Civil Rights Advocacy

Amicus Briefs

Pro Bono

Civil Rights Advocacy

LGLA promotes the interests of its members, and the GLBT community as a whole, by preparing and/or joining amicus briefs filed in legal cases raising issues of importance to the community. These activities are coordinated by LGLA's Amicus Committee. If you are interested in being on the amicus committee, or are aware of matters which may be appropriate for amicus briefing by LGLA, please contact Vanessa Eisemann at 626.585.9611.

LGLA Amicus Update - 2003

By Vanessa Eisemann
Chair, Amicus Committee

In keeping with its commitment to the LGBT community, LGLA's amicus committee has been busy in the last year and a half. First, LGLA signed on to an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas that argued for the applications of an equal protection analysis of the Texas anti-sodomy law that under the equal protection clause, the statute was unconstitutional. This was the position adopted by Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion. See 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2484-2488 (2003).

LGLA has also participated as amicus curiae in two state court matters involving adoption, one of which has been decided. LGLA signed onto an amicus brief in the case of Sharon S. v. Superior Court (Annette F.) in support of the petitioner. Petitioner Sharon S. and her former domestic partner, Annette F., had a child by artificial insemination, and both women reared the child. Annette F. was the biological mother. When the couple parted ways, the Sharon S. petitioned for independent second-parent adoption, but the Annette F. petitioned to block the proceedings. Last month, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in favor of the Sharon S. See 73 P.3d, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 699. It held that (1) termination of a birth parent's rights is not a prerequisite to adoption; and (2) second-parent adoptions are valid under California's adoption laws.

LGLA also signed on to an amicus brief in the case Kristine H. v. Lisa R., pending before the California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District. As in the Sharon S. case, the petitioner, the biological mother, and the respondent had a child together. In this case, however, the women obtained a stipulated order of judgment of parentage before their breakup. The biological mother sought to have the judgment of parentage vacated and lost in the trial court. The amicus brief, not filed on behalf of either party, argues that (1) the stipulated judgment of parentage was proper under California's parentage laws; (2) interpretation the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) to apply even-handedly, regardless of the parents' gender, marital status, or sexual orientation, is consistent with California's public policy; and (3) the UPA should be interpreted to avoid violating parents' and children's rights under the federal and state Constitutions. In light of the recent Sharon S. decision, the Court of Appeal has asked for supplemental briefing regarding the impact of the Sharon S. ruling on the Kristine H. case.

Finally, in Hensala v. U.S. Air Force, we expect the Ninth Circuit will be setting a hearing date shortly following its stay pending the outcome of Lawrence v. Texas. The Ninth Circuit panel hearing the Hensala case consists of Judges Tashima, Thomas and Paez. As you may already know, LGLA authored and submitted an amicus on behalf of Dr. John Hensala in February of 2002. Hensala, a doctor in the Air Force, came out to his supervisors shortly after the "don't ask, don't tell" was implemented and was subsequently discharged. When the Air Force sought to recoup Dr. Hensala's medical school tuition because he had not completed his tour of duty, Dr. Hensala filed suit on the grounds that his failure to complete his duty was involuntary and therefore recoupment was not permissible.

LGLA's brief argued that the Air Force did not follow its own procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act when it investigated Dr. Hensala's motive and intent in "coming out." The armed forces can only seek recoupment if it is determined that an LGBT person came out for the purpose of obtaining a discharge.

Top

Pro Bono Work

LGLA encourages its members participate in a variety of pro-bono activities throughout the year. While LGLA is an active voice on behalf of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered interests, LGLA is unable to provide legal advice or referrals on individual cases as we are not a licensed referral service. For low- or no-cost referrals, we suggest:

The Los Angeles County Bar Association at (213) 243-1525;
The Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center at (323) 993-7400;
Public Counsel at (213) 385-2977; and
The Beverly Hills Bar Association at (310) 553-6644.

These suggestions are provided as a courtesy only, LGLA does not guarantee that any of these organizations will ultimately accept your case, nor do we make any representations regarding their services.

Top