U.S. Supreme Court

SAN FRANCISCO – Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s announcement that it will hear Kathleen Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.:

“Under the Affordable Care Act, all Americans have the right to access affordable, quality healthcare, including contraception,” Attorney General Harris said. “For profit companies should not be able to deny women access to healthcare based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The 10th circuit ruling should be reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

In October, Attorney General Harris filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to take up this case and was joined by ten states including Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

A copy of the first brief is attached to the electronic version of this release at oag.ca.gov/news.

SAN FRANCISCO – Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to review whether for-profit businesses may claim religious exemptions from a requirement under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that employee health plans cover contraception. 

Attorney General Harris’ brief urges the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Kathleen Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and asks the Court to overturn a lower court’s ruling that would allow two for-profit corporations to avoid full compliance with the law.

“Access to contraceptive services is critical to the health of women and infants; women’s economic and social wellbeing; and women’s opportunities to participate fully in society,” the amicus brief states.

Further, the brief argues that a lower court’s determination that for-profit corporations may assert religious exemptions to certain laws could interfere with enforcement of other important regulations that protect public safety, civil rights, social welfare, housing, employment and public health.

“The freedom of individuals to exercise the religion of their choosing is one of the most important values in our society, as reflected by its enshrinement in the federal Constitution. The federal government’s contraceptive coverage regulations under ACA respect that freedom through inclusion of appropriate exemptions, while also advancing the similarly compelling interests in public health and gender equality in access to health care. The court of appeals’ decision would upset that balance and threaten far-reaching impacts on the States beyond the issues presented by this action,” the amicus brief states.

Ten states joined Attorney General Harris’ brief, including Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

The brief addresses a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 

A copy of the brief is attached to the electronic version of this release at oag.ca.gov/news.

LOS ANGELES – Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today declared that the United States Supreme Court’s historic opinion in Hollingsworth v. Perry means that every county in the State of California must now recognize the right of same sex couples to legally marry and asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to lift its stay and allow same-sex marriages to take place.

“The Supreme Court’s historic ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry means that same-sex couples have the fundamental right to be legally married in all of California’s 58 counties,” said Attorney General Harris. “The Court agreed with our argument that opponents of same-sex marriage lacked the legal standing required to bring the issue to the court. Same-sex marriages can legally resume in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifts its stay on the District Court Ruling. I ask that the Ninth Circuit lift this stay immediately, because gay and lesbian couples in California have waited long enough for their full civil rights.”

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, found that proponents of Proposition 8 lacked the legal standing necessary to challenge the rights of gays and lesbians to marry. The Supreme Court decision lets stand a District Court ruling that found Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

Today’s historic Supreme Court opinion echoed legal arguments Attorney General Harris made in an amicus brief submitted to the Court on February 27.

“Because we find that petitioners do not have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit,” reads the Supreme Court opinion.  “We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.”

Attorney General Harris filed a brief with the Supreme Court in February that argued opponents of same-sex marriage had no legal standing to interfere with the rights of others. (https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-files-us-supreme-court-brief-support-marriage)

“Unlike state officials, proponents have no authority to enforce Proposition 8, and suffered no injury-in-fact from the district court’s judgment enjoining its enforcement,” the amicus brief states. As a result, the Proposition 8 sponsors “can only assert the kind of undifferentiated interest in the validity of state law that this Court has held to be insufficient for [legal] standing.”

Attorney General Harris also argued that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional:  “To be clear, Proposition 8’s sole purpose was to prevent same-sex couples from marrying. There is absolutely no legitimate or rational state interest in doing so. Proposition 8 is therefore unconstitutional.”

In May 2011, Attorney General Harris filed a similar amicus brief in California Supreme Court.

Attorney General Harris also praised the Supreme Court’s ruling that found the 1996 “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) unconstitutional. Specifically, the court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor found that Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional because it discriminated against a specific class of people, gays and lesbians.

“DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages.  It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State,” reads the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor. 

In February, Attorney General Harris joined 14 other attorneys general in filing a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down DOMA as unconstitutional.

“I joined 14 other Attorneys General in filing an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn DOMA because it is unconstitutional,” said Attorney General Harris. “It is gratifying to see the highest court in the land deliver an across-the-board victory for equality and justice today. Edith Windsor deserved to have her marriage recognized by the United States, and today’s decision is a historic step forward in the fight for civil rights for same-sex couples across this country.”

A copy of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf. 

In a letter to Governor Brown, Attorney General Harris advised that the State Department of Public Health instruct county clerks and recorders in all 58 counties to resume issuing marriage licenses to and recording the marriages of same-sex couples.  Same-sex marriages will resume as soon as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifts its stay on the District Court ruling.

A copy of the letter sent to Governor Brown is attached to the online version of this release at www.oag.ca.gov.

California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris will hold a press conference today to discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling that the opponents of same-sex marriage do not have standing to sue.

LIVESTREAM  link: http://oag.ca.gov/

In February of this year, Attorney General Harris filed a friend-of-the-court brief to the United States Supreme Court arguing that the opponents of same sex marriage did not have the legal standing necessary to challenge marriage equality in the nation’s highest court. Today, the Supreme Court agreed that Proposition 8’s supporters lacked standing.  A copy of the Attorney General’s amicus brief is attached to the electronic version of this release at: http://oag.ca.gov/news.

WHEN:  TODAY, Wednesday, June 26 - 10:30 a.m.

NOTE: This event is open to credentialed media only.

SAN FRANCISCO -- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris issued the following statement on today’s Proposition 8 arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court:

“I declined to defend Proposition 8 because it violates the Constitution. The Supreme Court has described marriage as a fundamental right 14 times since 1888. The time has come for this right to be afforded to every citizen.”

SAN FRANCISCO -- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the United States Supreme Court arguing that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and the initiative's sponsors do not have the right to claim to represent the interests of California by defending the law in federal court.

"Equal protection under the law is a bedrock of our Constitution and fulfills our nation's binding principle that all people are created equal and should live free of discrimination," said Attorney General Harris. "I look forward to the day when all Californians are granted their full civil rights and can marry the person they love."

In August 2010, a federal district court invalidated Proposition 8 on the grounds that it violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by taking away the right of same-sex couples to marry, without a sufficient governmental interest. Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Harris both refused to defend Proposition 8 on the basis that the law is unconstitutional.

The amicus brief lays out the harm done by Proposition 8 by preventing marriage between gay and lesbian couples.

"The sole yet profound effect of Proposition 8 was to take away the right of gay and lesbian couples to call their union a 'marriage' and to strip loving relationships of validation and dignity under law. It did not change any of the legal rights and responsibilities afforded same-sex couples and their children under California law," the amicus brief states. "To be clear, Proposition 8's sole purpose was to prevent same-sex couples from marrying. There is absolutely no legitimate or rational state interest in doing so. Proposition 8 is therefore unconstitutional."

The brief affirms that creating a stable home for children is an important interest served by marriage under California law – and one that is furthered by allowing all couples to marry. 

"The state's interest in protecting children, including the over 50,000 children in California being raised by same-sex parents, is poorly served by allowing so many of them grow up feeling inferior because their family unit is not validated and honored by law," the amicus brief states. "California's interests in protecting all of its children – and their basic dignity and understanding of fairness and justice – are best served by allowing same-sex couples to enjoy the same benefits of marriage as opposite-sex couples."

Attorney General Harris also argued that the sponsors of Proposition 8 cannot defend the law in federal court because they do not have legal standing to bring this appeal. The brief argues that, unlike state officials, the sponsors lack enforcement authority and therefore do not suffer "injury-in-fact" as a result of a federal district court's judgment enjoining Proposition 8's enforcement.

"The decisions below invade proponents' interest only to the extent that they, like other voters, have a generalized interest in the enforcement of Proposition 8," the amicus brief states. As a result, the Proposition 8 sponsors "can only assert the kind of undifferentiated interest in the validity of state law that this Court has held to be insufficient for [legal] standing."

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the matter on March 26.

In May 2011, Attorney General Harris filed a similar amicus brief in California Supreme Court.

A copy of the U.S. Supreme Court amicus is attached to the online version of this release at www.oag.ca.gov.                           

SAN FRANCISCO --- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris issued the following statement today on the U.S. Supreme Court’s announcement on Proposition 8:

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to consider marriage equality takes our nation one step closer to realizing the American ideal of equal protection under the law for all people,” said Attorney General Harris.

“For justice to prevail, Proposition 8 must be invalidated so that gay and lesbian families are finally treated with equality and dignity.”

SAN FRANCISCO -- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court affirming the critical importance of diversity in higher education.

Attorney General Harris’ brief urges the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm an appellate court decision in Fisher v. University of Texas, a case that involves race-conscious admissions at the University of Texas. The brief argues that the considerable educational and societal benefits of a diverse student body strongly support the Court reaffirming its acknowledgment under the 14th Amendment that the U.S. Constitution affords educators the flexibility to consider race, among many factors, in admission decisions.

Oral arguments for Fisher v. University of Texas will be heard on October 10.

“A diverse student body better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares them as professionals. Moreover, it has been shown that because of the “resegregation” of American society, many students enter college with limited precollege exposure to people of different races, cultures, and ethnicities. Interaction during college years with students of different races and cultures can help disrupt the cycle of resegregation and lead to more positive cross-racial interaction and understanding,” the amicus brief states.

A copy of the brief is attached to the online version of this release at www.oag.ca.gov

SAN FRANCISCO -- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today issued the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act:

“Today’s decision is a historic victory for Californians, for the President, and for the country. The Affordable Care Act repairs a healthcare system badly in need of reform and ensures that every American has access to affordable health care. We never doubted the constitutionality of this law, and it is already making a difference in the lives of millions of Californians.”

SAN FRANCISCO -- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today issued the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Arizona’s illegal immigration legislation:

“I am pleased with the Court’s decision, which strikes down some of the most egregious components of Arizona’s misguided law. It also signals potentially significant constitutional concerns with the law’s mandate on local police officers to act as enforcers of immigration law. As a career prosecutor and California’s chief law enforcement officer, my belief has always been that public safety requires trust and cooperation between law enforcement and the communities we serve. I believe today’s decision is an important step forward in setting aside policies that divide law enforcement from the communities we serve.”