LAMBDA LEGAL ARCHIVE SITETHIS SITE IS NO LONGER MAINTAINED. TO SEE OUR MOST RECENT CASES AND NEWS, VISITNEW LAMBDALEGAL.ORG

Outrageous Dissent from Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Shows why Our Fight for Fair Courts Continues

Browse By

Blog Search

July 9, 2015
Comments
Eric Lesh, Fair Courts Project Manager

A disturbing dissent from Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Jefferson Hughes illustrates why Lambda Legal’s fight for fair and impartial courts must and will continue.

In Obergefell v Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry violates the U.S. Constitution. This landmark ruling invalidated all state statutes and constitutional amendments barring same-sex couples from marriage.

In addition, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Louisiana, issued a final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in Lambda Legal’s case Robicheaux v. Caldwell, striking down Louisiana’s discriminatory marriage ban once and for all.

Of course, the Supreme Court has the final word on the U.S Constitution and the ruling in Obergefell is binding on every court in the nation—including the Louisiana Supreme Court.

In light of this fact, the Louisiana Supreme Court on Monday dismissed as moot a state court case involving the rights of a married same-sex couple—a good result given that the Obergefell decision and the action in Robicheaux meant the issues in the case were resolved.

But one lone Justice dissented. Casting his duty to support the rule of law aside, Justice Jefferson Hughes suggested that he would not follow the Supreme Court’s ruling:

Judges instruct jurors every week not to surrender their honest convictions merely to reach agreement. I cannot do so now, and respectfully dissent. Marriage is not only for the parties. Its purpose is to provide children with a safe and stable environment in which to grow. It is the epitome of civilization. Its definition cannot be changed by legalisms.

Justice Hughes went on to inject a bit of shocking antigay bias into his dissent, noting:

The most troubling prospect of same sex marriage is the adoption by same sex partners of a young child of the same-sex.

In addition to being patently offensive and in violation of his ethical obligations to act without bias or prejudice, Hughes’ statement had absolutely noting to do with the facts of the case.

Justice Hughes practically promised this kind of action during his campaign as evidenced by this TV ad in which he stated that he was “pro-life, pro-gun, pro-traditional marriage.” It’s certainly hard to imagine that Justice Hughes would rule fairly and impartially in a case involving marriage discrimination after such an ad, despite his sworn oath to do exactly that. 

That is why Lambda Legal’s Fair Courts Project fights to preserve judicial independence. When the line that separates justice from politics is blurred, it places our rights at risk! We deserve courts that decide cases involving the rights of LGBT people and people living with HIV free of harmful bias and with a commitment to the rule of law.