Civil Rights News: Alternatives to Detaining Immigrants; SCOTUS Hears DOMA, Same-Sex Marriage Arguments

Compiled by Emily Van Dusen, a Spring 2013 intern at The Leadership Conference Education Fund

Why detain nonviolent immigrants?
The Los Angeles Times – Editorial

Many immigrants currently being held by the Department of Homeland Security have either no criminal records or misdemeanors, even while cost of detention is extremely high for taxpayers. According to the The Los Angeles Times, inexpensive detention alternatives like electronic monitoring or supervised released are a more cost-effective and sensible for non-violent detainees, especially since only 5% of detainees fail to show up for their court date. With immigration reform in the spotlight, due process for immigrants continues to be an important discussion when figuring out the most efficient way to secure our borders while ensuring civil rights for all.

Majority of justices question constitutionality of DOMA
By Robert Barnes and Sandhya Somashekhar
The Washington Post

In Wednesday’s Supreme Court oral argument concerning the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the justices questioned the validity of the federal government’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages. According to The Washington Post, Justice Bader-Ginsburg referred to current marriage law as creating two classes of marriage: “real marriage and skim milk marriage.” Also questioning the constitutionality of the statute was Justice Kennedy, who stated that marriage has always been “thought to be” up to the states. Supporters of marriage equality continued to rally outside of the court throughout the morning, hoping to encourage the court to rule in favor of federal recognition of same-sex couples.

The California Marriage Case
The New York Times – Editorial

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments about Proposition 8, a ballot proposal passed in California in 2008 that banned same-sex marriage in the state. According to The New York Times, defenders of the proposition struggled to answer questions from the justices about how same-sex marriage differed from interracial marriage and school segregation in terms of equal protection under the law. Those seeking to strike down the law, by contrast, appealed to logic and precedent in order to make their case. As The Times states, “Theodore Olson, representing the supporters of same-sex marriage, had the benefit of solid logic on his side. Noting the long line of Supreme Court cases that have declared marriage a fundamental right, he argued that society had no rational basis denying same-sex couples the dignity that marriage affords.”