Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Podcast John C. Eastman April 28, 2015
The long-anticipated gay marriage cases have now been argued in the Supreme Court. The questions presented are: whether the Fourteenth Amendment "require[s]" a "state to issue a marriage license to two people of the same sex", and/or "to recognize amarriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed" in another state or jurisdiction. Join a special Courthouse Steps edition of Teleforum as we discuss the oral argument: Which advocate seemed to fair best? Who fielded the most difficult questions? Which justices seemed most skeptical of which side of the argument? What are the possible outcomes of the case, and what are the implications of those possible outcomes?
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Podcast
- Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University School of Law
On January 16, 2015, the Supreme Court granted cert in four same-sex marriage cases from the Sixth Circuit (one case from each of four states of the circuit, -- Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky). The questions presented in the cases are: whether the Fourteenth Amendment "require[s]" a "state to issue a marriage license to two people of the same sex", and/or "to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed" in another state or jurisdiction. This Teleforum previewed the strongest and weakest points of argument for each side in the case.
Religious Liberties Practice Group Podcast
- Prof. Gerard V. Bradley, University of Notre Dame Law School
- Prof. Ilya Somin, George Mason University School of Law
A bill to enact the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA") was introduced into the 113th Congress and approved by the Senate by a 64-32 vote. The Act would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by employers with at least 15 employees. Non-profit membership clubs and organizations that are solely religious are exempted, but religiously affiliated organizations (such as hospitals and schools) are not.
Proponents and opponents disagree about whether sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination is widespread and a serious problem. Proponents point, for example, to a field experiment in which job applications with a fictitious resumé including membership in a gay organization in college received substantially fewer invitations for interviews than did applications with a fictitious resumé identical except for the membership. Opponents note studies showing that gays have average or above-average incomes and conclude that discrimination does not seem to have impaired their earning potential.
There is also disagreement about the impact ENDA would have on people of faith. Proponents note that the religious exemptions of ENDA track those of other federal anti-discrimination laws. Opponents point out that disapproval of homosexual acts is a fundamental tenet of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, as well as of many other faiths, and that ENDA would be the first American federal law to outlaw exercise of a mainstream belief of our major religions.
- Prof. David E. Bernstein, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
- Prof. William N. Eskridge, Jr., John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law School
[Listen now!] Civil Rights and Religious Liberties Practice Groups Podcast
On August 22, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in Elane Photography v. Willock that the First Amendment doesn't protect a photographer's right to decline to take pictures of a same-sex wedding ceremony against the requirements of the state's Human Rights Act, which forbids discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation. The case perfectly illustrates the tension between the ideals of non-discrimination and individual freedom. Join us as our expert discusses both sides of the issue.
- Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
- Moderator: Christian Corrigan, Director of Publications, The Federalist Society