Connect with us

Our Journey through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Published

on

The last time we went to court back in June of 2014, I took you on a journey inside the Federal Courthouse with us. Today I’d like to take you with us on a historic journey inside the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as we present our case to the three judge panel allotted to hear our arguments.

Our morning started really early – at 5:30 A.M. – with Courtney and Nadine Blanchard, the other plaintiffs in our case, (photo below right) picking us up from our home, which is located in a neighborhood roughly two miles from the courthouse. We were instructed by the court to meet the clerk at 7:00 A.M. outside a side door entrance of the John Minor Wisdom Building that houses the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, to be escorted inside.  

It was a very cold morning, one that we are not accustomed to here in the south, and as we passed in front of the public entrance, people were bundled up already in line, since seats were limited for the “show” that was about to ensue.  The line had already formed. A few hours later it would be down the block.

The people gathered there were not just from Louisiana, but had traveled from all over. Like Brandiilyne Dear and Susan Mangum who run The Dandelion Project out of Laurel, Mississippi, and Diana Farrar and Charlotte Moellering from Texas. They stood in line in unfavorable weather, to partake in this historic day. 

plaintiffs.jpgWe were ushered in to our reserved front seats. Our Louisiana case was the first scheduled on the calendar. We sat patiently for two hours, waiting for our case to start, holding small talk with all our co-plaintiffs and our legal team that was in place for the first case.

Finally the judges filed in to their seats, Judge Jerry Smith in the center, with Judge James Graves Jr. to his left and Judge Patrick Higginbotham to his right.  Having taken an off the wall beating in Judge Martin Feldman’s ruling in District Court, I was eager to hear what these judges had to say.  

Our side went first. The judges were quiet for the most part and let our attorney, Camilla Taylor, present our case almost uninterruptedly. Judge Smith broke in a few times and followed an expected line of questioning. But for the most part we were able to go unrestricted in our allotted 30 minutes.

Next up was attorney Kyle Duncan, who represents the state of Louisiana and is funded by Louisiana taxpayer money, earning over $200,000 last year to defend the state, but I’ll talk about that in a another article. The state presented their defense of the Louisiana marriage ban, using the same argument that they presented at the lower court level, which Judge Martin Feldman had found sympathetic.  What they weren’t prepared for was the criticism that would come from Judge Higginbotham and Judge Graves.

Just minutes into the states arguments Judge Higginbotham presented this question, “Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic … but it does not come with any disability, there is no suggestion that sexual orientation has any relevance to the ability to perform. … so now you have a classifier of that order. What is the justification for using that as a classifier by state? … what do you point to as the rational support for the state to differentiate on that classifier?” and when the state got around to the procreation argument he went on – “Back to procreation where we started, and the counter argument to that, of course, is yes, if that really is the basis, why is marriage quickly extended to people who are sterile?”

Judge Higginbotham wasn’t alone in poking holes in the states argument, he was joined by Judge Graves, who at one point asked, in reference to states idea that marriage is for procreation between a man and a woman, “Council, help me understand how those purposes are frustrated if same-sex couples are allowed to marry.” When state resorted back to United States vs Winsor, relying heavily on just a small portion of the ruling and ignoring the majority of it arguing that Windsor was solely about states’ rights, Judge Graves reminded them,“There’s other language in Windsor that you have to deal with; for example, the statement that the differentiation demeans the couple whose moral and sexual choices the constitution protects….that’s pretty broad language regarding the specific choice that’s involved here.”

After our portion was over some reporters were quick to assume that we may have a favorable ruling based on the Louisiana arguments alone.  But it didn’t stop there, the bombardment kept coming with consistency case after case. 

We were shuffled out of the courtroom and into an overflow room where next we heard arguments from the Mississippi case lead by Robbie Kaplan on behalf of The Campaign for Southern Equality and their plaintiffs Joce Pritchett, Carla Webb, Becky Bickett, and Andrea Sanders.  We sat in anticipation, I wanted to see if the line of questioning that I had just heard would continue, to make sure I didn’t have to pinch myself to see if I was dreaming. And so it did – The state of Mississippi started off with their defense and the questions ensued. In reference to the states argument that the ban was put in place by democratic process and as people change it could be replaced by the people and not changed by the courts. Higginbotham wasn’t buying it – “Those words, ‘Will Mississippi change its mind?’ have resonated in these halls before.”

Ms. Kaplan was up next, presenting the plaintiffs side with poise and strength that left me in awe, much like she did at the United State Supreme Court in Windsor. The judges even jokingly at one point made a reference to Windsor and said “You may be familiar with this case.” To which Kaplan replied, “I’ve heard of it.”

Next up was Texas with plaintiffs Cleopatra DeLeon, Nicole Dimetman, Vic Holmes, and Marc Phariss, but they fared no better. The state again took brutal criticism for their procreation and “benefit” argument. Judge Graves asked, “So there are benefits that flow from the right to marry, and the state can choose whether to confer or withhold the benefits. But that doesn’t justify the altogether denial of the right, does it?” and when state used a “free lunch for the poor, but not the middle class and the wealthy” argument Graves continued, “I’m not denying you the right to eat lunch, I’m just telling you I’m not going to pay for it. But in this instance, you’re saying, not only am I not going to confer any of the benefits of marriage, I’m going to deny you the right to marry.” to which the state was shaken. 

Judge Graves wasn’t the only one critical of the state’s position, Judge Higginbotham joined in, asking:

“Marriage between same-sex couples has no consequences, then, other than the use of the state’s resources. … Your reason is that they just do not want to support this particular process here. Not because it would harm anyone, but because it just does not want to spend its money on this. … Is that it?  

So you can see why we are  – and I’ve said this before – “Cautiously Optimistic” about this line of questioning today and why we believe that we may have a favorable ruling at the Fifth Circuit, the most conservative appeals court in this nation.  While you can never know how a judge will rule based on his questioning alone, we are very hopeful they will rule in consistency with their skepticism of the arguments that were presented by each of the states.  

We left the courthouse very positive, we gathered just mere feet from the courthouse that afternoon where we socialized with our colleagues letting our hair down after this long day.  The atmosphere was electrifying and positive, and we enjoyed it!

crowd.jpgWhile we may not know the court’s decision for some weeks or even months, today, as I sit here still in shock over what potentially could happen for my family and countless families across these three great states; I know also know this: the decision of the Fifth Circuit is just one piece of a larger puzzle that’s completed at the Supreme Court. But for today, I’m going feel good about this, after being humiliated and demeaned in District Court by Judge Feldman’s archaic thought process in his ruling, I am going to put my faith and money in the WIN column, even if it is cautiously.

Keep up with what we are doing here in Louisiana by liking our Facebook and visiting our website. You can also find the Forum For Equality website here, they are a great local organization who is fighting hard on behalf of same-sex couples all across the state.

Together with Lambda Legal at the helm, we will WIN the freedom to marry, it’s what is right and just.

 

bio_-_derek.jpgDerek Penton-Robicheaux, 37, is a native of Mississippi and a longtime resident of New Orleans.  He holds degrees in computer information systems and paramedicine.  After more than five years together, Derek and his husband, Jonathan Penton-Robicheaux, were legally married in Iowa on Sept. 23, 2012. The two are the first plaintiffs involved in the Federal Same-Sex Marriage Lawsuit in Louisiana, Robicheaux et al. v Caldwell.

 

 

 

 

 

Feature Photo from nola.com

 

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Bad Idea’: Trump’s Plan to Cut Vaccines He Deems ‘Dangerous’ Met With Concern by Experts

Published

8 hours ago

on

December 12, 2024

By

Saying he will be the one to decide—in consultation with anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—which vaccines the federal government should cut, Donald Trump on Thursday again invoked the false and widely debunked conspiracy theory that links autism to the life-saving drugs. The President-elect’s remarks were met with concern and condemnation.

“When asked in an interview for TIME’s 2024 Person of the Year whether he would approve of an end to childhood vaccination programs, Trump said he would have a ‘big discussion’ with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,” TIME magazine reported Thursday, noting Trump has nominated RFK Jr., an attorney who has no medical training or experience leading a massive organization, to run the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

“The autism rate is at a level that nobody ever believed possible,” Trump told TIME, which debunked his remarks in its reporting. “If you look at things that are happening, there’s something causing it.”

READ MORE: ‘Did He Lie?’: Trump Questioning His Price-Lowering Promises Are Possible Sparks Anger

Reuters also reported, “Trump says [he] could get rid of some vaccinations ‘if I think it’s dangerous.'”

“When asked if the discussion could result in his administration getting rid of some vaccinations, Trump said: ‘It could if I think it’s dangerous, if I think they are not beneficial, but I don’t think it’s going to be very controversial in the end.'”

Like RFK Jr., Trump has no medical training or background.

While “Trump did not explicitly say in the interview that vaccines cause autism,” which it classified as “a false claim that traces back to a retracted study from the 1990s,” TIME reports that when “pressed on the issue, Trump said his administration will complete ‘very serious testing,’ after which ‘we will know for sure what’s good and what’s not good.'”

Dr. Ashish Kumar Jha is a physician, the Dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, and served as the Biden White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator. He characterized Trump’s remarks that he will speak with RFK Jr. and possibly cut some vaccines, as an “extraordinarily bad idea.”

“RFK jr doesn’t seem to understand the data on vaccines,” Dr. Jha wrote. “He should have no role in deciding which vaccines should be available, recommended.”

READ MORE: ‘Marxist’ Agenda: Hegseth Says Gay Troops ‘Erode Standards’ in ‘Social Engineering’ Push

Dr. Priya Pal of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Division of Infectious Diseases, commenting on Trump’s remarks, referenced creators of some of the most important vaccines in history: “Never could Pasteur, Salk, Jenner, Sabin have imagined people celebrating the return of childhood diseases that they and others worked so hard to prevent.”

Dr. Annie Andrews, a pediatrician, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., a Senior Advisor to Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, and the CEO and founder of Their Future, Our Vote. She responded to the news by snarking, “Congratulations preventable infectious diseases!”

Infectious disease physician Apu Akkad, an Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine wrote: “Wow. This sounds hugely problematic. RFK has no business deciding which vaccines should and shouldn’t be used — most especially without first gathering further data.”

TIME also dove in to Trump’s allegation about the perceived rise in autism.

“It’s true that autism is diagnosed much more frequently now than in the past—but not because vaccines are causing the condition. Researchers have explored possible reasons for the uptick, including rising parental ages and environmental triggers. But much of the increase, research suggests, stems from changes to diagnostic criteria, widespread awareness of the condition, and improvements in screening. Detection jumps have been particularly steep among children of color, girls, and young adults, all of whom have historically been diagnosed less frequently.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has stated he believes “There’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘You Have to’: Trump Confirms Plan to Deport US Citizens With Undocumented Parents

Image via Reuters

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Did He Lie?’: Trump Questioning His Price-Lowering Promises Are Possible Sparks Anger

Published

14 hours ago

on

December 12, 2024

By

As a candidate, Donald Trump campaigned—and won—this year on the promise he would lower prices for Americans angry after the COVID pandemic’s inflation brought steep price increases, but now he’s backtracking, saying he’s not sure he will actually be able to fulfill those vows. Outrage at Trump, and the people who voted for him based on that pledge, was palpable on Thursday.

As recently as Sunday, MSNBC reports, Trump insisted, “We’re going to bring those prices way down.”

On Monday, Fox News reported: “Pointing to high grocery prices, Trump says, ‘I won an election based on that'”

But in his TIME magazine “Person of the Year” interview, Trump suggested he might not be able to lower prices as he promised to do. Appearing to remove himself from the equation, he declared: “It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up. You know, it’s very hard.”

Sam Stein of The Bulwark and MSNBC noted via social media, “’Prices will come down,’ Trump told voters during a speech last week laying out his vision for a return to the White House. ‘You just watch: They’ll come down, and they’ll come down fast, not only with insurance, with everything.'”

READ MORE: ‘Marxist’ Agenda: Hegseth Says Gay Troops ‘Erode Standards’ in ‘Social Engineering’ Push

The President-elect told TIME he would “like to bring them down” when asked, “If the prices of groceries don’t come down, will your presidency be a failure?” but insisted if prices do not drop he doesn’t think that will make his second term a failure.

On the campaign trail Trump repeatedly promised he would lower prices and inflation, as HuffPost reported Thursday:

“’We will end inflation and make America affordable again, and we’re going to get the prices down, we have to get them down,’ Trump said at a rally in September. ‘It’s too much. Groceries, cars, everything. We’re going to get the prices down.'”

“’We will cut your taxes and inflation, slash your prices, raise your wages and bring thousands of factories back to America,’ Trump said at a Georgia rally in October, reciting a line he used in speeches at several other events.”

“Trump also specifically promised to get gas prices down: ‘I will cut your energy prices in half within 12 months.'”

Stein’s post earlier Thursday morning quoting Trump saying “You know, it’s very hard” to bring prices down set of an explosion of anger at the incoming occupant of the White House.

READ MORE: Trump’s Guilfoyle Nomination Surfaces Allegations Old and New

“Trump has already folded on prices. He has no plans to make life more affordable for the majority of Americans,” declared Lindsay Owens, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Groundwork Collaborative.

“All of you idiots who voted for Trump over food prices should feel pretty stupid,” journalist Roland Martin remarked in response.

Politico White House reporter Adam Cancryn responded to Stein: “Trump in Asheville in August: ‘From the day I take the oath of office, we will rapidly drive prices down, and make America affordable again’ ‘Prices will come down. You just watch. They’ll come down and they’ll come down fast. Not only with insurance, with everything.'”

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake added: “Trump on Sept. 23: ‘Vote Trump, and your incomes will soar. Your net worth will skyrocket. Your energy costs and grocery prices will come tumbling down.'”

“Oh, Trump doesn’t have a plan to bring down costs for Americans? I’m shocked,” snarked Democratic U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal.

Tom Bonier, a veteran Democratic political strategist noted, “He’s likely right, which is why the Biden record of increasing wages while slowing inflation has put our country on the right track, but of course no one could admit that until Trump won by running against inflation.”

Ron Fournier, a business executive and former journalist asked, “Wait. He promised to bring them down. Did he …

… lie?”

READ MORE: ‘You Have to’: Trump Confirms Plan to Deport US Citizens With Undocumented Parents

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Marxist’ Agenda: Hegseth Says Gay Troops ‘Erode Standards’ in ‘Social Engineering’ Push

Published

15 hours ago

on

December 12, 2024

By

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s controversial pick to oversee the Department of Defense and its 3.4 million military and civilian personnel, has a long history of anti-LGBTQ statements. According to multiple reports, Hegseth has opposed gay service members, labeling them a threat to military standards and a part of a “Marxist” agenda promoting “social engineering.”

“At least when it was an ‘Army of One,’ they were, you know, tough looking, go get ‘em army – but you’re right, that was the subtle shifting toward an individual ad campaign,” Hegseth told far-right podcaster Ben Shapiro, CNN reports. “Now you just have the absurdity of ‘I have two mommies and I’m so proud to show them that I can wear the uniform too.’ So they, it’s just like everything else the Marxists and the leftists have done. At first it was camouflaged nicely and now they’re just, they’re just open about it.”

Hegseth, now a former Fox News weekend co-host under fire for alleged sexual assault, alcohol abuse, an affinity for Christian nationalism, and mismanagement of two veterans’ charities, has repeatedly denigrated gays and lesbians, and expressed opposition to LGBTQ Americans serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, and women serving in the military — especially in combat roles.

RELATED: House Republican Says They Were Told ‘In Conference’ Hegseth Accusations ‘Were Anonymous’

“In his 2024 book ‘The War on Warriors’ and in subsequent media promotions this year. Hegseth described both the original ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ (DADT) policy and its repeal in 2011 as a ‘gateway’ and a ‘camouflage’ for broader cultural changes that he claims have undermined military cohesion and effectiveness,” CNN reports.

Studies before and after the repeal of DADT have proven LGBTQ service members serving openly do not diminish unit cohesion or impair military readiness. “The repeal of DADT has had no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale,” a Palm Center report found one year after DADT repeal.

As MeidasTouch News reported Wednesday, Hegseth has “argued that allowing women and openly gay and lesbian individuals to serve undermines the readiness and effectiveness of the armed forces. He dismissed these inclusivity efforts as ‘social engineering’ aimed at satisfying political agendas rather than improving national security. In his words, the changes were about achieving symbolic milestones, such as having a female Navy SEAL, rather than maintaining operational excellence.”

Hegseth lamented on Fox News’ “Red Eye” in 2015 that America has a “military right now that is more interested in social engineering led by this president than they are in war fighting, So, as a result, through Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and women in the military and these standards, they’re going to inevitably start to erode standards because they want that one female special operator, that one female Green Beret, that one female Army Ranger, that one female Navy Seal, so they can put them on a recruiting poster and feel good about themselves and has nothing to do with national security.”

READ MORE: Trump’s Guilfoyle Nomination Surfaces Allegations Old and New

“So it started, you know, we saw it under Clinton with the tinkering of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and the reasons for those changes,” Hegseth said in November on a podcast promoting his book, also according to CNN. “And I talked to some of the people involved in when that was changed, but it really happened, started to accelerate under Obama.”

And yet, when asked on Wednesday by CNN if he still holds that repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a mistake, Hegseth grew silent and did not answer, ignoring the reporter (video below).

Hegseth has a long, documented history of anti-LGBTQ and anti-women statements and positions.

“The dumbest phrase on planet Earth in the military is our diversity is our strength,” Hegseth said on a podcast this year, ABC News reported last month.

“There aren’t enough lesbians in San Francisco to staff the 82nd Airborne like you need, you need the boys in Kentucky and Texas and North Carolina and Wisconsin,” Hegseth also said earlier this year, ABC noted. On a separate podcast, he “said that transgender soldiers are ‘not deployable’ because they are ‘reliant on chemicals’ and suggested that women should not serve in certain combat roles.”

“Everything about men and women serving together makes the situation more complicated, and complication in combat means casualties are worse,” Hegseth also said, ABC added. He also argued “that men are ‘more capable’ in combat roles because of biological factors.”

Hegseth, under fire, this week claimed he supports women in the military, but did not specifically state he supports women in combat roles.

“I strive to defend the pillars of Western civilization against the distractions of diversity,” Hegseth wrote in 2002 as publisher of The Princeton Tory, the university’s conservative student magazine, The New Yorker reported last month.

“In the same year that Hegseth was defending the West against diversity, he and the other editors of the Tory opined that the New York Times’ decision to publish announcements of same-sex marriages had opened the floodgates to incest and bestiality: ‘At what point does the paper deem a ‘relationship’ unfit for publication? What if we ‘loved’ our sister and wanted to marry her? Or maybe two women at the same time? A 13-year-old? The family dog?’”

And in a 2002 publisher’s note at The Tory, Talking Points Memo reported, Hegseth “declared that he was ‘not encouraged’ by the ‘educational principles … guiding our generation.’ Among other things, he cited the ‘encouragement and support’ for ‘homosexuality.'”

“In pieces for the Tory,” TPM continued, “Hegseth and the team he oversaw railed against efforts to promote diversity on campus and what they described as the immoral ‘homosexual lifestyle.'”

The New Yorker also reports that during Hegseth’s tenure, The Tory wrote: “boys can wear bras and girls can wear ties until we’re blue in the face, but it won’t change the reality that the homosexual lifestyle is abnormal and immoral.”

“Hegseth and The Tory’s editor also wrote: “Overwhelming majorities of Americans agree with the notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not moral equivalents.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Trump’s Defense Secretary pick, Pete Hegseth, has called allowing openly gay troops a “Marxist” push for social justice and said it “erodes” military standards.

He declined to clarify his comments when asked Wednesday by CNN.

Watch: www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/p…

[image or embed]

— Andrew Kaczynski (@kfile.bsky.social) December 12, 2024 at 9:48 AM

RELATED: ‘Swarm of MAGA Attacks’ Making Hegseth Confirmation Seem More Likely: Report

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.