ALBUQUERQUE, NM—Today, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a historic decision that guarantees same-sex couples the freedom to marry and equal respect for their marriages across America. This ruling is the final nationwide victory to the decades-long freedom to marry movement, ending the state-by-state patchwork of marriage laws and establishing marriage equality as the law of the land.

“Today’s ruling is a historic victory for freedom, equality, inclusion, and above all love,” said Laura Schauer Ives, one of the ACLU attorneys who litigated Griego v. Oliver, the court case that established the freedom to marry in New Mexico in 2013. “We in New Mexico can be proud in knowing that, as the 17th state to legalize marriage for same-sex couples, we played an important role in advancing this issue on the national stage to where we are today.”

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court consolidated six cases from four states on the issue of marriage equality. The ACLU represented clients in two of the six cases, Bourke v. Beshear, a federal court challenge to Kentucky’s constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples, and Obergefell v. Hodges, a case filed in Ohio that presents the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to recognize a same-sex marriage validly licensed by another state. The Supreme Court’s ruling today establishes that state bans on marriage for same-sex couples are unconstitutional, and all states must recognize valid same-sex marriages just as they would opposite-sex marriages.

More than fifty courts ruled in favor of marriage equality following the Supreme Court’s watershed 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In January 2015, the high court granted review of an aberrant Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld marriage bans in the four states – the first appeals court to do so after Windsor.

"Today is a high point in decades of struggle for millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans," said Ives. "It is a day for celebration, but the struggle is not yet over. In many places, LGBT Americans still face discrimination in housing, employment, medical care, and other basic areas of life. Our work continues until LGBT people enjoy the same dignity, respect, and equality under the law as anyone else."

DEMING, NM — The ACLU of New Mexico today announced a positive resolution to a discrimination complaint made by a group of LGBT customers against the Denny’s restaurant in Deming, NM.  The complaint arose when the individuals alleged that they were refused service because of their sexual orientation and that the group was subjected to discriminatory verbal abuse.  Jim Mathieu, the local franchise owner and operator of the Denny’s restaurant in Deming, engaged in settlement negotiations to show his support for the group and that the restaurant values all of its diverse customers.

“We are very pleased to have resolved this matter for our clients,” said Brian Moore, cooperating attorney for the ACLU of New Mexico. “It is clear to us that Denny’s is committed to ensuring that all people are welcomed in their restaurants.”

“Denny’s does not tolerate any discrimination in our organization, and we take any claims to the contrary very seriously,” said Jim Mathieu, local franchise owner and operator of Denny’s in Deming, NM.  “While we disagree with the specifics of the incident, our priority is on ensuring our guests are heard and therefore we worked diligently with Deming Pride and the ACLU of New Mexico to reach this resolution for all.  We wish the best for our guests who were involved in this case.”

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Jim Mathieu has agreed to:

• Provide his employees with extra training on non-discrimination
• Confirm that company discrimination policies comply with state law
• Donate $13,000 to Deming Pride, a local non-profit and charity that promotes diversity and tolerance in the community
• Provide $3,250 to the woman who alleges she was verbally abused by a Denny’s employee.

###

 

Two days before graduating from the State University of New York-Canton with a degree in law enforcement leadership, 21-year-old Jessica Cooke was stopped in her car by Border Patrol agents at a checkpoint on NY Route 37 along the St. Lawrence River’s maritime border with Canada.

Ms. Cooke has driven through such checkpoints frequently, and she even completed the first phase of U.S. Customs and Border Protection physical training to apply for a CBP job. As she arrived at the checkpoint, there was no indication she’d crossed the border; indeed, she showed a driver’s license to confirm her identity and stated where she was coming from, which is more information than she’s required to provide.

The last thing Ms. Cooke could have expected happened: two Border Patrol agents physically assaulted her and shocked her with a stun gun after refusing to answer her repeated question, “Why am I being held?” They explained her detention by saying she looked “nervous.” The Border Patrol agent who assaulted Ms. Cooke preceded his violence with a smug “Go for it” after she warned him she’d sue if he touched her. Contrary to policy, he wasn’t wearing a visible nametag.

Look here at the agents’ brutality recorded by Ms. Cooke’s cellphone.  

CBP has a terrible track record of use-of-force incidents. Until a new commissioner ordered policy changes last year, the agency strongly resisted releasing a damning external report on its uses of force. SinceAnastasio Hernández Rojas was beaten and tased to death on video five years ago, at least 35 people have been killed by CBP agents with zero accountability. CBP’s own former head of internal affairs says thousands hired during an unprecedented expansion in the post-9/11 era are “potentially unfit to carry a badge and gun.” This recent history has left a dark cloud over CBP as a whole, including the many officers and agents who act with integrity.

Border Patrol claims authority to operate checkpoints within 100 miles of any land or water border. They are supposed to be limited to immigration-status inquiries but have unconstitutionally morphed into general crime control, resulting mostly in minor drug arrests. The agents’ excuse for detaining Ms. Cooke was to wait an hour for a dog to sniff her car, yet she wasn’t arrested for contraband or any other reason. The ACLU has long worried that while the 100-mile zone is not literally “Constitution free,” because constitutional protections still apply, “the Border Patrol frequently ignores those protections and runs roughshod over individuals’ civil liberties.”

(The approximate spot of the Border Patrol checkpoint where Jessica Cooke stopped her car.)

Ms. Cooke’s shocking treatment is sadly symptomatic of a pattern: Border Patrol violence is all over the Internet, victimizing those people who question being excessively harassed during their daily activities (and of course not every incident is caught on camera). Take a look at Border Patrol smashing a trucker’s window, or hauling a man out of his car while his toddler’s in the back seat, or Clarisa Christiansen’s story of what Border Patrol agents did to her and her five- and seven-year-old kids on a remote Arizona road. The incident was so traumatic that it led her to homeschool her children because they became too scared to ride in the car. These incidents occurred 60, 35, and 40 miles from any border.

CBP Commissioner Kerlikowske has improved use-of-force reporting, which the inspector general found badly deficient. CBP claims that incidents are down by almost 30 percent this fiscal year. But the agency’s use-of-force policy failed to incorporate a clear definition like the Justice Department’s standard — any force beyond peaceful handcuffing that compels someone to comply, including pointing a firearm — so we don’t know what those stats really mean.

CBP needs to accurately report how many incidents take place and what happens to personnel involved in incidents like Ms. Cooke’s.  Are they immediately placed on administrative leave? Are they eventually suspended or fired?  How can the public trust that CBP agents they encounter understand constitutional rights, de-escalation techniques, and proper uses of force?

Ms. Cooke’s senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, met with CBP about her incident and emerged with “serious concerns about lack of transparency and accountability.” CBP must urgently implement the same best police practices the Obama administration recommends for state and local police reform: comprehensive data collection addressing uses of force and racial profiling, body-worn cameras with privacy protections, and a responsive complaint process.

In horrible pain after being manhandled and electroshocked, Ms. Cooke screamed several times at her government assailant: “What the fuck is wrong with you?”
It’s up to CBP to answer that question for her and many others who’ve been wronged. Otherwise the border communities CBP serves will continue to question whether unjustified Border Patrol violence ever has consequences.