National
Pelosi presses GOP on DOMA defense contract
Minority leader asks why Democrats excluded from negotiations

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday stepped up the pressure on Republican leadership to answer questions about cost and transparency over the recently signed contact allowing a private attorney to assist with defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
In an April 20 letter to U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Pelosi says questions remained unanswered about hiring Paul Clement, an attorney with King & Spalding, to help the House general counsel with defending DOMA in court because Democratic lawmakers weren’t informed of negotiations prior to the contract signing.
“Since Democratic members were excluded from all negotiations, I would appreciate your providing the following information concerning the contractās transparency, cost, the discount and the restrictions placed upon King and Spaldingās vast lobbying practice,” Pelosi writes.
On Tuesday, the House contract with Clement was made public, revealing that House general counsel Kerry Kircher has hired the private attorney to assist with defending DOMA for a total sum that could reach $500,000 andĀ at a blended rate of $520 an hour.
Among Pelosi’s inquiries is whether King & Spalding won the contract after a bidding process or if the selection of the firm was made as a sole source contract. The Democratic leader also asks how the $520 an hour rate for Clement was determined and the total possible sum of $500,000 for his work.
On Feb. 23, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder notified Congress that President Obama determined DOMA was unconstitutional and that the Justice Department would no longer defend the anti-gay law against litigation in court. Following a 3-2 party-line vote in March by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Council, Boehner directed the House general counsel to take up defense of DOMA in place of the administration.
In response to the letter, Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesperson, said he hopes Pelosi’s concern over DOMA defense costs means she’ll back the speaker’s call to redirect funds from the Justice Department to Congress to pay for the House defense of DOMA.
“The minority leader’s new-found concern for saving taxpayers money is encouraging,” Steel said. “We hope it means we can count on her support for reducing DOJ’s budget to recoup any costs incurred by the House so that taxpayers will bear no added cost for the administration’s refusal to defend the laws of the United States.”
The full text of letter of the letter follows:
April 20, 2011
The Honorable John A. Boehner
Speaker of the House
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515Dear Mr. Speaker:
The release of the contract between the House of Representatives and the law firm of King and Spalding concerning litigation on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) raises many questions.Ā While the Democratic Members of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) opposed the decision of the Republican Members to authorize involvement in the DOMA lawsuits, that opposition in no way diminished the need for normal oversight of the terms of any contract signed by the Republican Leadership obligating the House of Representatives to pay half a million dollars of taxpayer money for private attorneys.Ā Yet the Democratic representatives on the BLAG, and the Democratic members of the Committee on House Administration, were provided with no information about the contract prior to or, at the time of, its being signed on April 14th. Since Democratic members were excluded from all negotiations, I would appreciate your providing the following information concerning the contractās transparency, cost, the discount and the restrictions placed upon King and Spaldingās vast lobbying practice:
TRANSPARENCY
Did the BLAG or any House entity issue a call for bids, or was the selection of King and Spalding made as a sole source contract?Ā Who specifically made the decision to hire this firm, and what criteria were used?Ā Why was the Democratic membership of the Committee on House Administration not informed of the ongoing negotiations with King and Spalding and provided an opportunity to participate in order to assure a transparent process to prevent taxpayer dollars from being wasted?
COST
How was the $520 dollar an hour āblended rateā for attorneys negotiated, and how was the $500,000 fee established?Ā Was there a determination that $500,000 would be sufficient to pay for the complete legal representation in the 12 pending cases, and if so, who made that determination and how?Ā Is $520 an hour the regular rate normally charged by King and Spalding attorneys?Ā What are the specific hourly rates that will be charged by each of the King and Spalding attorneys listed in section 5 of the contract?Ā Is it anticipated that King and Spalding will represent the House in all 12 pending DOMA cases from the trial stage through any and all appeals?
DISCOUNT AND ETHICS
The contract states that other fees may be assessed at 75% of the firmās regular charges.Ā What āother feesā are contemplated, and how was the 75% rate established?Ā Is it the standard practice of King and Spalding to give a 25% discount for non-attorney time to all government agencies or does the discount only pertain to the House Republican leadership?Ā Did the Ethics Committee review the proposed contract discount to ascertain whether it complied with all House ethics rules governing the provision of gratuities to the House by a commercial entity?Ā If so, please provide the written opinion of the Ethics Committee.
LOBBYING
Please provide a copy of all written restrictions imposed on King and Spaldingās extensive lobbying practice to ensure that no conflicts of interest arise on behalf of its extensive list of corporate clients while that firm is employed by the House.
Thank you for your timely response to this letter and my letter of April 18th.
Best regards,
NANCY PELOSI
Democratic Leader
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to hear Md. religious freedom case on Tuesday
Advocacy groups to rally outside during Mahmoud v. Taylor oral arguments

Activists on Tuesday will hold a rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices hear oral arguments in a case that will determine whether schools are violating parentsā religious freedom by not letting them opt their children out of learning about LGBTQ-specific topics.
Mahmoud v. Taylor is a case out of Montgomery County about parents who wish to opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed lessons in public schools for religious reasons.Ā
Montgomery County Public Schools, after initially allowing parents to opt their children out, changed the policy in March 2023.
The plaintiffs ā Tamer Mahmoud, Enas Barakat, and other parents ā argue āthe storybooks were chosen to disrupt ācisnormativityā and āeither/or thinkingā among students.ā
āThe board’s own principals objected that the curriculum was ānot appropriate for the intended age group,ā presented gender ideology as āfact,ā āsham[ed]ā students with contrary opinions, and was ādismissive of religious beliefs,āā according to the petition on the Supreme Courtās website.
The petition goes further, saying the parents are ānot challenging the curriculum, but arguing that compelling their elementary-age children to participate in instruction contrary to their parentsā religious convictions violated the Free Exercise Clause. Construing Wisconsin v. Yoder, the 4th Circuit found no free-exercise burden because no one was forced āto change their religious beliefs or conduct.āā
The Coalition for Inclusive Schools and Communities, an organization that aims to bring together āadvocates, educators, families, and organizations committed to inclusive, affirming, fact and science-based education,ā will participate in the āRally for Inclusive Educationā rally outside the Supreme Court alongside Live In Your Truth and the Montgomery County Pride Family.
āInclusive education isnāt just a value ā itās a necessity,ā said Phillip Alexander Downie, co-chair of the Coalition for Inclusive Schools and Communities and CEO of Montgomery County Pride Family. āThe right of every child to learn in an environment where they see themselves reflected, affirmed, and respected is under attack. This rally is our moment to protect that right ā and ensure future generations inherit classrooms rooted in truth, equity, equality, and justice.ā
The Coalition for Inclusive Schools and Communities says the rally is a ānonpartisan community gathering rooted in education, advocacy, and solidarity.ā
āThe focus of this event is to uplift the importance of inclusive learning environments, celebrate the power of diversity in our schools, and amplify the voices of those most impacted by exclusionary practices and rhetoric,ā it said.
The rally will feature speakers from across the country, including students, educators, civil rights leaders, and authors who will give their own testimonies as to why it is important to have inclusivity in primary education. Trans Maryland, the National Womenās Law Center, MoCoPride Center, and Authors Against Book Bans are among the LGBTQ groups sponsoring the event.
National
EXCLUSIVE: Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen to step down from Advocates for Trans Equality
A4TE formed last year when two transgender rights groups merged

Advocates for Trans Equality Executive Director Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen on Monday announced he will step down on April 30.
The Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund and the National Center for Transgender Equality formed Advocates for Trans Equality last year when they merged. Heng-Lehtinen was previously NCTE’s executive director.
āNow that weāve made it through the merger, and A4TE is established as a new, prominent institution fighting hard for trans equality, itās time for me to take my next step,ā said Heng-Lehtinen in a press release that Advocates for Trans Equality sent exclusively to the Washington Blade. āWhen Andy (Hong Marra) and I began envisioning the merger, I committed to seeing it through. Iām proud that now our vision has been realized. A4TE has not just launched, but is fully up and running, delivering results for trans people around the country. With A4TE gaining momentum, Iām now ready to move on to my next chapter.ā
Heng-Lehtinen, whose mother is former Florida Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, in the press release stressed he “will be focusing on changing hearts and minds.”
“With my background in persuasion and messaging, itās where I can make the biggest difference, and what I feel called to return to in this era of anti-trans backlash,” said Heng-Lehtinen. “I will still be fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with everyone (in) the trans movement, simply in a different capacity.”
Marra, who is Advocates for Trans Equality’s CEO, praised Heng-Lehtinen and said the organization’s work will continue.
āWe thank Rodrigo for his years of dedicated leadership and service,ā said Marra. āA4TE will continue to deliver on our promise to advocate for the lives of trans people who need us now more than ever. We remain undaunted by our endeavor to ensure trans people and our families are no less than free and equal and treated with dignity and respect.āĀ
Louisiana Trans Advocates Executive Director Peyton Rose Michelle also praised Heng-Lehtinen.
“Rodrigo has been a steady hand and a bright light in this work,” she said. “He’s someone who shows up with integrity, kindness, and a deep commitment to meeting this political moment with courage. Iāve always felt deeply supported and heard by him, which is something I value deeply.ā
āI fully support him as he steps into this new chapter, and I know his clarity of vision and heart-forward leadership will keep shifting this landscape back toward justice for trans people, and therefore, all people,” added Michelle.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge blocks Trump passport executive order
State Department can no longer issue travel documents with ‘X’ gender markers

A federal judge on Friday ruled in favor of a group of transgender and nonbinary people who have filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s executive order that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers.
The Associated Press notes U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick in Boston issued a preliminary injunction against the directive. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the plaintiffs, in a press release notes Kobick concluded Trump’s executive order “is likely unconstitutional and in violation of the law.”
“The preliminary injunction requires the State Department to allow six transgender and nonbinary people to obtain passports with sex designations consistent with their gender identity while the lawsuit proceeds,” notes the ACLU. “Though todayās court order applies only to six of the plaintiffs in the case, the plaintiffs plan to quickly file a motion asking the court to certify a class of people affected by the State Department policy and to extend the preliminary injunction to that entire class.”
Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.
Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an āXā gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.
The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022. Trump signed his executive order shortly after he took office in January.
Germany, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands are among the countries that have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who plan to visit the U.S.
āThis ruling affirms the inherent dignity of our clients, acknowledging the immediate and profound negative impact that the Trump administration’s passport policy would have on their ability to travel for work, school, and family,ā said ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director Jessie Rossman after Kobick issued her ruling.
āBy forcing people to carry documents that directly contradict their identities, the Trump administration is attacking the very foundations of our right to privacy and the freedom to be ourselves,” added Rossman. “We will continue to fight to rescind this unlawful policy for everyone so that no one is placed in this untenable and unsafe position.ā
-
State Department5 days ago
HIV/AIDS activists protest at State Department, demand full PEPFAR funding restoration
-
Brazil5 days ago
US lists transgender Brazilian congresswoman’s gender as ‘male’ on visa
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
Capital Pride wins $900,000 D.C. grant to support WorldPride
-
Obituary4 days ago
Local attorney, LGBTQ rights advocate Dale Sanders dies at 75