Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Amicus Brief de'Lonta

Amicus Brief de'Lonta

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,450|Likes:
Published by jeffrey_light7650

More info:

Published by: jeffrey_light7650 on Dec 17, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/04/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
C
ASE
N
O
.
 
11-7482
 
IN THE
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
OPHELIA DE’LONTA,
 Appellant,
v.
GENE JOHNSON, ET AL.
 Appellees
BRIEF OF
 AMICUS CURIAE 
D.C. TRANS COALITION IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTURGING REVERSAL
 
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERNDISTRICT OF VIRGINIAJ
EFFREY
L
IGHT
 Law Office of Jeffrey Light1712 Eye Street, N.W.Suite 915Washington, DC 20006(202) 277-6213Jeffrey.Light@yahoo.comDated: December 16, 2011
Counsel for Amicus D.C. Trans Coalition
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................. iiSTATEMENT OF IDENTITY, INTEREST, AND AUTHORITY TO FILE ....... viiSUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 1ARGUMENT......................................................................................................... 2
 Jurisdiction
......................................................................................................... 5
Standard of Review
............................................................................................. 5
Standard for adjudication of Equal Protection claims
........................................ 5
 Ms. De’Lonta is not treated the same as similarly situated non-transgender and gender-conforming female inmates
.............................................................. 6
VDOC’s policy intentionally discriminates against transgender women
............. 8
 Heightened scrutiny applies to Ms. De’Lonta’s claims
......................................10
VDOC’s policy on housing transgender inmates does not survive scrutiny
........16
 Ms. De’Lonta has a cognizable Due Process claim
...........................................22
 Ms. De’Lonta has a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim
.................................24CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.....................................................................26CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..............................................................................27
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases
 
 Barnes v. City of Cincinnati
, 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005) ...................................15
 Brock v. Carroll
, 107 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 1997) ............................................... 22, 24
 De’Lonta v. Angelone
, 330 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2003).............................................. 9
 Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392
, 10 F.3d 1064(4th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................... 5
* Farmer v. Brennan
, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) ............................................... 23, 24, 25
Frontiero v. Richardson
, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) ......................................................10
Glenn v. Brumby
, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24137 (11th Cir. Dec. 6, 2011) ............15
Gordon v. Leeke
, 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978) ............................................. 22, 24
Graham v. Richardson
, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) ........................................................10
 In re Marriage Cases
, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008),
superseded in part byamendment 
, C.A. Const. art. 1, § 7.5..................................................................13
 Johnson v. California
, 543 U.S. 499 (2005) ..........................................................10
 Lee v. Downs
, 641 F.2d 1117 (4th Cir. 1981) ......................................................... 9
* Loving v. Virginia
, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) ................................................................. 7
 Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia
, 427 U.S. 307 (1976) ........................10
 Morrison v. Garraghty
, 239 F.3d 648 (4th Cir. 2001) ............................................ 6
 Nordlinger v. Hahn
, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) .................................................................10
Strauss v. Horton
, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009) ...........................................................13
Tates v. Blanas
, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26029 (E.D. Calif. Mar. 11, 2003)........... 3
* United States v. Virginia
, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) ..................................................15

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->