Statement Regarding Suit Filed to Challenge Oregon’s Ban on Marriage for Same-Sex Couples
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org
EUGENE, ORE. – The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Oregon, and volunteer counsel from the law firms of Johnson, Johnson & Schaller, PC and Perkins Coie, LLP filed a federal lawsuit today in U.S. District Court in Eugene on behalf of two same-sex couples who wish to marry in Oregon and Basic Rights Education Fund.
The complaint can be found here.
The lawsuit alleges that Oregon's constitutional ban on marriage for lesbian and gay couples—Measure 36—violates the U.S. Constitution.
In October, attorneys Lake Perriguey and Lea Ann Easton filed a separate suit, Geiger v. Kitzhaber, in U.S. District Court in Eugene that also seeks to overturn Measure 36. The state recently filed its initial response in that case, but no hearing has been scheduled. The ACLU attorneys will soon request to have the two cases consolidated so they can be heard jointly by the court. The ACLU attorneys plan to work collaboratively with the attorneys from the first case and bring the issues before the court expeditiously.
Basic Rights Education Fund and the ACLU of Oregon are committed to winning the freedom to marry for all loving, committed couples in Oregon. Both organizations have been working toward this goal for more than a decade, in the legislature, the courts and the public arena. There is currently an initiative campaign underway to ask Oregon voters to replace the state marriage ban with the freedom to marry in November 2014. This lawsuit, which reinforces the suit filed in October, is a parallel effort to secure marriage equality in Oregon for same-sex couples.
"We are committed to working in every way possible to bring the freedom to marry to Oregon in 2014," says Vanessa Usui, board chair of Basic Rights Education Fund. "Working simultaneously on a ballot measure campaign, as well as in court, is the best way to ensure that all loving, committed same-sex couples are free to marry in Oregon by this time next year."
This lawsuit follows a series of recent decisions that recognize the legal harms that occur when couples are denied the ability to marry or recognition for their marriages. These include the ACLU's victory in June before the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Windsor, which held that the federal government must recognize the marriages of lesbian and gay couples who are married under state law, and the Oregon Attorney General’s opinion issued in October that the state of Oregon must recognize the legal marriages of same-sex couples performed out-of-state.
"Since the Oregon attorney general recently concluded that it is unconstitutional for Oregon to refuse to recognize valid out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples, we think the time is right for the court to decide that the state must also allow couples who reside in Oregon to marry here," says David Fidanque, ACLU of Oregon executive director.
"The past few years have seen enormous progress as more and more Americans agree that committed same-sex couples should have the same protections and dignity that only come with marriage," says Rose Saxe, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. "This lawsuit is another step to ensuring that all loving couples have the freedom to marry."
The plaintiff couples in the case are Paul Rummell and Ben West, and Lisa Chickadonz and Christine Tanner.
"We have been together for nearly 30 years. We have raised two wonderful children, are involved in our church community and are respected in our work. We have done everything we can to legally protect our family and each other," Chickadonz says. "I was raised in a culture where marriage was a very important milestone. When you were lucky enough to fall in love with someone, you got married. I have loved Chris for half of my life and I want to marry her. It’s as simple as that."
Plaintiffs West and Rummell have been together for seven years. Early in their relationship, they discovered their mutual goal to be fathers and together they took the steps and training necessary to become foster parents. Their lives were changed when a young boy was placed in their care.
"We have been able to help our foster son grow and develop beyond the trauma of his early life and we will do everything to protect him. Soon the adoption process will be complete and we will officially be his dads," West says. "Our son deserves to have a family that is fully recognized and protected by the state of Oregon. I never want our son to feel that his forever-family is less worthy than any other family. When Paul and I can say we are married, everyone will know and understand we are a family."
The ACLU volunteer cooperating attorneys in the case are Jennifer Middleton, of Johnson, Johnson & Schaller PC, Thomas Johnson, Julia Markley, Kristina Holm and Misha Isaak, of Perkins Coie LLP, as well as Rose Saxe and Amanda Goad, of the ACLU Foundation LGBT Project, and Kevin Díaz, of the ACLU Foundation of Oregon.
LGBTQ Rights
Rummell and West v. Kitzhaber - Freedom to Marry in Oregon
LGBTQ Rights
Rummell and West v. Kitzhaber - Freedom to Marry in Oregon
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.