DOJ attorney fumbles, saying there is no specific policy on this.
If the agency is authorizing that particular behavior that violates these, why are you making an argument on standing?
Court: Maybe, but we do know USCCB is a substantial subgrantee of the agency.
DOJ: Depends on scope of the grantees’ ability to work with families.
Admits to not being aware of any other options existing that work w/ this program.
(Nope, it's not!)
(Potentially! But this is a premature question at this stage of litigation.)
DOJ: You don’t have the authority to grant that kind of injunction.
Court: Why don’t I have that authority?
The Court: No more terrible than the one experienced by the plaintiffs, honestly.
Court suggests that it would be possible for HHS to perhaps fill a void by finding another provider.
DOJ position is that because there are no specific refs to charitable orgs in Act that established the program, & there’s no specific mention of religious orgs in appropriations themselves, that = lack of standing.
Congress started a program to care for unaccompanied minor refugee children. The Conference just so happens to be one of the largest providers of care in the country.
This is F A L S E.
The USCCB has OPENLY admitted that they would cease funding sub-grantees if they were to license same-sex couples.
USCCB attorney: I’m not aware there is anything specific in the grant itself. Plaintiffs cite a couple of HHS regulations in their filing ...
(We sure do!)
...Actually, the premise of our filing is that same-sex couples should be treated the same as any other when they walk into an agency. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
USCCB: Even looking at other refugee programs, it’s speculative that they would step forward.
... Have y'all considered maybe ... not discriminating?
There is a portion of their website that says children should be placed in a home with a married male and female. It says it. Let's not put our heads in the sand.
I don't think anyone up here would be making these allegations if this was discrimination based on race, or based on age.
USCCB: There is a distinction there.
(Us: ... )
You don't hire the KKK unless you want them to discriminate — that's not us. (??!!)
What harms children more, potentially placing them in loving homes or a large organization withholding all services altogether?
Fatma and Bryn literally called up to file a complaint. HHS's decision to maintain radio silence towards them is tacit authorization of discrimination.
"We are asking that our clients be able to walk into the agency's office and not be discriminated against, stigmatized, or faced with other obstacles that another couple would not face." 🙌🏽
This is the ONLY place for Fatma and Bryn to apply to foster a refugee or unaccompanied minor.
HHS is providing these grants, but PROCESSES in place are violating policies and violating the Constitution.
The fact that they gave away the responsibilities to a grantee does not mean they are not responsible for upholding the Constitution.
Jamie Gliksberg: “Redressability is easily established when the injury arises from an identifiable discriminatory policy.” We don’t need to at this stage determine what would make the most remedy.
These could be part of remedy determined later in litigation.
1. HHS ratified the discrimination in providing the money knowingly to USCCB, who stated CLEARLY they would administer the program in line with their religious beliefs.
2. They did not respond when clients complained.
The Court: "It's a de-facto denial."
But how about government message being sent to Fatma Bryan and other same-sex couples, that they are somehow less worthy or less deserving?
This subjected them to demeaning unequal treatment.
And that is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Two separate injuries: loss of opportunity & stigma related to unequal treatment.
Change in government process is necessary.
As long as people can equally submit their applications.