National Gay Task Force v. Board of Education

Last updated

National Gay Task Force v. Board of Education of the City of Oklahoma City
US-CourtOfAppeals-10thCircuit-Seal.png
Court of Appeals Docket: 82-1912
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Full case name National Gay Task Force, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Board of Education of Oklahoma City, Defendant-Appellee.
DecidedMarch 14, 1984.
Citation729 F.2d 1270 (10th Cir. 1984)
Case history
Subsequent actionsaffirmed by an equally divided U.S. Supreme Court, 470 U.S. 903 (1985)
Court membership
Judges sittingJudges James E. Barrett, Monroe G. McKay, James Kenneth Logan
Case opinions
MajorityLogan, joined by McKay
DissentBarrett

National Gay Task Force v. Board of Education of the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 729 F.2d 1270 (10th Cir. 1984), was a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that upheld in part, and struck down in part, a law allowing schools to fire teachers for public homosexual conduct. It was the first federal appellate court decision to deny that sexual orientation is a suspect classification. It was affirmed by an equally divided vote in the United States Supreme Court.

Contents

Case Facts

An Oklahoma state law enacted in 1978 [1] authorized schools to fire teachers for "[engaging] in public homosexual conduct or activity"; and "[has] been rendered unfit, because of such conduct or activity, to hold a position as a teacher, student teacher or teachers' aide. " [2] The National Gay Task Force filed a facial, class-action challenge to this law on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. [3]

District Court Ruling

The Tenth Circuit trial court rejected the legal challenges to the statute. On reaching the First Amendment issue, it read a "material and substantial disruption" test into the statute. [4]

Appellate Court Ruling

The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court ruling. With respect to the provision allowing teachers to be fired for engaging in public homosexual activity, the Court rejected due process and equal protection challenges. It held that since the act imposed adverse consequences solely on the basis of public acts, "the right of privacy, whatever its scope in regard to homosexual acts, is not implicated". [5] In weighing the equal protection challenge, the Court rejected the notion that sexual orientation is a suspect classification. [6] It then rejected the equal protection challenge under rational basis review.

On weighing the First Amendment claim, the Court held that the conduct portion of " § 6-103.15 is overbroad, is "not readily subject to a narrowing construction by the state courts," and "its deterrent effect on legitimate expression is both real and substantial."", [7] and the law regulated "pure speech" [8] It held that "[t]he First Amendment does not permit someone to be punished for advocating illegal conduct at some indefinite future time. [9] It used the example of a teacher who went before the Oklahoma legislature or appeared on television to urge the repeal of the Oklahoma anti-sodomy statute would be "advocating," "promoting," and "encouraging" homosexual sodomy and creating a substantial risk that his or her speech would come to the attention of school children or school employees if he or she said, "I think it is psychologically damaging for people with homosexual desires to suppress those desires. They should act on those desires and should be legally free to do so." [10] It held that "the statute by its plain terms is not easily susceptible of a narrowing construction" because "[t]he Oklahoma legislature chose the word "advocacy" despite the Supreme Court's interpretation of that word in Brandenburg [v. Ohio] " And it held that "the deterrent effect of § 6-103.15 is both real and substantial. It applies to all teachers, substitute teachers, and teachers aides in Oklahoma" Thus, the Court concluded that the statute was "unconstitutionally overbroad". [10]

In dealing with the provision that a teacher had to be found unfit before public homosexual conduct can be a basis for termination, it noted that "many adverse effects are not material and substantial disruptions. The statute does not require that the teacher's public utterance occur in the classroom. Any public statement that would come to the attention of school children, their parents, or school employees that might lead someone to object to the teacher's social and political views would seem to justify a finding that the statement "may adversely affect" students or school employees. The statute does not specify the weight to be given to any of the factors listed. An adverse effect is apparently not even a prerequisite to a finding of unfitness" [11]

Appellate Court Dissent

Judge Barrett dissented, arguing that "[s]odomy is malum in se ; i.e., immoral and corruptible in its nature without regard to the fact of its being noticed or punished by the law of the state", [12] and that "[a]ny teacher who advocates, solicits, encourages or promotes the practice of sodomy" in a manner that creates a substantial risk that such conduct will come to the attention of school children or school employees "is in fact and in truth inciting school children to participate in the abominable and detestable crime against nature." [10]

Supreme Court Proceedings

The defendants petitioned for a writ of certiorari, and the United States Supreme Court granted cert. It heard oral arguments on January 14, 1985, with Laurence Tribe representing the respondents. This was the first oral argument before the Supreme Court on any gay rights issue. In oral argument, Justice William Rehnquist noted that the statute had "never been applied to a single living soul", and Tribe countered that the law was a "chilling" and "Draconian" violation of speech, and the Court may reach the merits. [13] [14] The Supreme Court affirmed by an equally divided vote, 4-4, with Justice Lewis Powell abstaining. [1] [15]

See also

Related Research Articles

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that U.S. state laws criminalizing sodomy between consenting adults are unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a "right to privacy" that earlier cases had found the U.S. Constitution provides, even though it is not explicitly enumerated. It based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with any or all forms of private sexual activities between consenting adults.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults, in this case with respect to homosexual sodomy, though the law did not differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual sodomy. It was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), though the statute had already been struck down by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1998.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sodomy laws in the United States</span> Aspect of United States law

The United States has inherited sodomy laws which constitutionally outlawed a variety of sexual acts that are deemed to be illegal, illicit, unlawful, unnatural and/or immoral from the colonial-era based laws in the 17th century. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex, many sodomy-related statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes, in some cases even including acts between married persons.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 1985.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 1984.

Kentucky v. Wasson, 842 S.W.2d 487, was a 1992 Kentucky Supreme Court decision striking down the state's anti sodomy laws that criminalized sexual activity between two people of the same-sex, holding that this was a violation of both the equal protection of the laws and the right to privacy. The Kentucky case helped pave the way for many other states and eventually the United States Supreme Court to issue similar rulings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William H. Pryor Jr.</span> American judge (born 1962)

William Holcombe Pryor Jr. is an American lawyer who has served as the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit since 2020. He was appointed as a United States circuit judge of the court by President George W. Bush in 2004. He is a former commissioner of the United States Sentencing Commission. Previously, he was the attorney general of Alabama, from 1997 to 2004.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">José A. Cabranes</span> Puerto Rican judge (born 1940)

José Alberto Cabranes is an American lawyer who serves as a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and a former presiding judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ("FISCR"). Formerly a practicing lawyer, government official, and law teacher, he was the first Puerto Rican appointed to a federal judgeship in the continental United States (1979).

The crime against nature or unnatural act has historically been a legal term in English-speaking states identifying forms of sexual behavior not considered natural or decent and are legally punishable offenses. Sexual practices that have historically been considered to be "crimes against nature" include masturbation, sodomy and bestiality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Oklahoma</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Oklahoma face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Oklahoma as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws. Both same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples have been permitted since October 2014. State statutes do not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal. This practice may still continue, as Oklahoma is an at-will employment state and it is still legal to fire an employee without requiring the employer to disclose any reason.

San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting the trademark rights of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to regulate the use of the word "Olympic" under the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. (SFAA) attempted to organize a sporting events it called the Gay Olympic Games, and the USOC sought to enjoin the games under that name. SFAA claimed that the First Amendment overrode the rights that the Act gave the USOC to control the word Olympic.

<i>Franklin v. State</i> Florida Supreme Court case decriminalizing sodomy

Franklin v. State, 257 So. 2d 21, was a case in which the Florida Supreme Court struck down Florida's sodomy law as being "unconstitutional for vagueness and uncertainty in its language, violating constitutional due process to the defendants." The court retained the state's prohibition on sodomy by ruling that anal and oral sex could still be prosecuted under the lesser charge of "unnatural and lascivious" conduct, thus reducing the crime from a felony to a misdemeanor.

<i>Cook v. Gates</i> American legal case

Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42, is a decision on July 9, 2008, of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that upheld the "Don't ask, Don't tell" (DADT) policy against due process and equal protection Fifth Amendment challenges and a free speech challenge under the First Amendment, and which found that no earlier Supreme Court decision held that sexual orientation is a suspect or quasi-suspect classification.

<i>Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children & Family Services</i> Court order denying homosexuals freedom to adopt children

Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children & Family Services, is a 2004 decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upholding Florida's ban of adoption of children by homosexual persons as enforced by the Florida Department of Children and Families.

Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977), often shortened to Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, was a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision arising from a fired teacher's lawsuit against his former employer, the Mount Healthy City Schools. The Court considered three issues: whether federal-question jurisdiction existed in the case, whether the Eleventh Amendment barred federal lawsuits against school districts, and whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevented the district, as a government agency, from firing or otherwise disciplining an employee for constitutionally protected speech on a matter of public concern where the same action might have taken place for other, unprotected activities. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion.

People v. Aguilar, 2 N.E.3d 321, was an Illinois Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUF) statute violated the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court stated that this was because the statute amounted to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that was specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. A conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (UPF) was proper because the possession of handguns by minors was conduct that fell outside the scope of the Second Amendment's protection.

Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney of Richmond, 425 U.S. 901 (1976), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which gave summary affirmation of a lower court ruling which upheld the U.S. state of Virginia's ban on homosexual sodomy.

References

  1. 1 2 Justices Affirm Ruling Upholding Gay Teachers' Rights Phil Hager, Los Angeles Times, March 27, 1985, accessed via latimes.com July 6, 2012
  2. ↑ National Gay Task Force v. Board of Education, 729 F.2d 1270 at 1272 (10th Cir. 1984), citing Okla.Stat. tit. 70, § 6-103.15, (B) 1,2 Via Leagle Accessed July 6, 2012
  3. ↑ Anti-Homosexual Law Challenged in U.S. Appeals Court Education Week Sep. 28, 1983 Accessed July 6, 2012
  4. ↑ National Gay Task Force, 729 F.2d at 1272, citing district court ruling
  5. ↑ National Gay Task Force, 729 F.2d at 1273, citing Lovisi v. Slayton,539 F.2d 349 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 977, 97 S.Ct. 485, 50 L.Ed.2d 585 (1976)
  6. ↑ "We cannot find that a classification based on the choice of sexual partners is suspect, especially since only four members of the Supreme Court have viewed gender as a suspect classification" id. at 1273, citing Frontiero v. Richardson,411 U.S. 677, 93 S.Ct. 1764, 36 L.Ed.2d 583 (1973)
  7. ↑ id. at 1274, citing Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville,422 U.S. 205, 216, 95 S.Ct. 2268, 2276, 45 L.Ed.2d 125 (1975)
  8. ↑ id., citing New York v. Ferber,458 U.S. 747, 772-773, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 3362-3363, 70 L.Ed.2d 587 (U.S.1982)
  9. ↑ id., citing Hess v. Indiana,414 U.S. 105, 109, 94 S.Ct. 326, 329, 38 L.Ed.2d 303 (1973)
  10. 1 2 3 id.
  11. ↑ id. at 1275
  12. ↑ National Gay Task Force, 729 F.2d at 1276 (Barrett, J., dissenting)
  13. ↑ Board of Education v. National Gay Task Force , 470 U.S. 903 (1985)
  14. ↑ Supreme Court Hears Debate on Law Banning Gay Teachers Aaron Epstein, Bangor Daily News, January 15, 1985 Accessed via Google News Archive Search July 6, 2012
  15. ↑ High court upholds homosexual appeal in school law case Houstin Chronicle News Services March 27, 1985 Accessed via Chron.Com July 6, 2012
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.