Stuart Kyle Duncan On LGBTQ Rights

Duncan Committed Repeated Bigoted Actions Towards The LGBTQ Community

Duncan Routinely Made Bigoted Remarks Towards Same-Sex Marriage

Duncan Wrote That Gay Marriage Would “Do Incalculable Damage To Our Civic Life In This Country.” According to NBC News, “Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2015 landmark same-sex marriage ruling, Duncan wrote an amicus brief claiming such a ruling would ‘do incalculable damage to our civic life in this country.’ He argued gay marriage must be resolved ‘at the state level.’” [NBC News, 4/25/18]

Duncan Decried The Supreme Court’s Ruling In Favor Of Same-Sex Marriage Saying “It Imperils Civic Peace.”
According to the Washington Blade, “After the Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, Duncan said the decision was an ‘abject failure’ and ‘imperils civic peace.’ Later, Duncan suggested the ruling was invalid, saying it ‘raises a question about the legitimacy of the court.’” [Washington Blade, 4/24/18]

Duncan Said The Consequences For Same-Sex Marriage Were “Unforeseen.”

Duncan Argued That The Consequences For Same-Sex Marriage Were “Unforeseen.” According to WDSU, “During the hearing, attorney Kyle Duncan, special counsel for the Louisiana attorney general’s office, argued same-sex weddings represent a brand new perspective on marriage. He added that the consequences are ‘unforeseen’ because the country has only 10 years of experience with gay marriage, so states don’t have enough information about what will happen if they are allowed.” [WDSU, 1/12/15]

Duncan Had A History Of Anti-Same-Sex Marriage Writings

Duncan Said Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Would “Do Incalculable Damage To Our National Civic Life.” According to Duncan’s article in the Public Discourse, “The fact that Americans have reached different conclusions about same-sex marriage is not a sign of a constitutional crisis that requires the Supreme Court to step in. On the contrary, it’s a sign that our Constitution is working the way it should. In our federal system, this issue must be resolved at the state level. To resolve it through federal judicial decree would demean the democratic process, marginalize the views of millions of Americans, and do incalculable damage to our national civic life.” [Public Discourse-Kyle Stuart Duncan, 4/23/15]

Duncan On Legalized Same-Sex Marriage Impacting The Institution Of Marriage: “Moving The Man-Woman Definition From Marriage May Signify A Cultural Shift Towards A New Vision Of Marriage In Those States.”  According to Duncan’s article in the Public Discourse, “One should not lightly conclude that these victories arose merely from savvy politics. To the contrary, removing the man-woman definition from marriage may signify a cultural shift towards a new vision of marriage in those states. Take New York, for example, which adopted same-sex marriage in 2011. Windsor viewed this as no mere alteration of a statute, but as an epochal event. What New Yorkers did, the Court explained, demanded ‘both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality.’ A decision constitutionalizing same-sex marriage would obliterate the significance of that remarkable democratic victory.” [Public Discourse-Kyle Stuart Duncan, 4/23/15]

Duncan Attacked The Supreme Court After Their Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage

Duncan Decried The Supreme Court’s Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage And Called It An “Abject Failure.” According to the Washington Blade, “After the Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, Duncan said the decision was an ‘abject failure’ and ‘imperils civic peace.’ Later, Duncan suggested the ruling was invalid, saying it ‘raises a question about the legitimacy of the court.’” [Washington Blade, 4/24/18]

Duncan Called The Legitimacy Of The Supreme Court Into Question After They Ruled In Favor Of Same-Sex Marriage. According to the Washington Blade, “After the Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, Duncan said the decision was an ‘abject failure’ and ‘imperils civic peace.’ Later, Duncan suggested the ruling was invalid, saying it ‘raises a question about the legitimacy of the court.’” [Washington Blade, 4/24/18]

Duncan Repeatedly Attacked Same-Sex Marriage Via The Judicial System

Duncan Authored A Brief In Opposition To The Supreme Court Taking Up Federalizing Same-Sex Marriage

2015: Duncan Filed A Brief With The Supreme Court On Behalf Of 15 Opposing Nationwide Legality Of Same-Sex Marriage. According to the Washington Blade, “When same-sex marriage came before the Supreme Court in 2015, Duncan filed a brief on behalf of 15 states in opposition to nationwide marriage equality. Additionally, he led efforts to keep in place marriage bans in Louisiana and Virginia.” [Washington Blade, 4/24/18]

Duncan Represented Louisiana At The Supreme Court In Their Fight Against Recognizing Federal Marriage Equality

January 2015: Duncan Argued In Favor Of Louisiana’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban At A Hearing To Determine If The Case Would Be Heard By The Supreme Court. According to WDSU, “During the hearing, attorney Kyle Duncan, special counsel for the Louisiana attorney general’s office, argued same-sex weddings represent a brand new perspective on marriage. He added that the consequences are ‘unforeseen’ because the country has only 10 years of experience with gay marriage, so states don’t have enough information about what will happen if they are allowed.” [WDSU, 1/12/15]

January 2015: The Supreme Court Announced They Would Not Hear Louisiana’s Challenge To Same-Sex Marriage

January 2015: The U.S. Supreme Court Announced That They Would Not Hear Louisiana’s Challenge To Same-Sex Marriage. According to WDSU, “The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will not consider Louisiana’s same-sex marriage case during this current term.” [WDSU, 1/12/15]

Duncan Represented A Woman Seeking To Bar Her Former Spouse Visitation Rights Due To Their Sexual Orientation

Duncan Represented A Women Seeking To Bar Her Former Spouse Visitation Rights Due To Their Sexual Orientation. According to the Washington Blade, “Although the Supreme Court ruled contrary to his views, Duncan wasn’t done. In Alabama, he represented the birth mother of three children who refused visitation rights to her former same-sex spouse. Although the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in the birth mother’s favor, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision in accordance with Obergefell.” [Washington Blade, 4/24/18]

The Alabama Supreme Court Ruled In Duncan’s Favor, With The U.S. Supreme Court Later Overturning It

The Alabama Supreme Court Ruled In Duncan’s Favor; However, It Was Later Overturned By The U.S. Supreme Court. According to the Washington Blade, “Although the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in the birth mother’s favor, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision in accordance with Obergefell.” [Washington Blade, 4/24/18]

2012-2014: Duncan Served As General Counsel For The Anti-LGBTQ Group The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty

2012-2014: Duncan Served As General Counsel For The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty. According to Becket Fund For Religious Liberty’s press release, “Kyle served as Louisiana’s first solicitor general from 2008-2012, and then as general counsel of Becket from 2012-2014.” [Becket Fund For Religious Liberty-Press Release, 4/24/18]

The Becket Fund Was A Leading Proponent Of LGBTQ Rights

The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty Was Included In The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Website Describing Groups That Promote “Religious Liberty And The Anti-LGBT Right.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “The hardline groups promoting ‘religious freedom restoration acts’ to justify anti-gay discrimination. […] The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.” [Southern Poverty Law Center, 2/11/16]

The Becket Fund Worked To Restrict Adoptions To Same-Sex Couples. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “Becket has also been active in adoption cases in Massachusetts and Illinois, where Catholic Charities abandoned its longstanding adoption work rather than place children with same-sex couples.” [Southern Poverty Law Center, 2/11/16]

The Becket Fund Had Ties To The National Organization For Marriage (NOM), A National Group Against Same-Sex Marriage

Southern Poverty Law Center: The Becket Fund Was Associated With The National Organization For Marriage (NOM) An Anti-LQBT Group. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “Becket also has ties to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), an anti-LGBT group whose sole purpose has been to stop same-sex marriage.” [Southern Poverty Law Center, 2/11/16]

• NOM Was Formed To Oppose Same-Sex Marriage Across The Country. According to the National Organization For Marriage’s Website, “Founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level.” [National Organization for Marriage, Accessed 6/24/24]

Duncan Argued On Behalf Of Louisiana To Refuse A Gay Couple Their Right To Change Their Child’s Birth Certificate To Include Both Of Their Names

Oren Adar and Mickey Ray Smith Wanted To Have Their Adopted Child’s Birth Certificate Changed To Include Their Names

Adar And His Husband Smith Wanted To Change Their Adopted Child’s Birth Certificates To Include Their Names. According to Watermark, “The boy was born in Louisiana in 2005 and legally adopted in New York in 2006. The conflict began when Adar and Smith wanted the birth certificate changed, replacing the biological parents’ names with both of the child’s adopted parents.” [Watermark, 10/12/11]

2010: A Federal Court Ruled In The Men’s Favor To Add Their Names To Their Adopted Child’s Birth Certificate

2010: The Fifth Circuit Ruled In Favor Of Adding Two Gay Menes Names To The Birth Certificate Of Their Adopted Child. According to Courthouse News Service, “The Louisiana registrar must issue a birth certificate listing a gay couple as the parents of an adopted son born in Shreveport, the 5th Circuit ruled. The couple then applied for a new birth certificate listing them as the parents of their adopted son, who was born in Louisiana. Louisiana registrar Darlene W. Smith refused to issue the certificate, citing state laws barring unmarried couples from adopting children in Louisiana.[Courthouse News Service, 2/19/10]

2011: Duncan And The State Of Louisiana Argued Against The Fathers 

The State Argued That There Would Be No Harm Caused If The Father’s Names Were Not Listed On The Birth Certificate. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, “Among the state’s arguments is that the couple has no standing for a lawsuit because the failure to have both men’s names on the birth certificate hasn’t been proven to have caused any harm.” [San Diego Union-Tribune, 1/18/11]

Duncan Argued That Louisiana Could Not Recognize The Fathers As Parents On The Birth Certificate Because Louisiana Did Not Recognize Same-Sex Marriage. According to SI Live, “They want both names on the certificate for ‘understandable symbolic purposes. But it does not create an injury … unless it is linked to a real and immediate threat,’ Duncan said. […] He said the question before the court is how state records ‘should deal with a relationship … which the state cannot recognize — for same-sex parents.’” [SI Live, 10/8/09]

October 2011: The Men Lost Their Appeal To The Supreme Court To Hear Their Case

October 2011: The Men Lost Their Appeal To The Supreme Court. According to Watermark, “An Orlando gay couple has lost an appeal requesting that the Supreme Court consider their case to have both parents’ names placed on their adopted son’s birth certificate.” [Watermark, 10/12/11]

Duncan Participated In Lawsuits Antagonizing Transgender People 

Duncan Was The Appellate Attorney For North Carolina In Their Legislative Attempt To Ban Transgender People From Using The Bathroom That Matched Their Identity 

Duncan Was As The Appellate Attorney For North Carolina When They Argued For Banning Transgender People From Using The Bathroom Of Their Choice. According to The Hill, “Duncan previously served as the appellate counsel for North Carolina officials arguing in favor of a state law banning transgender people from using the bathroom of their choice.” [The Hill, 1/17/20]

• The North Carolina Bathroom Bill Prohibited Trans Teens From Using Bathrooms That Aligned With Their Gender Identity. According to The Nation, “As a lawyer he has argued at the Supreme Court against same-sex marriage, supported same-sex marriage bans at the state level, and was the lead litigator defending North Carolina’s ‘bathroom bill,’ which prohibited trans teens from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity.” [The Nation, 3/15/23]

March 2017: North Carolina Rolled Back Portions Of The Bill That Included The Ban On Trans People Using The Bathroom Of Their Choice

March 2017: North Carolina Repealed Portions Of The Bill That Included The Requirement That Trans People Use The Bathroom That Matched Their Birth Certificate. According to NPR, “North Carolina has repealed portions of the state’s controversial ‘bathroom bill,’ including the requirement that trans people use the bathroom that matches their birth certificate, member station WUNC reports.” [NPR, 3/30/17]

Duncan Represented A Virginia School District’s Litigation Against A Transgender Student Using The Bathroom That Matched Their Identity

2017: Duncan Represented A Virginia School District In Their Litigation Against A Transgender Student Using The Bathroom That Aligned With Their Gender Identity. According to NBC News, “Last year, for example, he represented Virginia’s Gloucester County School Board in their case against Gavin Grimm, a transgender high school student who was unable to use the restroom that aligned with his gender identity.” [NBC News, 4/25/18]

August 2020: The Case Was Decided In The Student’s Favor

August 2020: The Case Was Decided In The Student’s Favor. According the ACLU’s website, “Represented by the ACLU and ACLU of Virginia, Gavin sued his school board for discriminating against him in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX of the U.S. Education Amendments of 1972, a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination by schools. After four years of litigation—including a trip to the Supreme Court and back– the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in favor of Gavin on all his claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the ruling in favor of Gavin on August 26, 2020.” [ACLU, Accessed 6/24/24]

Duncan Repeatedly Attacked The Transgender Community

Duncan Asserted That Calling Transgender Defendants By Their Chosen Pronouns “May Unintentionally Convey Its Tacit Approval Of The Litigants Underlying Legal Position.” According to NBC News, “Duncan goes on to warn that respecting a transgender person’s gender in the same way courts respect a cisgender person’s gender ‘may unintentionally convey its tacit approval of the litigant’s underlying legal position.’ He warns that respecting transgender people’s gender identities ‘may well turn out to be more complex than at first it might appear’ because of a ‘galaxy’ of genders, citing what he says is a ‘widely circulated’ University of Wisconsin LGBTQ+ Resource Center guide to pronouns. (A Google reverse image search of the pronoun guide included in Duncan’s opinions returned no matches.)” [NBC News, 1/16/20]

Duncan Refused To Use A Defendant’s Preferred Pronouns

A Defendant, Katherine Jett, Filed A Motion To Change Her Name And Gender To What Matched Her Identity. According to the Advocate, “Katherine Nicole Jett, a federal prisoner since a 2012 conviction, filed a motion in court to change the name and gender marker on portions of her case file in order to accurately reflect her legally changed name and her gender identity.” [Advocate, 1/24/20]

Duncan Mocked Jett’s Chosen Pronouns. According to NBC News, “Jett’s appeal appeared before the 5th Circuit, where Duncan sits. In his majority opinion, Duncan vacated the lower court ruling that denied Jett’s appeal, saying the court lacked jurisdiction, but then he proceeded to mock Jett’s court motion that she be referred to using female pronouns and her new name.” [NBC News, 1/16/20]

• Duncan Intentionally Misgendered Jett. According to NBC News, “Duncan refers to Jett only using ‘he’ pronouns throughout and refers to her as a ‘gender-dysphoric’ person, instead of as a transgender person. ‘Federal courts sometimes choose to refer to gender-dysphoric parties by their preferred pronouns,’ Duncan wrote, and ‘our court has gone both ways’.”[NBC News, 1/16/20]
• Duncan Called Jett’s Request To Use Her Preferred Pronouns a “Quixotic Undertaking.” According to The Hill, “The defendant had asked to change Norman Varner to Kathrine Nicole Jett on previous conviction records as well as require the use of female pronouns. Duncan called the latter request a ‘quixotic undertaking.’” [The Hill, 1/17/20]

Duncan Called Jett “Gender Dysphoric” 

Duncan Referred To Jett As “Gender Dysphoric.” According to The Hill, “Duncan went on to refer to Kathrine Nicole Jett, who was known as Norman Varner in previous court hearings, as ‘gender dysphoric.’” [The Hill, 1/17/20]

Duncan Antagonized Transgender People Online

Duncan Issued An Advisory Opinion That Dismissed A Transgender Defendant’s Chosen Pronouns. According to NBC News, “Stuart Kyle Duncan, a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, issued an advisory opinion Wednesday that dismissed a transgender defendant’s chosen pronouns and the broader concept of gender identity, just less than two years after LGBTQ advocates warned that Duncan would not rule fairly if confirmed to the bench.” [NBC News, 1/16/20]

Duncan Wrote Respecting Transgender Pronouns Would Be More Complex Because There Was A “Galaxy” Of Genders. According to NBC News, “Duncan goes on to warn that respecting a transgender person’s gender in the same way courts respect a cisgender person’s gender ‘may unintentionally convey its tacit approval of the litigant’s underlying legal position.’ He warns that respecting transgender people’s gender identities ‘may well turn out to be more complex than at first it might appear’ because of a ‘galaxy’ of genders, citing what he says is a ‘widely circulated’ University of Wisconsin LGBTQ+ Resource Center guide to pronouns. (A Google reverse image search of the pronoun guide included in Duncan’s opinions returned no matches.)”[NBC News, 1/16/20]

Duncan Cited The University Of Wisconsin LGBTQ+ Resource Center To Justify His Opinion That Using Correct Pronouns Would Be “More Complex.” 

Duncan Said The University Of Wisconsin LGBTQ+ Resource Center Pronoun Guide Was The Basis For His Opinion That Using Correct Pronouns Would Be A Complex Undertaking Because There Were So Many. According to NBC News, “Duncan goes on to warn that respecting a transgender person’s gender in the same way courts respect a cisgender person’s gender ‘may unintentionally convey its tacit approval of the litigant’s underlying legal position.’ He warns that respecting transgender people’s gender identities ‘may well turn out to be more complex than at first it might appear’ because of a ‘galaxy’ of genders, citing what he says is a ‘widely circulated’ University of Wisconsin LGBTQ+ Resource Center guide to pronouns. (A Google reverse image search of the pronoun guide included in Duncan’s opinions returned no matches.)” [NBC News, 1/16/20]

• NBC News Was Unable To Find The University Of Wisconsin LGBTQ+ Resource Center Guide That Duncan Asserted He Copied The Language From. According to NBC News, “Duncan goes on to warn that respecting a transgender person’s gender in the same way courts respect a cisgender person’s gender ‘may unintentionally convey its tacit approval of the litigant’s underlying legal position.’ He warns that respecting transgender people’s gender identities ‘may well turn out to be more complex than at first it might appear’ because of a ‘galaxy’ of genders, citing what he says is a ‘widely circulated’ University of Wisconsin LGBTQ+ Resource Center guide to pronouns. (A Google reverse image search of the pronoun guide included in Duncan’s opinions returned no matches.)” [NBC News, 1/16/20]

Duncan’s Confirmation To The Federal Judiciary Was Praised By A Leading Anti-LGBTQ+ Group

April 2018: Duncan Was Confirmed By The U.S. Senate To Serve As A Judge On The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit 

April 2018: Duncan Was Confirmed For A Federal Judgeship By The U.S. Senate. According to Leadership Connect, “The U.S. Senate confirmed Stuart Kyle Duncan in a 50-47 vote to be Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.” [Leadership Connect, 4/24/18]

Duncan’s Confirmation To The Federal Judiciary Was Praised By The Family Research Council, A Leading Anti-LGBTQ+ Group,

Duncan’s Confirmation To The Federal Judiciary Was Praised By Tony Perkins, President Of The Anti-LGBTQ+ Family Research Council. According to the Washington Blade, “Praising the Senate for confirming Duncan, however, was Tony Perkins, president of the anti-LGBT Family Research Council. Perkins also praised Trump for the nature of his judicial nominees.” [Washington Blade, 4/24/18]

• The Family Research Council Described Homosexuality As “Harmful To The Persons Who Engage In It.” According to the Family Research Council’s Website, “Homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it as it is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects. Thus, it is also harmful to society at large.” [Family Research Council, Accessed 6/21/24]
• Perkins Said That Pedophilia Was A “Homosexual Problem.” According to Tony Perkins via the Southern Poverty Law Center, “While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.” [Southern Poverty Law Center, Accessed 6/24/24]

Stuart Kyle Duncan On Immigration

Duncan Opposed Immigrants And Immigration In Court

Duncan Filed An Amicus Brief That Challenged The Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program

Duncan Argued That DAPA Threatened Public Safety Because Many “Violent Criminals” Were Eligible For It. According to Lambda Legal, “Kyle Duncan argued in an amicus brief that the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program threatened public safety because many ‘violent criminals’ would be eligible for it.” [Lambda Legal, 2/5/18]

Duncan Said That “Whenever” DAPA Applications Were Granted There Was A “Substantial Likelihood” They Were Granting The Application To Someone Who Would Harm Citizens Of The U.S. According to Duncan’s brief via SCOTUS Blog, “This is likely just the tip of the iceberg. Accordingly, whenever executive officials grant a DAPA application, there is a substantial likelihood that they are conferring legal status on a person who poses a risk of criminal activity—including violent crimes directed at citizens and residents of the United States.” [SCOTUS BLOG, No. 15-674, Accessed 6/24/24]

Duncan Argued That Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Was Not Legally Binding

Duncan Argued DACA Was Not Legally Binding Via An Amicus Brief On Behalf Of Florida’s Governor, Jeb Bush

Duncan Wrote A Brief On Behalf Of Jeb Bush That Questioned Whether Legal Immigration Status Could Be Granted Via Executive Order And Preempt State Law. According to Duncan’s brief via SCOTUS Blog, “Brief Of Governor Jeb Bush As Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners Gene C. Schaerr S. Kyle Duncan. Can an executive order that purports to grant legal immigration status without congressional authorization preempt State law?” [SCOTUS Blog, No. 16-1180, Accessed 6/24/24]

Duncan Wrote That The Constitution Did Not Permit Obama To Pass DACA. According to Duncan’s brief via SCOTUS Blog, “The Constitution did not permit President Obama to override Arizona law by executive order. A program like DACA, which purports to change legal rights and (according to the Ninth Circuit) preempt State law has to be passed by Congress. Otherwise, it is not law. For similar reasons, a President’s unilateral announcement of policy cannot prevent States from going their own way. [SCOTUS Blog, No. 16-1180, Accessed 6/24/24]

Duncan Argued That DACA Was Enacted Improperly By Congress And Therefore Non-Binding To The States 

Duncan Argued That DACA Was Not Properly Enacted By Congress And Therefore Not Legally Binding. According to the Alliance for Justice, “Duncan also fought President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In an amicus brief supporting a petition for cert on behalf of Governor Jeb Bush and the State of Florida, in the case Brewer v. Arizona Dream Act Coalition, Duncan argued that DACA was not properly enacted by Congress, was not legally valid, and thus, is not binding on the state of Arizona.” [Alliance for Justice, Accessed 6/24/24]

Duncan Filed A Brief Arguing Lawyers Were Not Obligated To Inform Their Clients If They Faced Deportation After A Guilty Plea

In Padilla vs. Kentucky, Duncan Argued That Defense Attorneys Had No Responsibility To Inform Their Clients If They Faced Deportation After A Guilty Plea. According to the Alliance for Justice, “Duncan also participated as counsel for amicus curiae in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010) while at the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office. The Supreme Court examined whether Padilla’s counsel misadvised him of the consequences of a plea deal that resulted in his deportation. The Court, in a 7-2 decision, held that counsel must inform her client about the direct consequences of a plea. Duncan’s amicus brief argued that Padilla’s counsel was not constitutionally deficient, claiming that deportation should not be a consequence about which counsel must inform a client.” [Alliance for Justice, 12/19]

The Kentucky Supreme Court Concluded Postconviction Relief Was Not Guaranteed To Padilla Because Deportation Was A “Collateral” Consequence Of His Conviction

The Kentucky Supreme Court Denied Postconviction Relief To Padilla Because Deportation Was A “Collateral” Consequence Of His Conviction. According to Justia, “The Kentucky Supreme Court denied Padilla postconviction relief on the ground that the Sixth Amendment’s effective-assistance-of-counsel guarantee does not protect defendants from erroneous deportation advice because deportation is merely a ‘collateral’ consequence of a conviction. [Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), Accessed 6/24/24]

Duncan Filed A Brief That Urged Affirmance Of The Ruling

Duncan Filed A Brief On Behalf Of The State Of Louisiana In Padilla vs. Kentucky That Urged Affirmance. According to Padilla vs. Kentucky via the Library of Congress, “A brief of amici curiae urging affirmance was filed for the State of Louisiana et al. by James D. “Buddy” Caldwell, Attorney General of Louisiana, Kyle Duncan, Appellate Chief.” [Padilla vs Kentucky, Library of Congress, No. 08–651, Accessed 6/24/24] 

• The Supreme Court Found That Lawyers Must Advise Their Clients On Deportation Consequences. According to Padilla vs. Kentucky via the Library of Congress, “The majority stated that attorneys must advise defendants of deportation consequences even when the law is ambiguous, and they must specifically inform defendants that deportation is certain to result from a conviction when the law is unambiguous.”[Padilla vs Kentucky, Library of Congress, No. 08–651, Accessed 6/24/24] 

Stuart Kyle Duncan On Abortion

Duncan Supported And Upheld Abortion Limitations

Duncan Wrote A Brief In Support Of A Texas Law That Placed Restrictions On Abortion Providers

Duncan Supported A Texas Law That Required Abortion Providers To Have Admitting Privileges Within 30 Miles Of The Clinic. According to the Alliance for Justice, “Beyond contraceptive access, Duncan has consistently fought against women’s reproductive rights in the form of the right to choose to have an abortion. He co-authored an amicus brief in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016).29 The Whole Woman’s Health case involved a Texas law that required abortion providers to have admitting privileges within 30 miles of the clinic, which led to a mass closing of facilities that offered abortion procedures. Duncan’s brief argued that the regulation ‘enhance[ed] patient safety for an array of outpatient procedures.’” [Alliance for Justice, accessed 5/16/24]

• The Supreme Court Ruled That The Law Placed An Undue Burden On Women’s Right To An Abortion. According to the Alliance for Justice, “However, the Supreme Court found that the admitting privileges requirement was unconstitutional as ‘there was no significant health related problem that the new law helped to cure’ and it placed an undue burden on women’s right to an abortion.” [Alliance for Justice, accessed 5/16/24]

Duncan Upheld A Law That Forced Teens To Get Parental Consent Before Obtaining Contraception

Duncan, As Part Of The 5th Circuit Court, Upheld A Ruling That Forced Teenagers Get Parental Consent Before They Can Get Access To Contraception. to According to the Texas Tribune, “The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Texas law requiring parental consent to obtain contraception for minors. […] The 5th Circuit panel, which heard the case last year, found parental consent required for minors’ medical treatment under the Texas Family Code does not conflict with federal law that allows U.S. teens to obtain contraception confidentially at federally-funded family planning clinics. ‘Moreover, Title X’s goal (encouraging family participation in teens’ receiving family planning services) is not undermined by Texas’s goal (empowering parents to consent to their teen’s receiving contraceptives),’ wrote Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan. ‘To the contrary, the two laws reinforce each other.’” [Texas Tribune, 3/12/24]

Duncan Opposed Reproductive Rights As A Private Attorney

Duncan Opposed Abortion And Contraception As A Private Attorney

As A Private Attorney, Duncan Submitted Briefs Opposing Abortion And Contraception. According to the Alliance for Justice, “Kyle Duncan has spent his career fighting against reproductive rights and LGBTQ equality, defending discriminatory voting laws, and dismantling protections for immigrants. As a private attorney, he submitted briefs opposing marriage equality, access to abortion and contraception, and a path to citizenship for the children of immigrants. Since being appointed to the Fifth Circuit by Trump, Duncan has continued his efforts to undermine these and other critical rights and protections.” [Alliance for Justice, accessed 5/16/24]

Duncan Criticized The Idea Of Contraceptives For Good Health And Dismissed The Importance Of Contraception Access. According to the Alliance for Justice, “Duncan has vigorously fought the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. In fact, Duncan has dismissed the importance of access to contraception. For example, he has accused the government of treating ‘contraceptives as ‘the sacrament of our modern life,’’ and has criticized what he considers the idea that contraceptives are ‘necessary for ‘the good life,’ health and economic success of society, particularly women.’” [Alliance for Justice, accessed 5/16/24]

Duncan Was Lead Counsel In Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, Where The Company Sued To Deny Contraceptive Coverage As Part Of Their Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Plans. According to NPR, “The lead plaintiff before the court is Hobby Lobby, a chain of more than 500 arts and crafts stores with more than 13,000 employees. The owners are conservative Christians who object to some forms of birth control and contend that the mandate thus abridges their religious rights in violation of both the Constitution and federal law. […] Hobby Lobby and the Green family are represented by Kyle Duncan of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Duncan argues that the contraception coverage requirement coerces the corporate owners to violate their religious beliefs. “That forces them to choose between violating their faith or exposing their businesses to severe consequences including, potentially, severe fines,” he said in an interview. [NPR, 11/26/13]