On January 21, the final briefs were filed in our lawsuit challenging the validity of Proposition 8. NCLR is lead counsel on the case, Strauss v. Horton, which is currently pending, along with two others, before the California Supreme Court. The Court, recognizing the importance of this case for all Californians, has implemented an expedited briefing schedule that has been grueling, and oral argument has been set for March 5. We encourage you to read our original writ petition asking the court to take the case, our reply brief, and our answer brief to amici curiae, all of which are available on our website. The briefs set out exactly what is wrong, from a constitutional perspective, with Prop 8 itself and the process by which it was passed.

The depth and breadth of support for our case is extraordinary, with the full gamut of civil rights organizations and law professors from California and across the nation, as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups supporting our argument. A total of 43 friend-of-the-court briefs were filed urging the Court to invalidate Prop 8, which, incredibly, is even more than were filed in support of our arguments in In re Marriage Cases.

Many of the nation’s leading legal scholars agree that Proposition 8 is invalid because it seeks to eliminate a fundamental right only for a targeted minority group, which cannot be done through the amendment process. Professors from universities and law schools in California and across the country authored briefs urging invalidation of Prop 8, including scholars from Harvard University, Stanford University, Yale University, University of California (Berkeley, Los Angeles, Hastings, Davis, Irvine), University of Southern California, University of Pennsylvania, Rutgers University, University of San Francisco, Loyola Law School, Santa Clara Law School, Chapman University, and Pepperdine University.

Oral argument has been set for March 5—less than a month away. Shannon Minter, NCLR’s incredible legal director, will once again argue the case for our side, as he did so powerfully in the marriage case just a year ago. We are confident in our argument, humbled by the support of such powerful allies, and hopeful that the principles underlying California’s constitution will protect all citizens of California.

We extend deep thanks to our co-counsel, Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Enormous thanks are due to our client Equality California and the client couples in this case who agreed with grace and courage to step forward and represent all those whose constitutional rights are at stake in this case. We are proud to work on their behalf. For up-to-the-minute updates on the Prop 8 legal challenge, visit www.nclrights.org/overturn8.

NCLR's full Case Docket

Oral argument in the Prop 8 legal challenge has been set for March 5 and NCLR has kicked off a month-long rally to keep you informed and engaged: Overturn 8: Online Rally Supporting the Prop 8 Legal Challenge. As lead counsel in the Prop 8 legal challenge, NCLR is working to educate people about the importance of overturning Prop 8—a radical and unprecedented change to the California Constitution that puts all Californians at risk.

Prop 8 marks the first time that an attempt has been made to use the initiative process to change the California Constitution to take away a fundamental freedom from a particular group and to mandate government discrimination against a minority. NCLR is doing all it can to make sure that this harmful proposition is overturned. Participation is simple: just join us online, click “attending,” change your profile picture, and share this event with all of your friends. With your help, we can create a large online base of support for the Prop 8 legal challenge.

In addition to our online rally, NCLR staff is working to make sure that we are everywhere you are. From hosting events across the country to creating an account on Twitter for Kate, our goal is to bring you the latest updates on all of our work as it happens.

Check us out online:

• Join the online rally
• Become a fan of NCLR on Facebook
• Become Kate’s friend on Facebook
• Follow Kate on Twitter
• Get your Overturn 8 shirt and other merchandise from our new Overturn 8 store!
• And of course, we are always updating our online weblog and website

Johnson v. SooHoo | Victory! (Iowa)

Marilyn Johnson and Nancy SooHoo adopted two children from China while they were in a committed relationship. Because they could not adopt children from China as a same-sex couple, only Johnson legally adopted the children. The couple parented the children together and they were a family for over two years. When the couple broke up, Johnson unilaterally cut off contact between SooHoo and the children.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held in 2007 that SooHoo was a person “in loco parentis” who had a parent-child relationship with the children, and found that it was in the children’s best interest to have visitation with SooHoo, whom they called “mommy.” In 2008, Johnson moved the children to Iowa and later filed a petition in Iowa in an attempt to end SooHoo’s visitation with the children.

In December 2008, an Iowa trial court held that under federal law, it could not reconsider the visitation decision made by the Minnesota court. The court held that the Minnesota court has exclusive jurisdiction under the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act as long as SooHoo continues to live there, with the result that SooHoo maintains visitation rights with her children. This case is an important victory for LGBT families who move to different states and deserve the same respect and recognition for their families as in their home state.

SooHoo was represented in Iowa by the firm Nyemaster, Goode, West, Hansell & O'Brien, P.C., with NCLR’s assistance.

click here to read more about NCLR's Family Law Project

NCLR's full Case Docket

With more fair-minded members of Congress and President Barack Obama openly supporting a civil rights agenda encompassing LGBT-inclusive civil rights legislation, it might be tempting to relax. However, with so many pressing issues at stake in Washington, we must work together now, to push our national elected representatives to focus on combating discrimination and advancing LGBT equality. We must make our collective voice heard loudly right from the start in this 111th Congress.

Among the top priorities on the federal legislative agenda is a unified ENDA: a federal law that would protect against workplace discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity. This legislation is both desperately needed and long overdue. Click here to act now.

Bringing an end to workplace discrimination is the key to so many important things: the ability to support oneself and one’s family, to have somewhere to live, to one’s dignity and self-respect, to health insurance and other employee benefits, and more. With more fair-minded members of Congress and a president who has said he supports this legislation, our longstanding hopes of securing federal workplace protections for LGBT people can be realized, but each one of us must do our share to persuade Congress that ENDA is a top priority for our community.

President Obama has already pledged his support of an inclusive ENDA—let’s help put the bill on his desk to be signed: get involved here.