|
|
|
Benefits fight brings lesbian couple to high court
Court Watch |
2012/12/21 00:08
|
Like a lot of newlyweds, Karen Golinski was eager to enjoy the financial fruits of marriage. Within weeks of her wedding, she applied to add her spouse to her employer-sponsored health care plan, a move that would save the couple thousands of dollars a year.
Her ordinarily routine request still is being debated more than four years later, and by the likes of former attorneys general, a slew of senators, the Obama administration and possibly this week, the U.S. Supreme Court.
Because Golinski is married to another woman and works for the U.S. government, her claim for benefits has morphed into a multi-layered legal challenge to a 1996 law that prohibits the federal government from recognizing unions like hers.
The high court has scheduled a closed-door conference for Friday to review Golinski's case and four others that also seek to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly approved by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton.
The purpose of the meeting is to decide which, if any, to put on the court's schedule for arguments next year.
The outcome carries economic and social consequences for gay, lesbian and bisexual couples, who now are unable to access Social Security survivor benefits, file joint income taxes, inherit a deceased spouse's pension or obtain family health insurance.
The other plaintiffs in the cases pending before the court include the state of Massachusetts, 13 couples and five widows and widowers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY appeals court nixes Defense of Marriage Act
Court Watch |
2012/10/22 15:14
|
Saying the gay population has "suffered a history of discrimination,"
a divided federal appeals court in Manhattan ruled Thursday that a
federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman was
unconstitutional, adding fuel to an issue expected to reach the U.S.
Supreme Court soon.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seemed interested in adding its
voice to several other rulings already at the high court's doorstep by
issuing its 2-to-1 decision only three weeks after hearing arguments
on a lower court judge's findings that the 1996 law was
unconstitutional.
In a majority opinion written by Judge Dennis Jacobs, the 2nd Circuit,
like a federal appeals court in Boston before it, found no reason the
Defense of Marriage Act could be used to deny benefits to married gay
couples. It supported a lower court ruling after a woman sued the
government in 2010, saying the law required her to pay $363,053 in
federal estate tax after her partner of 44 years died.
Jacobs, though, went beyond the Boston court, saying discrimination
against gays should be scrutinized by the courts in the same
heightened way as discrimination faced by women was in the 1970s. At
the time, he noted, they faced widespread discrimination in the
workplace and elsewhere. The heightened scrutiny, as it is referred to
in legal circles, would mean government discrimination against gays
would be assumed to be unconstitutional.
"The question is not whether homosexuals have achieved political
successes over the years; they clearly have. The question is whether
they have the strength to politically protect themselves from wrongful
discrimination," said Jacobs, who was appointed to the bench in 1992
by President George H.W. Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won't hear anti-gay marriage group appeal
Court Watch |
2012/10/05 15:57
|
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from a national anti-gay marriage group that tried to thwart Maine's campaign disclosure law requiring it to release its donor list.
The high court turned aside an appeal from the National Organization for Marriage, which donated $1.9 million to a political action committee that helped repeal Maine's same-sex marriage law.
Maine's campaign disclosure law requires groups that raise or spend more than $5,000 to influence elections to register and disclose donors. NOM contends that releasing the donor list would stymie free speech and subject donors to harassment, but the lower court refused to throw out the law.
Voters repealed Maine's gay marriage law in 2009, but it's on the ballot again this November.
For now, the 2009 donor list remains under wraps.
The state ethics commission is still investigating whether NOM falls under the state's ballot question committee requirements, said its executive director, Jonathan Wayne.
"Today's decision by the Supreme Court is an important development, but no decision has been reached by the commission regarding the National Organization for Marriage's 2009 activities," he said.
Matt McTighe, campaign manager for Mainers United for Marriage, which supports the gay marriage proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot, said gay marriage supporters don't care so much about who's on NOM's list of donors but rather want the organization to play by the same rules as everybody else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justices step back from Pa. court funding dispute
Court Watch |
2012/09/27 16:18
|
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is declining a request by county governments that the justices force the General Assembly to provide more money for state courts and bring more uniformity to the court system.
The court ruled unanimously on Wednesday against the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania and 10 counties. The decision could end litigation over funding levels and uneven standards across the state that goes back a quarter century.
Chief Justice Ronald Castille's written opinion says there's been progress in recent years and the justices believe that "further enhancements" of the state courts should be a product of cooperation among the three branches of government.
An association spokesman says he's disappointed, while spokesmen for state House and Senate leaders didn't immediately respond to messages. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pa. high court revisits juvenile life sentences
Court Watch |
2012/09/12 12:17
|
Pennsylvania's highest court is weighing how to resentence prisoners who were given automatic life sentences as juveniles.
A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling outlaws mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles.
There are nearly 500 juvenile lifers in Pennsylvania, half from Philadelphia.
The state Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday morning in a pair of representative cases.
The defendants are Ian Cunningham, serving life for a second-degree murder conviction in Philadelphia, and Qu'Eed Batts, convicted of first-degree murder in Northampton County.
Cunningham's case concerns lifers who have exhausted direct appeals but want to invoke the Supreme Court decision in new filings.
In the Batts case, lawyers will debate what term is appropriate for those sentenced to life without parole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Law Firm Web Design Information |
| Law Promo has worked with attorneys, lawyers and law firms all over the world in designing beautiful law firm websites that look great on all devices, from desktop computers to mobile phones. Law Promo can construct your law firm a brand new responsive law firm website, or help you redesign your existing site to secure your place in the mobile world. Solo Practice Law Firm Website Design |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
