tried to restrict access to the political process,” said Eva Paterson, President of the Equal Justice Society. “First only white male landowners could vote. The franchise was expanded after the Civil War but women could not participate. Now we see many states erecting barriers to voting that may appear harmless, but are designed to keep voters of color from helping shape their political destinies. The national civil rights community speaks in one strong voice in opposing these measures, including Michigan’s Proposal 2.”

Several organizations joined EJS in signing the brief: the California Voting Rights Institute, Public Advocates, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Women’s Law Center, Chinese for Affirmative Action, Worksafe, South Asian Network, the Association of Asian American Attorney and CPA Firms, the Council of Asian American Business Associations, Equal Rights Advocates, and the Asian American Justice Center and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the latter two both members of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice.

Michigan voters passed Proposal 2 in 2006, amending the state’s constitution to prevent the state government from advancing equal opportunity by considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. In March 2008, a federal district court judge upheld the law, but the decision was reversed this July by an appeals court panel. The case is now under consideration by the full Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We stand with our civil rights allies in opposing Proposal 2 and other similar laws that exclude racial minorities and women from the political process,” said Allison Elgart, Supervising Attorney at the Equal Justice Society. “When people of color have to amend the state constitution just to have their interests represented, the law is not protecting their right to equal protection under the law, and the court should step in.”

“Proposal 2 is the most recent example of a voter initiative that restructures the political process in a non-neutral way and places special burdens on racial minorities who want to lobby for race-conscious admissions processes,” reads the brief. “Voting changes and requirements that disproportionately impact racial minorities and provide them less opportunity than others to participate in the political process and effectuate their choices are violations of the Equal Protection Clause.”

The brief cites several reasons why Proposal 2 violates the Constitution:

The law impedes participation in the political process by people of color. After Proposal 2 passed, advocates of race-conscious admissions policies can no longer lobby admissions committees or university administrators. Their only recourse is to launch another statewide initiative, a costly process that could take years to see through to its conclusion. Advocates for other considerations in the admissions process do not face the same burden and are free to continue lobbying admissions committees without structural limitations.

People of color have historically faced hurdles that hinder participation in the political process. Participation in the political process by people of color in the past has been thwarted by literacy tests applied differently to distinct racial groups, electoral redistricting that disfavored racial minorities, and more recently by states that have established seemingly innocuous voter requirement laws that often result in racial exclusion and vote suppression. Courts have found these seemingly “neutral” laws unconstitutional if their purpose is to impede participation by people of color in the political process. Proposal 2 falls into this category.

Proposal 2 is a modern reincarnation of white primaries, literacy tests, and redistricting. Like voting, lobbying to change the admissions processes in Michigan is a way for people of color to participate in governance. The Equal Protection Clause “guarantees racial minorities the right to full participation in the political life of the community,” and therefore requires that every group has equal opportunities to participate in the decision-making process, particularly in the context of public education. Proposal 2 prevents the full participation by people of color in the decision-making process regarding admissions.

The case should be fully briefed before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals by the end of the year and the Sixth Circuit will then set a hearing date.

The article outlines the urgent need for our courts to depart from an archaic disposition towards racism, which requires plaintiffs alleging discrimination to prove the intent to discriminate – not just that discrimination actually occurred. This standard of jurisprudence ignores the fact that racial bias in modern society is often not overt.

“Requiring proof of discriminatory intent essentially closes the courthouse doors to victims of racial bias,” writes Eva. “If there has ever been a law worth the struggle to change in modern society, this is it.” The article provides a wide-ranging overview of what led to the “Intent Standard” set by Washington v. Davis, and what we can do to overturn that decision and restore our constitutional safeguards against discrimination.

In many ways, the article is a manifesto of our work at the Equal Justice Society. Fabián Rentería, Abby Bar-Lev, Jihan Spearman and I all worked with Eva on the article.

The publication of this article fittingly coincides with the beginning of my time at EJS and the beginning of the next phase of our litigation and advocacy strategy. Before starting at EJS, I had the opportunity to visit Montgomery, Ala., for a meeting with death penalty litigators and activists.

Being in Montgomery was an eye-opening experience. We learned about prosecutors and judges (and even defense counsel) who did not want to address issues of race, or people who were never afforded the opportunity to serve on juries in their hometowns because of their race.

We talked about the disproportionate impact of the criminal justice system on people of color, both in terms of facing the death penalty and in charging and sentencing for crimes. We also explored downtown Montgomery and saw where slaves were led down Commerce Street (though there are no markers to commemorate this, or to show the auction block where they were taken).

On the way home from the trip, I was able to reflect on my time in Alabama, which had reinforced for me the fact that racism is alive and well, in both explicit and implicit forms.

But while it was discouraging to realize there is so much to be done to raise society’s consciousness about racism, it was also inspiring to stand in the spot where Rosa Parks stood as she boarded the bus, or to see the church where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., preached and where the Montgomery bus boycott was planned, and to know that the work EJS and our allies do to fight racism in all forms is crucial, and to keep hope alive that things will change.

Download a PDF of the issue.

Allison Elgart joined the Equal Justice Society as Supervising Attorney on October 4, 2011. She was formerly an associate in the San Francisco office of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and previously clerked for the Hon. Robert P. Patterson, Jr., United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Allison is a 2005 graduate of Harvard Law School, where she was the Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review and worked as a student attorney at the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau.