Connect with us

National

Legal experts disagree over Obama action on ‘Don’t Ask’

Does Oath of Office force presidents to defend all laws?

Published

on

Nan Hunter, a Georgetown University law professor and prominent gay rights attorney, says President Obama has done the right thing in appealing a decision by a federal judge that overturned the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law.

Hunter’s view contradicts the position of nearly all national LGBT rights groups, which have urged Obama not to appeal the decision. But she is joined by a number of other legal and constitutional experts who oppose ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ but believe U.S. presidents are obligated to defend laws passed by Congress under most circumstances.

“I think the president, through the Justice Department, should defend federal laws, including this one,” Hunter said. “Otherwise you just get way too much. You get the president being able to ignore laws that are passed by Congress, and that’s not a good situation.”

Hunter cautioned LGBT activists that dismantling the longstanding tradition that presidents should defend duly enacted laws — even unpopular ones — could result in the refusal by a different president to enforce laws beneficial to LGBT people.

Other legal experts, including constitutional specialists with the American Civil Liberties Union and the LGBT litigation group Lambda Legal, agree that presidents generally should defend federal laws. But they say the obligation to defend a law should not apply to cases where strong evidence exists that the law is unconstitutional and a court issues a ruling overturning the law on constitutional grounds.

“The ACLU recognizes the Executive’s duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero in an Oct. 14 open letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.

“This duty includes the responsibility to defend Acts of Congress in court, provided there is at least a reasonable argument in favor of the Act’s constitutionality,” Romero said. “At the same time, the Executive is duty bound to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,’ which guarantees that no person is ‘deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.’”

Romero noted that U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips in California ruled in September that the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law is unconstitutional on those same grounds.

“The question is no longer whether the Executive will defend an Act of Congress, but whether the Executive will appeal from a well-reasoned, obviously correct federal court ruling based on findings of fact that are exceedingly unlikely to be reversed,” he said in his letter.

“Given these findings and the proper legal standard of review to be applied, there is no reasonable argument for the constitutionality of the policy, and no reason for the government to appeal,” he said.

Hunter, who personally opposes ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ said following that course could become a “political disaster” that prompts a possible Republican Congress next year to take action to reinstate the law or attempt to force the president to continue to enforce it.

A far better course of action, according to Hunter, would be for the administration to appeal the decision and use a careful, strategic approach to presenting its arguments before the appeals court.

“There are many, many possibilities for how the administration could respond,” she said. “It could respond by filing the appeal so that the case goes to the appeals court and then making arguments that represent the president’s view that it’s a bad law…And then the court of appeals will decide, and that will have much more authority than one District Court judge.”

Susan Sommer, director of constitutional litigation for Lambda Legal, says Obama should not have appealed Judge Phillip’s decision to overturn ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’

“It’s really a shame that the Obama administration is appealing this decision,” Sommer said. “The president is in no position to appeal a decision on a policy that the courts say is unconstitutional. He has an obligation to uphold the Constitution.”

Sommer said she agrees that Obama has an obligation to uphold laws as well as the Constitution.

“But he does not have an obligation to defend a statute whose constitutionality is being challenged in court,” she said. “There have been precedents of a president not defending a law under court challenge. The Justice Department exercises discretion all the time on whether to take cases or not, both civil and criminal.”

David Rittgers, legal policy analyst for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, and an attorney with the Army Reserves, called the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ case a “unique situation” that involves all three branches of the federal government.

Saying he’s speaking for himself and not the Army, Rittgers said he sides with those who believe the president should defend laws, including this one.

“Congress ultimately has to answer this question,” he said. “This will not be a settled issue until Congress acts. This is constitutionally within the realm of Congress.”

Susan Low Bloch, a Georgetown University law professor who specializes in constitutional law, said presidents have refused to enforce laws or chosen not to appeal court decisions overturning them mostly in cases where the law interferes with the president’s or the executive branch’s ability to carry out its duties.

“That’s not the situation with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” she said. “And that’s why it’s not at all surprising to me that the administration has chosen to defend the law, even though they don’t like it. The way to get rid of it is to undo it the proper way—to get Congress to undo it.”

“Now if the court strikes it down, I’m sure behind the scenes the president will be very happy. But he’s not supposed to go into court and undermine it,” she said.

Asked whether she believes a president should wait for the Supreme Court to strike down a law before he or she can stop enforcing it, Bloch said, “Yes, that’s right.”

“People really shouldn’t be surprised at this course because … clearly this is the way the system has worked and I think should work,” she said.

(Obama photo by Michael Key)

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Supreme Court

Concern over marriage equality in US grows two decades after first Mass. same-sex weddings

Gay and lesbian couples began to marry in Bay State in 2004

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

Two decades after Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, a new study reveals both significant progress and ongoing challenges for married LGBTQ couples in the U.S., with a growing sense of insecurity about the future of their rights.

The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law surveyed 484 married same-sex couples from all 50 states and D.C. The study, released Monday, marks the 20th anniversary of legal same-sex marriage in the U.S.

Researchers found that 93 percent of respondents cited love as a primary reason for marrying, with 75 percent also mentioning legal protections. Over 83 percent reported positive changes in their sense of security, and 74.6 percent noted improved life satisfaction since marrying.

However, the study also highlighted persistent discrimination and growing concerns about the future. About 11 percent of couples who had a wedding reported facing prejudice during the planning process.

Alarmingly, nearly 80 percent of respondents expressed concern about the potential overturning of the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. This anxiety has been exacerbated by initiatives like Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint that some fear could roll back LGBTQ rights if implemented.

The possibility of a former President Donald Trump victory in the upcoming election has further intensified these concerns. Many respondents cited Trump’s previous U.S. Supreme Court appointments and his statements on LGBTQ issues as reasons for their apprehension. One participant stated, “The thought of another Trump presidency keeps me up at night. We’ve come so far, but it feels like our rights could be stripped away at any moment.”

The current political climate has 29 percent of respondents considering moving to another state, with 52.9 percent citing socio-political concerns as a primary reason. This reflects a growing sense of insecurity among LGBTQ couples about their rights and freedoms.

Brad Sears, founding executive director of the Williams Institute, noted, “The data clearly show that marriage equality has had a profound positive impact on same-sex couples and their families. However, it also reveals ongoing challenges and serious concerns about the future of these rights in light of current political trends and the upcoming election.”

Christy Mallory, legal director at the Williams Institute and lead author of the study, added, “This research provides crucial insights into the lived experiences of same-sex couples two decades after marriage equality began in the U.S. The high level of concern about potential loss of rights underscores the continued importance of legal protections and public support for LGBTQ+ equality.”

The study found that 30 percent of surveyed couples have children, with 58.1 percent of those parents reporting that marriage provided more stability for their families. However, many of these families now worry about the security of their legal status in the face of potential policy changes and shifting political landscapes.

As the nation reflects on two decades of marriage equality, the study underscores both the transformative power of legal recognition and the ongoing need for vigilance in protecting LGBTQ+ rights. The findings highlight the complex reality faced by same-sex couples in America today: Celebrating hard-won progress while grappling with uncertainty about the future, particularly in light of upcoming political events and potential shifts in leadership.

Continue Reading

State Department

State Department hosts meeting on LGBTQ rights and foreign policy

Event took place before Pride Month reception

Published

on

Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks at the State Department Pride Month event on June 27, 2024. (Screen capture via Forbes Breaking News YouTube)

Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday hosted a group of LGBTQ activists and politicians from around the world at the State Department.

The event — described as a “Convening on U.S. Foreign Policy: National Security, Inclusive Development, and the Human Rights of LGBTQI+ Persons” — took place before the State Department’s annual Pride Month reception. Participants included:

• Jessica Stern, the special U.S. envoy for the promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights

• U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield

• U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai

• U.S. Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti

• Suzanne Goldberg, senior advisor to the Under Secretary of State for Civil Security, Democracy, and Human Rights

• Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Uzra Zeya

• U.S. Agency for International Development Senior LGBTQI+ Coordinator Jay Gilliam

• USAID Counselor Clinton D. White

• National Security Council Senior Director for Democracy and Human Rights Kelly Razzouk

• Assistant U.S. Secretary of Health Adm. Rachel Levine

• National Security Council Human Rights Director Jess Huber

• U.N. Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights Ilze Brandt Kehris

• Icelandic Ambassador to the U.S. Bergdís Ellertsdóttir

• Council for Global Equality Co-Executive Director Mark Bromley

• Outright International Senior Advisor for Global Intersex Rights Kimberly Zieselman

• Essy Adhiambo, executive director of the Institute for Equality and Non Discrimination in Kenya

• Pau González, co-chair of Hombres Trans Panamá and PFLAG-Panamá

“Forty-five years ago, thousands gathered in D.C. in what became the first national march for LGBTQI+, demanding their voices be heard,” said Thomas-Greenfield in a post to her X account that showed her speaking at the event. “We must continue to carry forward the spirit of these pioneers and fight for equal rights and dignity for all.”

President Joe Biden in 2021 signed a memo that committed the U.S. to promoting LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad as part of his administration’s overall foreign policy.

“LGBTQI+ rights are human rights,” said Blinken. “Our government has a responsibility to defend them, to promote them — here and everywhere.”

Blinken noted consensual same-sex sexual relations remain criminalized in 64 countries, with the death penalty in 11 of them.

He specifically highlighted Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government’s “smearing scapegoating, stigmatizing LGBTQI+ persons — vilifying them with degrading labels, denying them equal rights, normalizing violence against them.” (Gay U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman this month marched in the annual Budapest Pride parade.)

Blinken noted Iraqi MPs earlier this year “passed legislation that punishes same-sex relations with up to 15 years in prison.” He also pointed out that Indonesian lawmakers approved a new criminal code banning extramarital sex.

“In a nation where same-sex couples cannot marry, these laws effectively make all same-sex conduct illegal and they undermine privacy for all Indonesians,” said Blinken.

“We’re defending and promoting LGBTQI+ rights around the world,” he said.

Blinken noted seven countries — Barbados, St. Kitts and Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Namibia, Singapore, the Cook Islands — have decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations over the last two years. He also highlighted Greece, Liechtenstein, and Thailand this year extended marriage rights to same-sex couples, and other countries are banning so-called “conversion therapy.”

“These achievements are possible because of incredibly courageous human rights defenders and government partners on the ground, but I believe America’s support is indispensable,” said Blinken. “When we engage — sometimes publicly, sometimes privately, sometimes both — when we share our own knowledge and experience, we can and we do achieve change.”

Blinken also announced the U.S. now considers sexual orientation and gender identity are part of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that took effect in 1976.

“This is one of the key treaties committing nations to upholding universal rights,” he said. 

“In our regular reporting to the council on human rights, we will continue to include incidents of discrimination or abuse committed against LGBTQI+ persons, now with the clear framework of this well-supported interpretation,” added Blinken. “That will further empower our efforts.”

Blinken reiterated this point and the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to the promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad when he spoke at the State Department’s Pride Month event.

“Defending, promoting LGBTQI+ rights globally is the right thing to do, but beyond that, it’s the smart and necessary thing to do for our country, for our national security, for our well-being,” he said.

Continue Reading

The White House

Jill and Ashley Biden headline White House Pride celebration

First lady celebrated historic pardons of LGBTQ veterans

Published

on

First lady Jill Biden speaks at the White House Pride event on June 26. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

First lady Jill Biden and the president and first lady’s daughter, Ashley Biden, headlined the White House Pride celebration on the South Lawn on Wednesday, followed by a performance by singer and actress Deborah Cox.

“My dad has built the most pro-equality administration” in history, Ashley Biden said, crediting the work of LGBTQ people of color like Marsha P. Johnson, a prominent figure in the Stonewall uprising of 1969, as well as “so many of you [who] have continued to lead their fearless fighting against against injustice here and around the world.”

She introduced her mother as “the woman who taught me to be myself up showed me in so many ways how I can make a difference” and who “works every single day, tirelessly, to ensure that all people have the opportunities and freedoms that they deserve.”

“I hope that all of you feel that freedom and love on the South Lawn today,” Jill Biden said.

Her remarks were briefly interrupted by a protestor’s chants of “no Pride in genocide,” which was drowned out by chants of “four more years.”

The first lady noted how many of the attendees came “here from states that are passing laws targeting LGBTQ Americans.”

“There are those who see our communities and our families and wish to tear them down,” she said, “those who can’t see that the world is so much bigger and [more] beautiful than they know — but when our homes are threatened, when they strip away our rights, and deny our basic humanity, we say, ‘not on our watch.'”

“Pride is a celebration, but it is also a declaration,” the first lady said, highlighting the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges nine years ago, which established marriage equality as the law of the land.

She then credited the accomplishments of the Biden-Harris administration on matters of LGBTQ rights, including the repeal of the previous administration’s ban on military service by transgender servicemembers and the FDA’s loosening of restrictions on blood donation by gay and bisexual men.

The first lady also celebrated the president’s announcement earlier on Wednesday that he will pardon LGBTQ veterans who were discharged and court martialed because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

“We will never stop fighting for this community,” she said.

First lady Jill Biden and daughter, Ashley Biden, attend the White House Pride celebration on June 26, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular