The way the law is now you cannot be excluded from sitting on a jury because you are trans, bi, lesbian or gay and judges do not have recuse themselves because they are LGBT, but that all might change.
The article goes on to point out that it would be harder for marriage equality and our rights because of what it called "heightened scrutiny."
How A Ruling On Gay Jurors Could Have A Huge Effect On The Gay Rights MovementAll three appeals court judges ruled that it was unconstitutional. This has a profound implications for us because suppose a trans-person is on trial and the prosecutor could screen out LGBT jurors and pack the jury with conservatives it would then be a lot harder to get a fair trial.
Huffington Gay Voices
By Lila Shapiro
Posted: 02/01/2014
In the next few weeks, AbbVie, a pharmaceutical company that produces an important AIDS drug, will make a decision that could have a far-reaching effect on gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people, and not just those with HIV.
If the company appeals a recent court ruling and wins, it will come as a blow to those who hope to see states around the country topple the remaining barriers both to same-sex marriage and to laws that protect gay people from discrimination.
The case did not initially concern gay rights at all, but was instead a fight between two pharmaceutical giants. In 2007, a drug company called SmithKline Beecham Corp. sued a rival drug producer, Abbott Laboratories. Abbott, which later spun off its drug research activities into a new company, AbbVie, had quintupled the price of its popular AIDS drug, a move that ended up hurting SmithKline's bottom line.
Predictably, Abbott's decision to raise the price of its drug sparked anger and protest from AIDS activists. Still, the case may have never come to the attention of the broader gay rights community if not for an attempt by Abbott to tilt the jury's makeup in its favor: In 2011, a lawyer for Abbott dismissed a potential juror who had revealed he was gay and had friends with HIV. SmithKline argued that the removal was discriminatory, and last week the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.
The article goes on to point out that it would be harder for marriage equality and our rights because of what it called "heightened scrutiny."
… When the Court classifies a case as deserving of "heightened scrutiny," it falls to the state to prove that its laws serve an important state interest. Until recently, the court has reserved this level of scrutiny for cases involving race and gender. But that’s changing.So if the drug company appeals the decision to the Supreme Court there is a lot at stake for us.
In Nevada, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is currently reviewing a lawsuit that aims to strike down the state's same-sex marriage ban. And it's not looking good for opponents of same-sex marriage, thanks to the court's recent decision in the Abbott case. As Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto acknowledged in a statement last week, the state's earlier arguments for banning same-sex marriage may not hold up in a court that applies heightened scrutiny and requires the state to justify its laws.
Diana,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what you meant by "The article goes on to point out that it would be harder for marriage equality and our rights because of what it called "heightened scrutiny." Heightened scrutiny would raise the bar for the states to prove their laws are constitutional. This would cause the states to prove there is an important state interest in banning same-sex marriage or any anti-trans laws.
I think you may have left a word or two out and meant to say:
"The article goes on to point out that it would be harder for marriage equality and our rights to be denied by States because of what it called "heightened scrutiny."
It would be harder for courts to find in our favor if "heightened scrutiny" ruling is overturned by the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteAs it stands now with the appeals court ruling the states have to prove that they will be harmed by marriage equality.