{"id":533,"date":"2014-02-04T20:02:09","date_gmt":"2014-02-05T02:02:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.glbtrt.ala.org\/news\/?p=533"},"modified":"2014-02-04T20:02:09","modified_gmt":"2014-02-05T02:02:09","slug":"9th-circuit-court-mandates-heightened-scrutiny-for-lgbt-rights-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.glbtrt.ala.org\/news\/archives\/533","title":{"rendered":"9th Circuit Court Mandates \u2018Heightened Scrutiny\u2019 for LGBT Rights\u2019 Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"

Although most of the LGBT rights\u2019 cases recently have been on the subject of marriage, the 9th<\/sup> Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling <\/a>that may have far more reaching results in forwarding equality for the LGBT population. Last summer\u2019s U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning part of DOMA in Windsor v. United States<\/i> clarified that the federal law \u201cdemeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify.\u201d It is not, however, define the type of legal standards<\/a> set for future courts. \u00a0\u00a0The 9th Circuit has now done that.<\/p>\n

The case, GSK v. Abbott Laboratories<\/i>, concerned jury selection. The unanimous decision established \u201cheightened scrutiny\u201d for justifying discrimination in LGBT court cases. If the decision is upheld, the higher level of scrutiny could be required for cases of marriage equality, employment, housing, and other areas of LGBT discrimination. Although the higher level of protection decision goes into effect only in the nine Western states of the 9th<\/sup> Circuit, it can be a model for other circuit courts and can lead more LGBT rights cases back to SCOTUS.\u00a0 Within the 9th<\/sup> Circuit, Nevada\u2019s challenge to its state\u2019s same-sex marriage ban may be affected by the heightened scrutiny ruling because a lower court upheld the ban with \u201crational basis,\u201d a lower standard.<\/p>\n

In effect, the heightened scrutiny ruling may put LGBT discrimination claims closer to the same level as gender and race discrimination cases. Gender discrimination laws are subject to \u201cintermediate scrutiny,\u201d and race discrimination laws to the highest level, \u201cstrict scrutiny.\u201d Judges in the 9th<\/sup> Circuit case are the first to not use the rational basis review. Judge Stephen Reinhardt specifically wrote, \u201cWindsor<\/i> review is not rational basis review. In its words and its deed, Windsor<\/i> established a level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation that is unquestionably higher than rational basis review.\u201d \u00a0Windsor <\/i>held that \u201cno legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 1986, SCOTUS ruled that a juror cannot be excluded on the basis of race<\/a>, and in 1994 they ruled that gender cannot be used for exclusion on a jury. The Supreme Court ruled in 1986, for example, that lawyers can\u2019t exclude a possible juror simply on the basis of race. In 1994, the justices reached the same conclusion about gender. Yet in 2005, the 8th<\/sup> Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that LGBT people can be excluded from juries. The 9th<\/sup> Circuit is at odds with that decision.<\/p>\n

Reinhardt is known as the most liberal judge<\/a> in the most liberal circuit court. If the case goes to SCOTUS, Justice Anthony Kennedy is known as the swing vote and may strike down the ruling. Until then, however, heightened scrutiny in LGBT rights cases is the law of nine states in the nation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Although most of the LGBT rights\u2019 cases recently have been on the subject of marriage, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling that may have far more reaching results in forwarding equality for the LGBT population. Last summer\u2019s U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning part of DOMA in Windsor v. United States clarified […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":27,"featured_media":534,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[55,58],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-533","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-carousel","category-glbt-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.glbtrt.ala.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/533","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.glbtrt.ala.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.glbtrt.ala.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.glbtrt.ala.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/27"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.glbtrt.ala.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=533"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.glbtrt.ala.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/533\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.glbtrt.ala.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/534"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.glbtrt.ala.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=533"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.glbtrt.ala.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=533"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.glbtrt.ala.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=533"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}