Civil Rights

SACRAMENTO --- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris has joined 11 other state attorneys general in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court in Magner v. Gallagher to rule that federal anti-discrimination law can be enforced in cases where a housing or mortgage policy appears neutral on its surface but has a discriminatory effect.

“Segregation in housing and barriers to equal opportunity remain a great concern for communities throughout the country. Disparate impact causes of action are needed to respond to contemporary forms of bias and to eliminate practices and policies that perpetuate segregated housing patterns,” the amicus brief states.

This case involves a policy of the City of St. Paul, Minnesota to remedy “problem properties” by targeting low-income renter-occupied properties for housing-code violations, condemnations and evictions. In 2004 and 2005, a group of current and former owners of rental properties challenged the city’s policy, contending that these practices had a disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities and, in particular, African Americans. African Americans made up 60 to 70 percent of the city’s low-income renters, while they made up approximately 12 percent of the population of St. Paul.

“For more than four decades, the Fair Housing Act has been a key tool for rooting out discrimination in housing and residential financing,” Attorney General Harris said. “Minority homeowners and renters in California, who have been disproportionately impacted by the housing and mortgage crisis, deserve access to housing without facing discrimination and other deceptive practices.”

The plaintiffs challenged the city’s policy in federal court under the Fair Housing Act, which is part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability. In 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that housing policies that disproportionately impact protected groups violate the Fair Housing Act and are subject to disparate-impact scrutiny. The City appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments in the matter in February 2012.

A bipartisan group of attorneys general joining California in this brief represent Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Utah and West Virginia.

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

SACRAMENTO --- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today issued the following statement on the Perry v. Brown ruling:

“While the Department of Justice argued the Proposition 8 proponents do not have standing to pursue this appeal, the court has ruled otherwise. This ruling now shifts the litigation to the federal court of appeals. I firmly believe that Proposition 8 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution and am confident that justice will prevail.”

SAN FRANCISCO -- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris has filed a brief in the case of Kristin M. Perry, et al. v. Edmund G. Brown Jr., et al. A copy of the brief is attached.

SAN FRANCISCO – Attorney General Kamala D. Harris has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case of Kristin M. Perry, et al. v. Edmund G. Brown Jr., et al. A copy of the brief is attached.

SAN FRANCISCO – Attorney General Kamala D. Harris hosted a Smart on Crime Policy Summit today with a veteran, bi-partisan group of leaders from across the state. Ten work groups – focusing on topics ranging from policing to victims’ rights – prepared briefing papers for Attorney General Harris. The papers, dealing with critical issues facing California, were the focus of the summit at U.C. Hastings College of the Law.

The 10 groups drew insights from best practices of other attorneys general, law enforcement leaders, universities, foundations, think tanks and others at the forefront of research, ideas and innovation. More information about the work groups, and the briefing papers, can be found at: www.smartoncrimepolicy.org.

The honorary co-chairs are William Bratton, former Los Angeles Chief of Police; Warren Christopher, former U.S. Secretary of State; Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers; State Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco); Constance L. Rice, co-director of The Advancement Project; George Shultz, former U.S. Secretary of State; and Kathleen Sullivan, professor and former dean of Stanford Law School.

The following is a list of topic areas and chairs of the 10 work groups:

Civil Rights Enforcement
Bill Lann Lee, Shareholder, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C.

Education & Truancy
Carlos Garcia, Superintendent, San Francisco Unified School District
Laurene Powell, Co-founder & President of the Board, College Track

Environmental Enforcement
Rick Frank, Director, California Environmental Law & Policy Center, U.C. Davis School of Law
John Poyner, District Attorney, Colusa County

Organized Crime, Gangs and Gun Crime
Lee Baca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County
Charlie Beck, Chief of Police, Los Angeles Police Department
Rev. Jeff Carr, Chief of Staff, Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa, City of Los Angeles
Gilbert Otero, District Attorney, Imperial County
Mike Ramos, District Attorney, San Bernardino County
Jack Weiss, Managing Director & Head of Los Angeles Office, Kroll

Health
Paul Gallegos, District Attorney, Humboldt County
Jane Garcia, CEO, La Clincia de La Raza
Dr. Mitch Katz, Director, Los Angeles Public Health Department
Dr. Bob Ross, President & CEO, The California Endowment

Mortgage Fraud and Consumer Protection
Kelly Dermody, Partner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
Dan Grunfeld, Co-Chair, Litigation Department, Kaye Scholer
Greg Totten, District Attorney, Ventura Country

Policing
Tony Batts, Chief of Police, Oakland Police Department
Ron Davis, Chief of Police, East Palo Alto Police Department
George Gascon, District Attorney, San Francisco
Bill Landsdowne, Chief of Police, San Diego Police Department

Reentry & Recidivism Reduction
Lee Baca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County
Bonnie Dumanis, District Attorney, San Diego County
Larry Morse, District Attorney, Merced County
Tim Silard, President, Rosenberg Foundation
Mimi Silbert, President & CEO, Delancey Street Foundation

Technology
Ed Berberian, District Attorney, Marin County
Jack Christin, Jr., Associate General Counsel, eBay/PayPal
David Drummond, Senior Vice President & Chief Legal Officer, Google
Fred Humphries, Managing Director, Microsoft
Bruce Ives, Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, Hewlett-Packard
Scott Forstall, Senior Vice President, iPhone Software, Apple
Mitchell Kapor, Founder, Lotus Development Corporation
Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Operating Officer, Facebook

Victims' Rights
Gary Lieberstein, District Attorney, Napa County
Nancy O’Malley, District Attorney, Alameda County
Esta Soler, Founder & President, Family Violence Prevention Fund

For additional information, please call the Attorney General’s press office at 510.622.4500.

###

SAN FRANCISCO - Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to dismiss its order prohibiting same-sex marriages in California until an appeal of Proposition 8 is resolved.

“For 846 days, Proposition 8 has denied equality under the law to gay and lesbian couples,” Attorney General Harris said. “Each and every one of those days, same-sex couples have been denied their right to convene loved ones and friends to celebrate marriages sanctioned and protected by California law. Each one of those days, loved ones have been lost, moments have been missed, and justice has been denied.”

In a statement filed with the Ninth Circuit, Attorney General Harris asked the appeals court to lift its stay of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling declaring Proposition 8 -- which prohibits same-sex couples from marrying in California -- unconstitutional.

The appeal of Judge Walker’s ruling is pending before the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit has also asked the California Supreme Court to rule whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to defend the initiative in court.

Last year, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. also opposed the stay.

Attorney General Harris said it is unlikely that an appeal will succeed in overturning Judge Walker’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. The appeal’s likelihood of success has been substantially diminished, Attorney General Harris said, “both by the United States Attorney General’s conclusion that sexual orientation classifications are unconstitutional because they cannot survive rational basis scrutiny, and by this Court’s certification order to the California Supreme Court, which seriously questions the Court’s jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case.”

In addition, Attorney General Harris said, “there is no injury that the proponents of Proposition 8 will suffer if same-sex couples are permitted to enter into civil marriages in California.” But as long as the stay on same-sex marriages remains in effect, Attorney General Harris said, the due process and equal protection rights of same-sex couples will continue to be violated, perpetuating unconstitutional discrimination and making a stay of Judge Walker’s ruling legally inappropriate.

“The President and the United States Attorney General have determined that they will not continue to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (‘DOMA’),” Harris said, because sexual orientation classifications warrant heightened scrutiny and, under that demanding standard, the law is unconstitutional.”

The California Attorney General’s long-standing position, Harris told the Ninth Circuit, is that Proposition 8 “violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

“I applaud the President and Attorney General’s decision today to uphold the Constitution and to decline to defend the federal ban on same-sex marriage,' California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris said. “It has long been my view that such a ban on same-sex marriage cannot be sustained under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – a view of the law rooted in a proud line of American jurisprudence stretching back over 50 years.

“The fundamental oath one takes as the People’s counsel is to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Attorney General Holder is doing so in his principled refusal to uphold a law that violates the Constitution’s basic guarantees of equality and fairness. I applaud his and the President’s courage in doing so and will continue our work to secure marriage equality for all Californians.”

Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr.'s statement on Judge Walker's ruling on Proposition 8 today:

In striking down Proposition 8, Judge Walker came to the same conclusion I did when I declined to defend it: Proposition 8 violates 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.

SANTA ANA – In a “notable judgment” for victims of violent hate crimes, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. announced that his office has secured a novel civil award against two individuals who targeted a man based on his ethnicity, forced him out of his car and beat him until blood flowed from his ears.

“Victims of crimes inspired by hate deserve every remedy available under the law,” Brown said. “This notable judgment ensures that in California, justice doesn’t stop at the criminal courtroom door.”

The judgment, signed late last week, requires James Joseph Kelly III, 28, of California City and Justin Louis Mullins, 26, of Garden Grove each to pay $25,000 to Felipe Alvarado, 31, whom they brutally assaulted and verbally harassed.

The incident began about 2 a.m. on August 9, 2007 in Garden Grove. As Alvarado waited at a traffic light at the intersection of Magnolia Street and Trask Avenue, Mullins and Kelly pulled up and began verbally harassing him. Alvarado ignored the insults, but on the other side of the intersection, in the parking lot of his workplace, the two men jumped out of their vehicle, forced Alvarado out of his vehicle and dragged him to the pavement. Defenseless, Alvarado was punched, kneed and kicked until blood flowed from his ears.

During the assault, the men insulted Alvarado with ethnic slurs. The beating left him with permanent back pain and hearing loss.

Today’s civil judgment follows criminal convictions in October 2008. Kelly was sentenced to nine months in jail on one count of misdemeanor assault. Mullins was sentenced to three years in state prison for misdemeanor assault, driving under the influence and violating probation.

The civil case marks the first time the Attorney General has filed a case to benefit victims of violent crimes under the Ralph Civil Rights Act, which enables victims of many types of hate crimes to pursue civil penalties in addition to criminal charges. Given the circumstances and brutality of the crimes, Brown decided to pursue a civil case after the defendants were released from confinement.

Victims who believe their rights have been violated under the Ralph Act or any of California’s other civil rights laws, can file a complaint with Brown’s Civil Rights Enforcement Section at http://ag.ca.gov/contact/complaint_form.php?cmplt=PL.

Copies of Brown’s complaint and last week’s judgment, entered in Orange County Superior Court, are attached.

Saying that “disrupting a private funeral with vicious personal attacks goes too far,” California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has signed a friend-of-the-court brief filed today in a Supreme Court case that will test whether families grieving at a funeral have a right to be free of hate-filled attacks from fanatical protesters.

Brown is one of 48 state attorneys general who gave their support to Albert Snyder in his lawsuit against Fred W. Phelps, Sr. and the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.

Near the 2006 Maryland funeral of Snyder’s son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, the vehemently anti-gay Phelps and his parishioners demonstrated and waved signs that said “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and some that employed even more offensive language. Matthew Snyder, 20, was killed in a Humvee accident a month after he arrived in Iraq.

“Free speech is a cherished American right,” Brown said, “but disrupting a private funeral with vicious personal attacks on the grieving family goes too far.”

Phelps believes that U.S. military deaths represent God’s judgment on the country’s tolerance of homosexuality. He and his church members have staged their hate-filled protests at some 200 military funerals across the country.

Albert Snyder filed a civil suit against Phelps for invading his family’s privacy and intentionally inflicting emotional distress on them. A U.S. district court awarded Snyder $10 million, but a federal appeals court overturned that verdict and ordered Snyder to pay Phelps’ legal costs.

Forty states have enacted “funeral picketing” or “funeral protest” laws regulating the time, place and conduct of demonstrations near funeral services.

The amicus brief, submitted by Kansas Attorney General Steve Six, argues that such laws are necessary to protect the traditional “sanctity and privacy” of funerals and to prevent mourning families of veterans from being “attacked viciously and personally.” The picketing, the brief says, “amounts to emotional terrorism” directed at a “captive audience.”

Freedom of speech does not permit hate groups to espouse hate-filled vitriol at a private funeral service for the purpose of intentionally inflicting emotional distress on mourners.

“All we wanted,” Albert Snyder told a reporter, “was a private funeral for my son. They turned it into a three-ring circus.”

The Supreme Court is expected to hear his case in October. A copy of the brief is attached.