Federal Appeals Court Hears Arguments against Virginia Marriage Ban
Court Will Hear From Lawyers Representing Class of All Same-Sex Couples in the State
May 13, 2014
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org
RICHMOND, Va. – A federal appeals court will hear extended arguments today in a challenge to Virginia’s constitutional and statutory bans on marriage for same-sex couples.
A federal judge struck down the bans in February in Bostic v. Rainey, a case brought by two couples in Norfolk who are represented by attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies. The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Virginia, Lambda Legal, and the law firm Jenner and Block represent a certified class of all same-sex couples in the state and joined the Bostic appeal to present arguments on the class’s behalf. That class action was initially filed last August on behalf of Joanne Harris and Jessica Duff of Staunton and Christy Berghoff and Victoria Kidd of Winchester.
"We’re hopeful that we’ll finally be able to pledge our love to each other like any other couple that’s ready to make that commitment," said Harris. "Jessi and I are completely devoted to each other, and it’s important to us and to our son that our family is recognized in Virginia with all the dignity and protections that only come with marriage."
Harris and Duff have been together for 11 years and are raising a five-year-old son, Jabari. They had a commitment ceremony in 2011. Berghoff and Kidd were married in Washington, DC two years ago, but are considered single in their home state of Virginia. They have a one-year-old daughter, Lydia.
James Esseks, the director of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project, will argue for the class during the hearing. Olson will argue for the Bostic plaintiffs and Stuart Raphael, the solicitor general, will argue for the commonwealth.
"All across the country courts are recognizing what a majority of Virginians already know -- that it's unfair to exclude same sex couples from marriage," said Esseks. "Today brings us one step closer to the day when all families are able to marry in their home states. Every family should know that they will be able to care for each other no matter what."
Today’s arguments were heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The ruling could affect not only all couples in Virginia, but couples in other states under the court’s jurisdiction, including West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
"We're in court today because thousands of Virginia’s same-sex couples and their families experience real, concrete harms when Virginia marks them as unequal," said Greg Nevins, Lambda Legal Counsel. "Barring same-sex couples from marriage is clearly unconstitutional. We do not want a country divided by unfairness and discrimination. Same-sex couples are in loving, committed relationships in every region of our nation and should be treated the same way, whether they live in Maine or Virginia."
This is the second federal court of appeals this year to hear arguments about the constitutionality of a state marriage ban. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit heard arguments in challenges to the Utah and Oklahoma bans last month. Marriage cases are also pending before federal appeals courts for the Fifth (a case from Texas), Sixth (cases from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee), and Ninth (a case from Nevada) Circuits.
"All Virginians should be able to marry the person they love," said Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia. "The families who are coming before the court today represent all of our loved ones, neighbors, and friends who just want the same recognition any family would want."
LGBTQ Rights
Bostic v. Schaefer (Harris Class Action) - Freedom to Marry in Virginia
LGBTQ Rights
Bostic v. Schaefer (Harris Class Action) - Freedom to Marry in Virginia
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.