FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE               
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

ELON – The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation (ACLU-NCLF) today announced the successful resolution of a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of John W. Paylor, a resident of Elon and a 55-year-old grandfather who was shot twice with a Taser by Elon police officers on June 18, 2006. The officers had surrounded the home of Mr. Paylor in order to serve him with a misdemeanor arrest warrant for using profanity on a public highway and for reckless driving. A videotape of the incident shows that Mr. Paylor was unarmed, in his underwear, and presented no threat to the officers. Nevertheless, an Elon police officer shot Mr. Paylor with a Taser, causing him to fall from his porch. Then, while Mr. Paylor was lying on the ground, unable to move from the shock of being tased and from the fall down his steps, the officer tased him a second time. Mr. Paylor has sustained permanent physical scarring from the incident. The ACLU-NCLF filed a lawsuit against the Elon Police Department and the individual Elon police officers involved on behalf of Mr. Paylor for excessive use of force in March 2009.    

A settlement agreement was finalized and executed this morning, and cooperating attorneys for the ACLU-NCLF have filed papers in court ending the lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Elon Police Department will implement measures designed to prevent excessive and unnecessary use of Tasers in the future. In particular, Elon police officers will undergo improved annual training on a new Taser policy and on Elon's more general use-of-force policy.  Elon's new Taser policy must be consistent with policies in place in other North Carolina localities that include protections the ACLU believes are important to safeguard against excessive use of Tasers. For example, these policies prevent the use of Tasers against individuals, such as Mr. Paylor, who are not actively resisting officers. These policies also prohibit the use of Tasers against individuals, such as Mr. Paylor, who could potentially receive a secondary injury resulting from falling off an elevated location, and they also limit the number of times an individual can be tased.  Other settlement terms include the following: (1) the officer who tased Mr. Paylor will undergo additional use-of-force and Taser training at the North Carolina Justice Academy; and (2) the Elon Police Chief will instruct all officers that anyone with a personal interest relating to the subject of a misdemeanor warrant shall refrain from serving such warrant in person, unless safety or exigent circumstances require that person to be present. Additionally, the Elon Police Department made a $50,000 settlement payment to Mr. Paylor for his physical, emotional and constitutional injuries.

"I am happy with this outcome," said John Paylor. "What these officers did to me was wrong, and my hope is that this settlement will prevent others from having to suffer what I suffered at the hands of Elon police."

The lawsuit named as defendants certain individual police officers of the Elon Police Department, including Officer Harold T. Dunn, and contended that the officer used his Taser to retaliate against Mr. Paylor for a verbal exchange that occurred between him and Mr. Paylor the day before. The lawsuit further alleged that the other officers who were present failed to intervene to stop Officer Dunn's unlawful actions and therefore likewise violated Mr. Paylor's constitutional right to be free from excessive force. Finally, the lawsuit contended that the Town of Elon bears responsibility for its failure to properly train its officers in the use of Tasers and for a pattern and practice of permitting its police officers to employ Tasers in an excessive and reckless manner. After the lawsuit was filed, other Elon residents came forward and described instances in which they too had been tased unnecessarily by the Elon Police Department.

"We are happy with the settlement, as this was a flagrant abuse of authority by members of the Elon Police Department," said attorney Mark J. Prak, Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU-NCLF, who represented Mr. Paylor. "John Paylor did nothing to deserve this treatment as the police videotape clearly demonstrates. This was a case of an officer abusing his position as a police officer to satisfy his own ego."

The ACLU-NCLF is a founding member of the North Carolina Taser Safety Project, a coalition of nonprofit organizations advocating for the proper use of Tasers by law enforcement and for better training for officers on the weapons' potential risks. These risks are especially pronounced when used on certain vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, the disabled, obviously pregnant women, and people in certain situations that place them at greater risk of harm, such as people standing atop a flight of stairs – as Mr. Paylor was here – who are at risk of injury from falling if shot with a Taser. The Taser Safety Project produced a report in 2008 which can be found online at http://acluofnc.org/files/NotThereYet.pdf.
 
"Tasers are becoming increasingly common in North Carolina and across the country," said Katy Parker, Legal Director for the ACLU-NCLF. "It is important that as officers employ these potentially deadly weapons, they do so only when necessary and that they exercise restraint. These weapons are not toys."

Mr. Paylor was represented by Mark J. Prak, Charles E. Coble and Charles F. Marshall of Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P. in Raleigh, North Carolina, and C. Scott Holmes of Brock, Payne & Meece, P.A. in Durham, North Carolina, as Cooperating Attorneys for the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation, as well as by Katherine Lewis Parker, Legal Director of the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation. A copy of the settlement agreement is available upon request.

Deliberate Indifference And Longstanding Culture Of Brutality Lead To Epidemic Violence At Privately-Run Idaho Correctional Center

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

BOISE, ID – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Idaho today filed a class action federal lawsuit charging that officials at the Idaho Correctional Center (ICC) promote and facilitate a culture of rampant violence that has led to carnage and suffering among prisoners at the state-owned facility operated by the for-profit company Corrections Corporation of America (CCA).

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, the lawsuit charges that epidemic violence at the facility is the direct result of, among other things, ICC officials turning a blind eye to the brutality, a prison culture that relies on the degradation, humiliation and subjugation of prisoners, a failure to discipline guards who intentionally arrange assaults and a reliance on violence as a management tool. 

"In my 39 years of suing prisons and jails, I have never confronted a more disgraceful, revolting and inexcusable case of mass abuse and federal rights violations than this one," said Stephen Pevar, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU. "The level of unnecessary human suffering is appalling. Prison officials have utterly failed to uphold their constitutional obligation to protect prisoners from being violently harmed and we must seek court intervention."

According to the lawsuit, a deeply entrenched culture of brutality has resulted in higher levels of violence at ICC than at Idaho's eight other prisons combined. The lawsuit highlights 24 different cases of assault that have occurred at ICC since November 2006, all of which were entirely preventable and the direct result of failures by ICC officials to protect prisoners despite being placed on notice that these prisoners faced a substantial risk of serious harm. The cases highlighted in the lawsuit are not exhaustive, but instead are merely representative of the scores of additional assaults that have occurred at ICC during the past four years.

The cases of prisoner-on-prisoner violence highlighted in the lawsuit include a prisoner who was hit in his ear so hard that it partially detached from the side of his head, a prisoner who, in anticipation of being brutally assaulted, removed his eyeglasses to protect them prior to receiving a pummeling, a prisoner who was beaten so badly that his teeth were pushed through his lower lip causing effusive bleeding that took an officer more than two hours to clean up, a prisoner who required eight screws to put his jaw back into place after being savagely beaten in the face and a prisoner whose requests for X-rays on the heels of being beaten were met by laughter from a prison guard who callously informed him there was no need for x-rays since his nose was so obviously broken.

Marlin Riggs, one of six named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, entered ICC in May 2008 and was targeted by a group of prisoners he believed were associated with a gang that prison officials knew had a history of threatening and extorting money from other prisoners. Despite his pleas, prison officials refused to move Riggs to a safer living area and he was violently assaulted and left lying in a pool of his own blood with a broken nose and a crushed cheekbone.

"The levels of violence and gross indifference of staff are shameful," said Monica Hopkins, Executive Director of the ACLU of Idaho. "People are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. The administrators of ICC are ignoring their constitutional duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners."

The lawsuit also claims that guards at ICC, in an effort to shield themselves from any complaints of misconduct for having set up many of the assaults, file disciplinary charges against victims. The Commission of Pardons and Parole then has used these fabricated charges as grounds to deny parole to a number of prisoners, including Riggs, creating additional unfair punishment.

Among other things, the lawsuit seeks a court order setting strict deadlines by which ICC must develop and implement adequate policies, as well as hire and train a sufficient number of guards, to safeguard prisoners from assault. The lawsuit argues that if ICC officials continue to ignore their constitutional obligation to protect the prisoners in their care, all prisoners should be removed from the facility.

CCA, which boasts of being the largest owner and operator of private correctional and detention facilities in the U.S. with 63 facilities in 20 states housing approximately 76,000 prisoners, has faced hundreds of lawsuits in recent years, including two ACLU lawsuits challenging overcrowding and unconstitutional medical care at the San Diego Correctional Facility, an immigration detention facility in San Diego.  

A copy of today's complaint is available online at: www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/riggs-et-al-v-valdez-et-al-second-amended-complaint

Additional information about the ACLU is available online at: www.aclu.org

Additional information about the ACLU of Idaho is available online at: www.acluidaho.org

Government Continues To Suppress Key Information About Hundreds Detained At Secretive Prison

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today asked a federal court to order the government to stop suppressing key information about the hundreds of prisoners at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

In response to an ACLU Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for records related to the detention and treatment of prisoners at Bagram, the Defense Department in January released for the first time a list of the people imprisoned at the notorious detention facility. The list contains the names of 645 prisoners who were detained there as of September 2009, but other vital information including their citizenship, how long they have been held, in what country they were captured and the circumstances of their capture has been redacted. Today's brief charges the Defense Department is improperly withholding these basic facts about Bagram prisoners and their detention.

Today's ACLU filing also asks the court to order the CIA, another defendant in the lawsuit, to process the FOIA request. The CIA has refused to process the request, claiming it cannot acknowledge whether it has Bagram-related rendition and interrogation records – even though its rendition of prisoners to Bagram and its interrogation of prisoners there is acknowledged and well-known.

The following can be attributed to Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project:

"While the Defense Department took a step in the right direction when it released the names of Bagram prisoners, the Department continues to withhold every other piece of vital information from that document. Information such as how long Bagram prisoners have been held, where they were captured and how they ended up in U.S. custody is vital to the public's understanding of what is going on at this secretive prison. The Defense Department has released volumes of this kind of information about Guantánamo prisoners but is baselessly hiding the same basic facts about Bagram prisoners. As long as the government improperly suppresses this information, there is no way to know if prisoners are being held for excessively long periods of time or if they should even be there at all, since they may have been seized far away from Afghanistan and rendered to Bagram or arrested under circumstances that do not warrant military detention. The court should order the government to stop hiding this vital information."
 
More information about the ACLU's FOIA lawsuit, including today's filings, is online at: www.aclu.org/national-security/bagram-foia

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

OXFORD, MS – The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit today against a Mississippi High School that has canceled prom rather than let a lesbian high school student attend the prom with her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo to the event. In papers filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, the ACLU asks the court to reinstate the prom for all students at the school and charges Itawamba County School District officials are violating Constance McMillen’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

“All I wanted was the same chance to enjoy my prom night like any other student. But my school would rather hurt all the students than treat everyone fairly,” said McMillen, an 18-year-old senior at Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Mississippi. “This isn’t just about me and my rights anymore – now I’m fighting for the right of all the students at my school to have our prom.”

Today’s filing comes after Itawamba County School District issued a statement yesterday saying they were canceling prom, following a letter from the ACLU and the Mississippi Safe Schools Coalition demanding that they reverse their decision. McMillen said that before that happened, school officials had told her that she could not arrive at the prom with her girlfriend, also a student at IAHS, and that they might be thrown out if any other students complained about their presence at the April 2 event.

“Itawamba school officials are trying to turn Constance into the villain who called the whole thing off, and that just isn’t what happened. She’s fighting for everyone to be able to enjoy the prom,” said Kristy Bennett, Legal Director of the ACLU of Mississippi. “The government, and that includes public schools, can’t censor someone’s free expression just because some other person might not like it.”

In today’s legal complaint, the ACLU asks the court to reinstate the prom for all students and charges that the First Amendment guarantees students’ right to bring same-sex dates to school dances and cites cases holding that other parties’ objections don’t justify censorship. The ACLU also said that the school further violates McMillen’s free expression rights by telling her that she can’t wear a tuxedo to the prom.

“It’s shameful and cowardly of the school district to have canceled the prom and to try to blame Constance, who’s only standing up for herself. We will fight tooth and nail for the prom to be reinstated for all students,” said Christine P. Sun, Senior Counsel with the ACLU national LGBT Project, who represents McMillen along with the ACLU of Mississippi.

The ACLU will ask the court in the next few days to grant McMillen a preliminary injunction ordering the school to reinstate the April 2 prom, let McMillen and her girlfriend go to the prom together, and let McMillen wear a tuxedo to the event.

McMillen is represented by Bennett and Sun, as well as by Norman C. Simon and Joshua Glick of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.

The case name is Constance McMillen v. Itawamba County School District, et al. Also named as defendants are Superintendent Teresa McNeece and Itawamba Agricultural High School Principal Trae Wiygul and Vice Principal Rick Mitchell. Additional information, including a copy of today’s legal complaint, is available at http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/fulton-ms-prom-discrimination. There is also a Facebook group for people who want to support McMillen, “Let Constance Take Her Girlfriend to Prom,” at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Let-Constance-Take-Her-Girlfriend-to-Prom/357686784817.

• requiring employers to demonstrate that wage differentials are based on factors other than sex;

• prohibiting retaliation against workers who inquire about their employers’ wage practices or disclose their own wages;

• permitting reasonable comparisons between employees within clearly defined geographical areas to determine fair wages;

• strengthening penalties for equal pay violations; and

• authorizing additional training for EEOC staff to better identify and handle wage disputes. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contacts: Paul Cates, pcates@aclu.org

New York –Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Maryland, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights today released a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) guide for same-sex couples in Maryland who married out of state.

These leading advocacy groups have jointly released the following statement along with the FAQ.

“This FAQ follows a favorable opinion by Maryland Attorney Douglas Gansler that says recognition of out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples is consistent with Maryland law, and a response by Maryland's Governor assuring residents that they should expect state agencies to comply. This is a big step forward for Maryland and should bring greater security, protections, and peace of mind for many married couples living, working, and visiting in Maryland —though true equality will come only when same-sex couples in Maryland can marry in their home state. In the meantime, couples who married in other jurisdictions should live their lives as all married couples do and expect to receive respect in Maryland in a broad range of areas.

"This is a new and emerging area of law and this FAQ addresses just the tip of the iceberg. This is an exciting time as state and local governments, private parties, and members of our communities assess all the ways that marriage recognition brings protections to same-sex couples in Maryland and how to implement it, but we should be aware that many answers await further developments and analysis.

”Legal conflicts may arise, but rushing into court may not be the answer, as we work to clarify all that marriage recognition brings to Maryland families. Litigation on this issue could have widespread impact for many couples and should be considered with care. If you are denied a service or protection to which married couples are entitled, please contact one of our organizations for assistance.”

A copy of the FAQ is available at http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/frequently-asked-questions-about-marriag...

On February 23, 2010, the Maryland Attorney General issued an opinion confirming that marriages between same-sex couples entered into in other jurisdictions may be recognized under Maryland law. In response to the opinion, Maryland 's Governor stated: “[W]e will be guided by the Attorney General's thorough analysis and legal advice on this matter. . . . I expect all State agencies to work with the Attorney General's office to ensure compliance with the law.”

We should now expect validly entered out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples to receive respect in Maryland in a broad range of areas.This is a big step forward for Maryland and should bring greater security, protections, and peace of mind for many married couples living, working, and visiting in Maryland. This is an exciting time as State and local governments, private parties, and members of our communities assess all the ways that marriage recognition brings protections to same-sex couples in Maryland and how to implement it. While many answers await further developments and analysis, the legal organizations Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, along with Equality Maryland, have prepared preliminary responses to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about marriage recognition in Maryland. Check for updates to these FAQs, and let us know of questions and issues arising in your lives.

What did the Attorney General's decision say?
The 45-page opinion was issued in response to an opinion request from Maryland State Senator Richard S. Madaleno, Jr. asking whether Maryland may recognize marriages of same-sex couples legally performed in other jurisdictions, including other countries. The opinion concludes that such marriages may be recognized under State law.

The opinion reviews State statutes and case law addressing marriage rights within the State and the recognition Maryland has historically afforded different types of marriages validly entered in other jurisdictions even if they could not be entered within the State.

The opinion predicts how Maryland's high court, the Court of Appeals, would rule on the question whether validly entered out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples are entitled to the same recognition under longstanding Maryland common law comity principles that have been applied in the courts over many decades. The opinion concludes that because recognition of out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples is neither barred by express statute nor in conflict with Maryland public policy, which already provides significant recognition and support for same-sex couples in many contexts, the Court of Appeals is likely to recognize the marriage of a same-sex couple validly contracted in another jurisdiction.

The opinion asserts that State agencies will need to evaluate their existing policies to determine how the marriage recognition principle will apply going forward in the context of each agency's work.

The opinion says that it does not address how the rule of marriage recognition would specifically apply in contexts beyond the direct jurisdiction of the Attorney General and State government, such as whether the couple may obtain a divorce in Maryland — an area the courts handle and decide. (Nonetheless, the Attorney General's legal conclusion that the marriage recognition rule applies to same-sex couples in Maryland should hold true in other contexts as well.)

Finally, the opinion also observes that consideration will need to be given to whether a particular aspect of Maryland law is governed or impacted by federal law, such as the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which limits marriage for federal purposes to different-sex couples, and whether that might prevent recognition of the marriage for a specific Maryland purpose.

Can we get married here in Maryland now?
No, unfortunately. Maryland same-sex couples cannot marry in their own home state until legislation is passed giving them the right to marry, and full equality will not have been won until that day comes. However, under the marriage recognition rule, the out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples receive respect in Maryland.

Will the State government automatically start treating us as married?
State government is made up of many agencies that provide hundreds of services governed by different laws and regulations — so it may take some time for the Attorney General's opinion to be applied throughout Maryland State agencies. In some cases there may be existing State laws, regulations, policies, and forms that pose an issue for implementing the Attorney General opinion. These will have to be sorted out, and it will not all happen overnight. In some areas, issues may need to be fixed through advocacy or staff training. The Governor and Attorney General have said that this work is underway. Our organizations are advocating to help with this process and to see marriage recognition principles fully implemented as promptly as possible.

You should also be aware that it is possible Maryland may have some specific State statutes that expressly incorporate and piggyback off federal definitions of marriage, which restrict marriage to a male-female couple under the federal DOMA. State officials, and our organizations, are reviewing State laws to see if this may be the case and how conflicts for State agency recognition of marriages may be addressed.

The bottom line is that married same-sex couples should live their lives as all married couples do and expect to be treated as married. There may be instances where legal conflicts will arise, or where there is outright discrimination against married same-sex couples that will require legal advocacy. If you are denied a service or protection to which married couples are entitled, please contact one of our organizations for assistance.

Will our marriage be treated the same in Maryland if we are married in the District of Columbia, or in the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, or New Hampshire, or in Canada or another foreign country?
Yes, it should be. So long as you entered into a valid civil marriage in the jurisdiction where your marriage occurred, the marriage is entitled to the same respect under Maryland law whether you married in the District of Columbia, a U.S. state, or a foreign country.

What if we were married in California before Proposition 8 passed in November 2009 denying the right to marry in that state?
The California Supreme Court has ruled that the civil marriages in California of the approximately 18,000 couples who wed prior to passage of Proposition 8 still remain valid under California law. Since your marriage was valid where entered, it should receive the same respect in Maryland as other marriages.

What kinds of protections, services, or obligations are affected by marriage recognition?
Marriage brings legal protections and obligations in potentially hundreds of ways, including access to spousal health insurance, death benefits for spouses of firefighters and law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, mutual obligations of spousal support, the ability to stay together in a hospital, protections for crime victims, presumptions of parentage regarding children born to a married couple, and many, many more. Some of these protections are conferred by State or local governments; others are matters between private parties and may involve enforcement by courts.

This is an evolving area of Maryland law, and in some senses same-sex couples will need to be pioneers. State agencies, as well as our organizations, will be analyzing in the weeks and months ahead the State protections and obligations that flow from marriage recognition. You should assume that your marriage is entitled to respect, though how exactly marriage recognition will apply may need to be determined based on the specific situation.

New York State has been widely applying the marriage recognition rule to out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples for several years already, as the Maryland Attorney General's opinion noted. We can look to precedents and developments there for guidance, while also analyzing specific Maryland laws and policies.

I would really like to be able to provide spousal health coverage to my spouse under my employer's policy. Can I do that?
Now that your marriage is recognized you may be able to access employer-provided spousal health insurance coverage. Of course, you may already have been eligible for domestic partnership coverage from your government or private employer anyway. Whether you are now entitled to spousal coverage from employers that did not offer domestic partner coverage may depend on where you work. If you work for a government employer, you should be entitled to the same coverage that different-sex married couples receive. If you work for a private employer, you can certainly ask for coverage and your employer can choose to treat you fairly and provide it to you. Whether your private employer is legally obligated to do so can depend on what kind of insurance plan your employer offers and the terms of the plan. Lambda Legal's publication Will Marriage Help Us Get Health Insurance explains this further, and you can contact our organizations if you have additional questions.

We are a married same-sex couple, but we have to file our federal income taxes as “single” because under DOMA the federal government does not recognize our marriage. What should we do about filing our Maryland State taxes?
How to handle tax filings and other tax matters is another area that will need to be resolved as a matter of Maryland law, with consideration of what if any impact federal law may have on tax issues. In the past Maryland taxpayers have generally been required to file their tax returns using the same “single” or “married” status they use on their federal returns. Because of the discriminatory federal DOMA, married same-sex couples have had to file their federal returns as “single.” Further analysis will be needed to determine whether married same-sex couples can file their State returns jointly as married. We know tax season is fast approaching and hope to get clearer guidance on this issue soon. In the meantime, you should consult your own tax adviser. Lambda Legal's publication Tax Considerations for Same-Sex Couples also offers additional information.

My spouse and I were planning to do a second-parent adoption so that we are both the legally-recognized parents of our children. Should we still go through with the adoption now that our marriage will be respected?
Yes, absolutely. Marriage recognition should bring additional protections to secure the relationship of a child born to a married parent who is unrelated by biology or adoption, but the scope of those protections has yet to be definitively determined in Maryland. And these protections may not in any event apply where the parents have married after the child is already born. The best way to ensure your child has the security of a legally recognized relationship with both parents is through adoption by the non-biologically or non-adoptively related parent. This may be critical as well to ensuring that the federal government and other jurisdictions where your marriage may not be recognized will nonetheless respect your child's parentage based on an adoption.

We were going to get wills, health care powers of attorney, and other legal documents to protect our relationship. Do we still need those if we are married?
It is still important to get these kinds of life planning documents to protect your family. Different-sex couples with marriages also rely on these protections, and they are especially important for same-sex couples, even as your marriage receives recognition in Maryland. Other jurisdictions continue to discriminate against same-sex married couples and refuse recognition of marriages. Legal documents like wills and health care powers of attorney remain crucial for married lesbian and gay couples. Lambda Legal's publication Take the Power: Tools for Financial and Life Planning offers additional information.

We are domestic partners. If we get married will we still receive the rights we had under Maryland law as domestic partners?
Maryland already has enacted some legal protections for domestic partners, such as rights to hospital visitation, to make health care and burial decisions, and exemptions from residential property transfer taxes and inheritance tax on a jointly owned primary residence. Those rights should continue to apply to domestic partners, including those who then marry out of state.

What if State agencies or other people still fail to treat us as married? What should we do?
In some situations simply asking for the particular protection and explaining why your marriage should be respected may solve the problem. Sometimes further advocacy and assistance from counsel will work. You should certainly feel free to reach out to one of our organizations for help.

It's important to bear in mind that rushing into litigation often is not the answer. Many problems can be worked out without resort to the courts. Others may someday need to be resolved through litigation, and important protections for same-sex couples ultimately may need to be vindicated in the courts. But with marriage recognition bringing many important rights for many families, any litigation that could have broader impact on how the marriage recognition rule applies should be the product of careful thought and planning. A bad ruling could have far-reaching negative impact for your marriage and the marriages of many other couples.

My partner and I are committed to one another and live in Maryland. We are trying to decide whether we should get married in another jurisdiction. Are there other considerations we should take into account?
You should start by asking yourselves such essential questions as whether you're ready to make this binding legal commitment, with many significant financial and other consequences.

There may also be concerns specific to your situation that may factor into your decision to marry. For example, if one of you is in the military or is in the United States on an immigration visa, getting married could be harmful under federal laws, such as “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” in the military context. Entering into a marriage also could be a problem if one of you is in the process of adopting a child in a jurisdiction that allows a single person but not a same-sex couple to adopt.

You should also be aware that while the jurisdictions where you might marry don't have residency requirements to enter into marriage, they do have residency requirements to obtain a divorce. If a Maryland same-sex couple's relationship should someday end, the parties can seek a divorce in Maryland courts. But until divorce cases are brought and divorces granted, uncertainty on access to divorce can't be entirely ruled out for Maryland couples. And if you should move from Maryland to a jurisdiction that does not recognize your marriage and later want to dissolve it, you may be denied access to the courts in your new home state.

Lambda Legal's publication Traveling to Another State or Country to Marry? offers additional information about these kinds of considerations.

We live in Maryland but already have a civil union from another state. Should we get married as well?
The Attorney General's opinion does not address the recognition a civil union might receive in Maryland, and there may be reasons for you to consider entering into a marriage. However, there could be issues depending on your specific situation that you should consider first. In addition, whether you can or should marry having already entered into a civil union may depend on the laws of the jurisdictions where you had your civil union and where you might marry.

Where can I go for further information or assistance?
You can contact our organizations for further information. You may also want to consult with a private attorney.

Here is how to reach us:

Lambda Legal: legalhelpdesk@lambdalegal.org; 866-542-8336 (toll-free) or 212-809-8585; www.lambdalegal.org.

ACLU of Maryland : 410-889-8555; www.aclu-md.org.

National Center for Lesbian Rights: info@nclrights.org; 800-528-6257 (toll-free) or 415-392-6257; www.nclrights.org.Legal info: www.nclrights.org/gethelp

Equality Maryland : info@equalitymaryland.org; 410-685-6567; www.equalitymaryland.org.

PLEASE NOTE: This document offers only general and preliminary information on an evolving area of law and is not intended to provide guidance or legal advice regarding anyone's specific situation.

Group Makes Same Plea In Letter To President

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Rachel Myers, (646) 206-8643 or (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org 

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today published a full-page ad in the New York Times calling on President Obama not to back down from his administration’s decision to prosecute the 9/11 suspects in civilian courts. The ad comes in response to news reports that the Obama administration is on the verge of reversing Attorney General Eric Holder's November decision, turning instead to the discredited military commission system.

The ad features a picture of President Obama morphing into a picture of former President Bush.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

“We placed this ad because it’s critical that Americans know what is at stake here: nothing less than America’s commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law. The military commissions are seriously flawed and unprepared to handle these complex cases. If President Obama reverses his attorney general’s principled decision under political pressure, it will strike a devastating blow to American values and do serious damage to our nation’s credibility. We urge the president to do the right thing and keep these cases in federal court, where they belong.”

The ACLU also sent a letter to President Obama urging him to keep the 9/11 trials in civilian court and detailing the problems of the military commission system and its inability to provide fair, effective trials in these cases. The letter, signed by Romero, states:

"I believe that you will face few, if any, greater challenges to who we are as a nation and to our commitment to the rule of law than this question of sustaining the Attorney General’s principled decision to use federal criminal courts for these trials... The trials of the defendants alleged to have had roles in the September 11 attacks are the most important terrorism trials – and arguably the most important criminal trials – in the entire history of the nation. It would be a colossal mistake to reverse the administration’s decision to try these defendants in federal criminal court and again relegate these landmark trials to irretrievably defective military commissions."

The full letter can be found at: www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-letter-president-obama-regarding-federal-criminal-trials-911-defendants

The ACLU New York Times ad is available online at: www.aclu.org/aclu-ad-what-will-it-be-mr-president

The full text of the ad reads:

What will it be Mr. President?
Change or more of the Same?

Candidate Barack Obama vowed to change the Bush-Cheney policies and restore America’s values of justice and due process. Many of us are shocked and concerned that right now, President Obama is considering reversing his attorney general’s decision to try the 9/11 defendants in criminal court. Our criminal justice system has successfully handled over 300 terrorism cases compared to only 3 in the military commissions. Our criminal justice system will resolve these cases more quickly and more credibly than the military commissions.

President Obama can vigorously prosecute terrorists and keep us safe without violating our Constitution.

As president, Barack Obama must decide whether he will keep his solemn promise to restore our Constitution and due process, or ignore his vow and continue the Bush-Cheney policies.

Tell President Obama not to back down on his commitment to our justice system, and to try the 9/11 defendants in criminal court.

Remind the world that America stands for due process, justice, and the rule of law.

More information about the ACLU’s call to use civilian trials to try the 9/11 suspects is available online here: www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-verge-reversing-decision-911-prosecutions