The Intersection of LGBTQ Domestic Violence and Criminal Defense Issues

By Professor Christopher Hawthorne and Mieko Failey '13

This article originally appeared in the Los Angeles Daily Journal.

Domestic violence is a significant public health epidemic that impacts people across gender identity and/or sexual orientation. Similarly, in the LGBTQ community, domestic violence is just as common, and oftentimes, more common. For some communities, such as for transgender people and bisexual women, the rates can be more than double or nearly triple those of non-LGBTQ people. And while LGBTQ people experience many of the same imbalances of power within an intimate partner relationship, a significant difference is that LGBTQ survivors confront many barriers in access to resources because of discrimination on the basis of gender identity and/or sexual orientation, including the threat of outing, explicit and implicit bias, transphobia, biphobia, and homophobia, and a lack of training for essential legal system actors. When LGBTQ people experience violence, this happens within a broader social context of anti-LGBTQ bias and oppression.

The dominant narrative about domestic violence often includes a cisgender, heterosexual framework. The experiences of LGBTQ survivors are often left out of this narrative. LGBTQ people experience higher rates of mutual arrest and/or wrongful arrest when law enforcement responds. This is often related to the perception that there is gender equality/equity and therefore an impossibility of a power imbalance. Law enforcement, who lack training on LGBTQ domestic violence issues, often conduct assessments based on gender expression, body size, and other physical characteristics. Once arrested, LGBTQ people report substantial rates of police misconduct based on gender identity and/or sexual orientation when they interact with law enforcement. Primary aggressors rely on these dangerous system actor responses as a tool to continue to maintain power and control over the survivor.

Trump Can’t Fire Transgender Troops

By Professor Maureen Johnson

This op-ed originally appeared in the Los Angeles Daily Journal

Just over two weeks ago, the House of Representatives — with bipartisan support — rejected an amendment to a defense spending bill that would have denied medical coverage for gender transition costs for members of the U.S. military. More particularly, 24 Republican representatives joined with Democrats to shut down the amendment. Notably, CNN reported that Defense Secretary James Mattis privately lobbied against the amendment through direct conversations with the bill’s author, Missouri Rep. Vicky Hartzler, as well as with other Republican representatives.

President Donald Trump’s response? There’s more than one way to skin a cat: If you can’t eliminate medical coverage for transgender-related services, simply eliminate transgender service members from the military.

Last Wednesday, Trump tweeted that he will prohibit transgender people from serving in “any capacity” in our military. To be clear, a series of three tweets in the early morning hours of July 26 proclaimed that the United States military would not “accept or allow” transgender people to serve, presumably meaning that even those transgender members currently serving — which early estimates suggested may be as many as 15,000 — will be summarily discharged, without any regard or respect for their valor or the contributions they already have made to our country.

What to Expect as the Supreme Court Takes Up Marriage

By Associate Professor Douglas NeJaime

This op-ed originally appeared in The Advocate.

The Supreme Court has decided to hear two cases relating to marriage equality. The first, United States v. Windsor, raises the constitutionality of section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition to same-sex couples' marriages. The second, Hollingsworth v. Perry, involves the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment banning marriage for same-sex couples. After the court's announcement, many commentators and some LGBT activists speculated that the court's ultimate decision in the cases would bring the end of marriage-based discrimination against same-sex couples. Some expect the justices to extend the fundamental right to marry to same-sex couples. Others are focusing on equal protection, anticipating a ruling that sexual orientation classifications merit heightened scrutiny. Such a decision would immediately cast doubt on any form of sexual orientation discrimination, including the marriage prohibitions that a vast majority of states maintain.

But this might all be wishful thinking.

Yes, the court might have taken the Windsor case because the Second Circuit Court of Appeals applied heightened scrutiny to sexual orientation classifications, whereas the First Circuit's Gill v. Office of Personnel Management decision applied only rational basis review. But, more likely, the court might have taken Windsor and not Gill because all nine justices could participate in the case. It was widely believed that Justice Kagan would have recused herself from Gill given her role in the Obama administration during deliberations regarding that case.

Read the complete story here.

Prof. Katie Pratt discusses tax consequences of sex-reassignment surgery

Professor Katie Pratt discussed the tax consequences of sex-reassignment surgery at the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review symposium, "LGBT Identity & the Law."

Loyola professors anchor Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review symposium, 'LGBT Identity & the Law'

Loyola Law School and the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review hosted a daylong discussion of the most pressing issues facing the gay, lesbian and transgender community during the symposium "LGBT Identity and the Law" on Friday, Oct. 21 on Loyola's downtown L.A. campus. Antidiscrimination, constitutional culture, healthcare and family issues will be the focus of four panel discussions. The keynote speaker was Dr. Gary Gates, Williams Distinguished Scholar, The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.

"Speakers addressed how sexual orientation issues are shaping constitutional law and politics, how antidiscrimination law both protects and fails to protect sexual minorities, how issues around healthcare access and medical care shape the lives of transgender and intersex individuals, and how the law recognizes and regulates families headed by same-sex couples," said Associate Professor Doug NeJaime, an organizer and moderator of the symposium. "Not only did the panelists chart the trajectory of the LGBT rights movement, they provided fresh commentary and presented new research on current and emerging issues that will shape the future of LGBT rights litigation, policy work and scholarship."