133 House Members Sign Brief Challenging DOMA

133 Democratc congressmembers signed their names to a brief filed before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Gill v Office of Personnel Management in which the central question is whether the  so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.

The case was brought (and won) by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders before U.S. District Court judge Joseph Tauro in July 2009. The Department of Justice appealed the decision, but then in February 2011 the United States changed sides in the case after the President determined that DOMA is inherently unconstitutional and laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny.

DOMA is being defended in federal court by superlawyer Paul Clement for BLAG, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, on behalf of the U.S. House Republican majority.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Names Of Referendum 71 Signers Released

Finally! After losing a Supreme Court decision Doe v. Reed last year, the heterosexual supremacists who forced the voters of Washington State to vote on whether that state's comprehensive domestic partnership law should go into effect have lost their battle to keep secret the names of the voters who signed the petitions to get the measure on the ballot.

A federal judge ordered the state of Washington to release the names on Monday, and the Secretary of State released a DVD with 138, 000 names of petitioners to the press.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports:

The 138,000 people who signed petitions to force a vote on a 2009 domestic partnership law are unlikely to face harassment if their names are disclosed a judge said Friday while ordering the release of signatures.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle said the petitioners who advocated for privacy provided only a few experiences of indecent statements and other uncomfortable conversations. Also, there was only speculation that those incidents were connected to the issue, he said.

Disclosure would become the exception, rather than the rule, if just a few instances of harassment were used as the standard for preventing the release of names, Settle said.

And the heterosexual supremacists lost the referendum campaign in 2009 as well. Washington voters approved the referendum (upheld Washington's comprehensive domestic partnership law) and it has been in effect since November 2009.

Lesbian Federal Judicial Nominee Confirmed 48-44

Ridiculous!! A;most every Republican Senator, even Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins voted against the nomination of out lesbian Ali Nathan to have a lifetime appointment as a federal judge on Thursday. The nomination was approved by the surprisingly close vote of 48 Aye, 44 No.

Chris Geidner at MetroWeekly's Poliglot has the scoop:

Nathan, an out lesbian, will be the second out lesbian federal judge with lifetime tenure in the country, joining U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Batts on the bench of the Southern District of New York.
White House spokesman Shin Inouye praised the Senate action, writing, "The President welcomes the confirmation of Alison Nathan. She will serve the American people well from the District Court bench."


Five members of the Democratic caucus did not vote for Nathan's nomination, and no Republicans voted for it. Less than three months ago, U.S. District Court Judge J. Paul Oeken, was confirmed with the support of 28 Republicans. Oetken also sits on the Southern District of New York bench and currently is the only out gay male judge serving in one of the lifetime tenure positions in the federal judiciary.


Four Democrats not voting today were Sens. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.). Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucuses with the Democrats, also did not vote. The three Republicans not voting were Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and David Vitter (R-La.).

It just goes to show you how much more seriously conservatives take the federal judiciary than liberals when they were willing to vote against this amazingly well-qualified person for basically illusory reasons.

Obama Diversifies Federal Judiciary

Bernice Donald has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be the
first  Black woman on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Now this is a lovely feel-good story! According to the Huffington Post, the nation's first President who is not a White male has become the first President to have a majority of his federal judiciary nominees be non white males, or "non-traditional."

More than 70 percent of Obama's confirmed judicial nominees during his first two years were "non-traditional," or nominees who were not white males. That far exceeds the percentages in the two-term administrations of Bill Clinton (48.1 percent) and George W. Bush (32.9 percent), according to Sheldon Goldman, author of the authoritative book "Picking Federal Judges."


[...]

Of the 98 Obama nominees confirmed to date, the administration says 21 percent are African-American, 11 percent are Hispanic, 7 percent are Asian-American and almost half – 47 percent – are women. By comparison, of the 322 judges confirmed during George W. Bush's presidency, 18 percent were minorities and 22 percent were female. Of the 372 judges confirmed during Clinton's terms, 25 percent were minorities and 29 percent were women. In these figures, some judges fit into more than one category.

Last week, the Senate confirmed the first African-American woman to sit on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Bernice Donald. Earlier, she was the first African-American woman elected as a judge in Tennessee, the first appointed as federal bankruptcy judge in the nation and first confirmed as a U.S. district judge in Tennessee.

Obama also has doubled the number of Asian-Americans sitting on the federal bench, including adding Denny Chin to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York as the only active Asian federal appeals court judge. There currently are 14 Asian-American federal judges on the 810-judge roster.


[...]


For more than 140 years, there were no females or minorities among the nation's federal judges.

Read that last line again. For the first 140 years (of the 220 years they have been in existence) the federal courts had zero racial or gender diversity. And I'm pretty sure that's just the way Republicans would prefer it to be!

Obama Names 4th LGBT Judicial Nominee

Michael Fitzegerald becomes President Obama's

4th openly LGBT nominee to the federal judiciary

Wow! Just days after Paul Oetken became the first openly gay man was confirmed as a U.S. District Court judge to the Souther District of New York, President Obama has named a 4th openly LGBT individual to become a federal judge with lifetime appointment. He is Michael Fitzgerald and joins Ali Nathan, J. Paul Oetken and Ed Dumont as openly LGBT federal judicial nominees of the Obama administration. The Oetken nomination has passed the Senate, the Nathan nomination is on the floor and there is no scheduled action on the Dumont nomination planned.

Here's the press release from the White House on the Fitzgerald nomination:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_________________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 20, 2011

President Obama Nominates Michael Walter Fitzgerald to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Obama announced his nomination of Michael Walter Fitzgerald to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 

"I am honored to nominate Michael Walter Fitzgerald to the United States District Court," President Obama said.  "His impressive career stands as a testament to his formidable intellect and integrity.  I am confident he will serve the people of California with distinction on the District Court bench."

Michael Walter Fitzgerald: Nominee for United States District Judge for the Central District of California

Michael Walter Fitzgerald has been a named partner at the law firm of Corbin, Fitzgerald & Athey LLP in Los Angeles, California since 1998, where he handles civil and criminal litigation in both federal and state courts.   Previously, he worked at the Law Offices of Robert L. Corbin PC from 1995 to 1998 and at the law firm of Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe from 1991 to 1995.  Between 1988 and 1991, Fitzgerald served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Los Angeles.  Upon graduation from law school, he clerked for the Honorable Irving R. Kaufman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Fitzgerald received his J.D. in 1985 from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) and his A.B. magna cum laude in 1981 from Harvard University.

### 

1st Openly Gay U.S. District Court Judge Approved By Senate

As I blogged about earlier this year, J. Paul Oetken is the first openly gay man to be nominated for a lifetime federal judgeship. On Monday, the United States Senate approved Oetken's nomination by a vote of 80-13 to a seat on the Southern District of New York, which covers New York City and is one of the busiest and prestigious federal courts in the country. Amazingly, Oetken will join the same bench that the nation's only openly lesbian federal judge sits on. Deborah Batts is an African American lesbian judge who was nominated by President Clinton and approved by the Senate in 1994. All 13 Senators voting No o Oetken's nomination were Republicans.

Chris Geidner reports:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has been supporting the nomination, praised Oetken's background and experience on the Senate floor shortly before the vote, saying "His confirmation will only improve the workings of one of the best and one of the busiest courts in the country."

Of Oetken's place as the first, Schumer said, "At this moment, Paul is not just an excellent candidate, as the first openly gay man to be confirmed as a federal judge and to serve on the federal bench, he will be a symbol of how much we have achieved as a country in just the last few decades."

Before the vote began, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) -- the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee -- also announced that he would be voting for Oetken, who was born in Iowa.

When the vote did come, all Democrats voting approved the nomination, with Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) the sole Democrat not voting. Moreover, a majority of the Senate Republican caucus -- 28 members -- voted to approve the nomination, with 13 Republicans opposing the nomination and six members not voting.

The "no" votes came from Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). The Republicans not voting were Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and David Vitter (R-La.).

This is great news. Someone should ask all the Republican presidential candidates whether they would nominate an openly LGBT person to a federal judgeship. President Obama has also nominated an out lesbian, Ali Nathan, to a federal judgeship as well. That nomination is now pending on the Senate floor.

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Kills DADT (Again)

Wow! A (admittedly decidedly liberal) 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously lifted a stay against the U.S. Government from enforcing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the case Log Cabin Republicans v. United States.

Here's the text of the order filed today:

Filed order (ALEX KOZINSKI, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW and RICHARD A. PAEZ) The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense, is substituted for Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, as an appellant/cross-appellee. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). Appellee/cross-appellant’s motion to lift this court’s November 1, 2010, order granting a stay of the district court’s judgment pending appeal is granted. See Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) (stating standard); Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (same). In their briefs, appellants/cross-appellees do not contend that 10 U.S.C. § 654 is constitutional. In addition, in the context of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7, the United States has recently taken the position that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny. See Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. C 3:10-00257-JSW (N.D. Cal.) (Doc. 145, July 1, 2011) (“gay and lesbian individuals have suffered a long and significant history of purposeful discrimination”); Letter from Attorney General to Speaker of House of Representatives (Feb. 23, 2011) (“there is, regrettably, a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities”). Appellants/cross-appellees state that the process of repealing Section 654 is well underway, and the preponderance of the armed forces are expected to have been trained by mid-summer. The circumstances and balance of hardships have changed, and appellants/cross-appellees can no longer satisfy the demanding standard for issuance of a stay. Appellee/cross-appellant’s alternative request to expedite oral argument is granted. The Clerk shall calendar this case during the week of August 29, 2011, in Pasadena, California. Briefing is completed.

And here's Legal Eagle Chris Geidner explaining what it means:

DADT cannot be enforced, per the order, unless the government gets a stay of the order from either the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Supreme Court pending an appeal of today's decision.

Cynthia Smith, a Department of Defense spokeswoman, tells Metro Weekly that Pentagon officials "are studying the ruling with the Department of Justice" but added, "We will of course comply with orders of the court, and are taking immediate steps to inform the field of this order." 

The three-judge panel -- Judges Alex Kozinski, Kim Wardlaw and Richard Paez -- based the decision to lift the appellate court's earlier stay of Phillips's order pending the appeal of the LCRcase is based, the judges write, because, "The circumstances and balance of hardships have changed, and appellants/cross-appellees can no longer satisfy the demanding standard for issuance of a stay."

Among the citations by the court is the July 1 filing in Karen Golinski's federal case seeking health insurance benefits for her wife and the related Feb. 23 letter from Attorney General Eric Holder declaring that he and President Barack Obama had decided that heightened scrutiny applies to classifications -- such as DADT.

The judges also note that "the process of repealing Section 654 [-- the DADT law --] is well underway, and the preponderance of the armed forces are expected to have been trained by mid-summer." Smith echoed this fact, writing to Metro Weekly, "[I]mplementation of the DADT repeal voted by the Congress and signed in to law by the President last December is proceeding smoothly, is well underway, and certification is just weeks away."

You will recal DADT was also not in effect worldwide or 8 days last fall when the Log Cabin Republicans first won an injunction against the government from federal judge Virginia Phillips. Now they have won at the appellate level as well on the question of the stay. The oral arguments about the merits of the case will be heard on August 29th. The government can ask for an en banc panel (11-judge panel) of the 9th Circuit or ask the US Supreme Court for a stay on the latest injunction against the enforcement of DADT..

It will be interesting to see what they do because the statute in question should be moot in a few weeks anyway when the DAT repeal is certified. However, there are some questions about whether sexual orientation will be a category of non-discrimination (which the lawsuit asks for but the legislation does not contain) and also whether the Uniform Code of Military Justice will include consensual sodomy (there is legislation in this year's Defense Authorization bill to repeal the UCMJ sodomy language).

Judge Ware To Rule On Prop 8 Motion To Vacate Tomorrow

Federal judge James Ware, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, says he will rule tomorrow on a desperate motion to vacate last year's decision in Perry v. Schwarznegger striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional because the federal judge who issued it, Vaughn Walker, is openly gay and should have disclosed that fact at the time. Walker was previously chief judge of the same district but retired at the end of February 2011.

The motion by the heterosexual supremacist proponents of Proposition 8 has been widely ridiculed by the vast majority of legal experts and on the editorial pages of major newspapers.

It should be a delightful to read Judge James Ware's decision tomorrow. In other news, the judge has also said that he will deny the motion of the proponents to attempt to collect all the videos of the trial's witnesses and order them destroyed. Our side is arguing that the testimony is  a public record (the transcripts are available from the court) and that the entire video record should be released. There is some important, powerful testimony from expert witnesses explaining the nature of marriage and demolishing the arguments of the heterosexual supremacists that they would dearly not like to get into public view. I dearly hope the videos of the Prop 8 trial "leak" at some point in the future.

Celebrity Friday: Goodwin Liu Withdraws Nomination

Goodwin Liu, Professor of Law at University of California, Berkeley has written President Obama, withdrawing his name from consideration for a seat on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after Republicans successfully filibustered his nomination on the floor of the United States Senate on May 19th.

The text of the letter is here:

Dear Mr. President:


I have been deeply honored to be your nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The nomination has been a tremendous source of pride for my family and community, and it would be a great privilege and responsibility to serve our country as a member of the judiciary. 


In light of last week's unsuccessful cloture vote, however, I respectfully ask that you withdraw my nomination from further consideration by the United States Senate. With no possibility of an up-or-down vote on the horizon, my family and I have decided that it is time for us to regain the ability to make plans for the future. In addition, the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit has noted the "desperate need for judges" to fill current vacancies,  and it is now clear that continuing my nomination will not address that need any time soon.


I am profoundly indebted to you for your confidence in me and to the many people wh workd tirelessly in support of my nomination. Thank you for this great honor and opportunity


Sincerely,


Goodwin Liu

Sometimes the bad guys win. Interestingly, President Obama has now nominated a judge named Morgen Christen from Alaska put on that state's Supreme Court by Governor Sarah Palin for the 9th Circuit. It will be interesting to see what response she gets from Senate Republicans!