Robicheaux et al. – Our Day in Federal Court
Marriage Equality has swept the land over the last year since the ruling in Windsor vs. The United States. This week was no different with the striking of the Indiana ban and the 10th Circuit upholding a lower court’s decision in the Utah case. Another case went to Federal Court this week – our very own little case here in Louisiana.
If you’ve been paying attention to my articles and following us, you’ve seen this little case evolve over the past 11 months.Â
On Wednesday June 25th 2014, my husband and I woke up and did our morning routine. This morning would be a little different, we weren’t preparing for work, or to go on an outing. We were preparing for Federal Court; the day had finally come for Louisiana’s equality case to go on trial.
As we entered the court room, which was filled to capacity with an overflow room next door, there was much chatter among the people, giving their opinions one way or another on what they thought the judge would say or ask. The feeling in the courtroom was one of excitement, but yet some caution. We felt the supporting vibe that was all around us and that would continue to follow us throughout the entire day.
Judge Feldman took his seat; he carefully explained what he expected in his courtroom. Feldman referred to the case as one of “insatiable national interest†and would not tolerate any outbursts. From the get go, the man commanded a certain kind of respect that, like him or not, you appreciated. Let me just say for the record, I like the man and highly respect him.
The judge allotted 30 minutes to each side. So the volleying of tennis match begins. The judge asked his questions, often times joking with the attorneys about needing whiskey in their cups instead of water — Because that’s how we roll in the Big Easy.
Feldman went on to say -Â
“I wonder if the constitutional rights of the person in Windsor are properly defined as being the same rights as here today. Windsor basically said the federal government could not discriminate against New York. May or may not Louisiana do what the federal government cannot do itself?â€
Feldman drilled his questions and statements out in commanding fashion, “I accept the fact the plaintiffs have a sense of having a grievance. The issue before the court is if that grievance rises to constitutional dignity.â€
As the defense took the podium to hammer their side, the judge asks of Kyle Duncan, the lawyer from the attorney general’s office who represented the state: “There are 13 district courts that disagree with you. Why are you right? And keep in mind I mentored some of those judges.â€
That state argued that in Windsor (the state only quoted from seven pages as their defense,) Kennedy wrote that the state of New York had a constitutional right to have its voters choose whether to have same-sex marriage and that the government could not interfere with that. Voters and Louisiana also had that same right when they put the marriage ban in place, according to Duncan. While we disagree, the question will come down to does it violate federal constitutional rights?
After the arguments, the judge pulled something that I see daily as I watch Days of Our Lives. Originally it was decided by all parties, mainly Feldman, that the only section of the lawsuit that would be handled in this hearing was recognition of the out of state marriages, leaving the in state marriage question and the 1st amendment question to a later time. But Judge Feldman stated he did not want to “piecemeal†this decision. “I feel uncomfortable resolving some issues one way or the other and not all issues one way or another,†explained Feldman.
Overall we are happy with that decision, giving the chance for every LGBT couple currently residing in Louisiana the opportunity to marry in their home. To deal with this issue, the judge brought counsel for all parties into his chambers.Â
The ultimate decision is that Judge Feldman wants more briefs from the parties that will be due in 21 days. He will then decide if he wants replies from each side and then another oral argument session. In my opinion, and it’s my opinion only, I don’t think he will call for more arguments, everything was said today in court. I am taking a stab, but I believe that he will rule on this case sometime in mid to late August or early September. There is a lot of precedence out there for him to look at with all the other favorable district court rulings, not to mention a favorable higher court ruling in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that came down while we were in court.
We pray for a favorable ruling, and feel good about our day in court. However the ruling comes out, we expect the state to appeal, and we will definitely appeal a non-favorable ruling. We have come too far on this path to stop now! On behalf of my husband and I, and all the other plaintiffs, I’d like to say thank you to everyone who has sent us words of encouragement, and has supported us from day one. You don’t know what it means to have those positive things flow into our email boxes and on face book, we see a lot of negativity out there so it’s nice to see your support and love– To keep up with our case please like our Facebook page and navigate to our website.
Â
Â
Derek Penton-Robicheaux, 36, is a native of Mississippi and a longtime resident of New Orleans.  He holds degrees in computer information systems and paramedicine.
 After more than five years together, Derek and his husband, Jonathan Penton-Robicheaux, were legally married in Iowa on Sept. 23, 2012. The two are the first plaintiffs involved in the Federal Same-Sex Marriage Lawsuit in Louisiana, Robicheaux et al. v Caldwell.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
|
Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.
Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”
“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”
In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”
He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”
“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”
“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”
“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”
The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.
“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”
Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”
Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.
Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 6, 2026
President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.
“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”
The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”
Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”
TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”
Critics blasted Trump.
“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.
One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”
Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”
The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.
According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.
Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”
“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”
Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”
Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.
Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.
The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.
“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.
The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.
“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”
Image via Reuters
Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation
Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs
One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won
Inside the Group Helping MAGA Voters Walk Away — And What Finally Pushed Them
