National
Prop 8 opponents: Calif. civilians can’t defend case against state
Supporters of anti-gay law attempting to jump in to defend it after the state chose to stay out
Today the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether or not under state law civilian supporters can take the place of the state, specifically in the Federal case challenging anti-marriage equality Proposition 8.
The hour long hearing was followed by press conferences in which both sides expressed pleasure in the outcome. The court, however, still has 90 days to come to a decision, and both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 will be watching closely for any indication that that decision is ready.
In August of last year, Federal Court Judge Vaughn Walker found unconstitutional Proposition 8, the law barring marriage between two adults of the same sex created after a November 2008 ballot measure, ruling in favor of plaintiffs represented by the organization American Foundation for Equal Rights. The attorneys leading the charge against the law are former President Bush solicitor general Ted Olson, and former Al Gore lawyer David Boies who in 2000 faced off in Bush v. Gore. While plaintiffs are seeking to restore marriage equality to California, proponents of the measure are attempting to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling.
The 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals put the case, Perry v. Brown (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger) on hold in January after both Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to defend the law in court citing their own constitutional objections. When concerned citizen groups hoping to keep the law on the books attempted to fill in for the state to defend the law, the 9th Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to rule on whether or not the concerned groups can in fact defend the law in place of the state. The legal principle at question is “standing,” which Law.com defines as “the right to file a lawsuit or file a petition under the circumstances.”
Though the 9th Circuit will make the ultimate decision, the appeals certified a question to the State Supreme Court of California on whether state law allows proponents of the ballot initiative to have the right to represent the state in the appeal in place of the state officials themselves. In February the California Supreme Court agreed to address the 9th Circuit’s question which led to today’s hearing.
If the State Supreme Court decides that the interest groups — which include a well-funded conservative website called ProtectMarriage.com — can indeed take the place of the state in defending the law, the 9th Circuit is expected to follow the guidance, allowing the case to proceed through the 9th Circuit despite the non-involvement of any agents of the state. Likewise, if the California Supreme Court decides against the proponents of Proposition 8, the 9th Circuit is expected to concur, which will end the appeals process at Judge Walker’s decision overturning the law.
The Proposition 8 ballot measure was passed in reaction to a decision by the California Supreme Court earlier in 2008 overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriages, which allowed roughly 18,000 same-sex couples to marry in California during the short window prior to the election. The Supreme Court has since upheld those marriages as valid, though new marriages can not be recognized as a consequence of the proposition. The state also passed a law following the passage of Prop 8 that allows the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of California during that same short window.
Arguing for the proponents of Prop 8, Charles Cooper argued that the interest groups would be given standing if this were a state court case, while Justices weighed whether or not the same standard ought to apply in this Federal Court matter.
Ted Olson (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Ted Olson, arguing for the plaintiffs, focused on the lack of precedent for such an intervention by an interest group, and claimed finding in favor of the Prop 8 proponents and granting their right to appeal would mean, essentially “amending” the California Constitution. He also argued that allowing Prop 8 proponents to take the place of the state in the case would set a dangerous precedent undermining the authority of the California Attorney General to make such decisions.
“Initiative proponents are elected by no one,” Olson told the justices, as reported by Adam Bink of Courage Campaign and Kate Kendell of the Center for Lesbian Rights. “Proponents took no oath to represent the people.”
When asked what the particular interest the proponents of Prop 8 had in continuing to defend the case, Charles Cooper responded to the justices, “Our interest is to protect and defend our fundamental right to propose initiatives. We have to defend that.”
In response, the justices asked “Doesn’t that right arise before the initiative is qualified?”
“This court has never recognized any distinction between before and after enactment,” Cooper responded. “That wouldn’t make any sense. What the proponents have a right to do is propose valid constitutional amendments. It is inescapable that they then have the right to defend that measure, before OR after enactment.”
However, before his time expired, Ted Olson did his best to counter Cooper’s claims.
“They sure spent a great deal of time and money, and exercised their power to ‘propose and enact.’ What they’re asking for is the power to represent themselves because of a particularized interest, which they don’t have,” Olson argued. “My understanding of California law and case law is that the legislature doesn’t have the power to defend legislation in court unless it specifically deals with the legislative power itself. There is no case, and Cooper agrees there is no case, in which the legislature has the power the proponents are claiming here. I think the initiative power is important, but the constitution of California fundamentally limits the power of the initiative and initiative proponents to exercise their right to propose and defend, that’s it.”
After the hearing, representatives from the American Foundation for Equal Rights were confident and expressed pleasure with the hearing.
“Good justices ask hard questions,” Olson said after the hearing, according to Bink and the Courage Campaign. Olson expressed pleasure with the Supreme Court justices, but emphasized he believes that no matter which direction the Supreme Court decides, the opponents of Prop 8 will prevail.
“We’re sure the US Supreme Court will agree with us,” Olson concluded.
Legal Director from Lambda Legal, Jon Davidson seemed to concur.
“It is often impossible to predict from the questions asked by appellate judges how they will rule and today was no different,” Davidson said in a statement. “All of the judges on the California Supreme Court asked probing questions and seemed concerned about the implications of any decision they might make. We continue to hope that the Court will ultimately decide that small groups of unelected individuals who are answerable to no one should not be able to act on behalf of the state.”
However, Shannon Minter legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who has argued before the California Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage, struck a more cautious tone when discussing her reaction to the hearing with veteran LGBT community journalist, Karen Ocamb.
“I was concerned by the tenor of many of the justices’ questions today,” Minter told Ocamb. “The court has a responsibility to enforce the California Constitution, which gives elected state officials—not private initiative sponsors—the authority to decide whether to appeal a federal court decision invalidating a state law.”
Minter continued, “Both conservative and progressive elected officials have occasionally exercised that discretion in the past by choosing not to expend state resources to defend invalidated measures. Permitting special interest groups to usurp that decision-making authority would dramatically change the current law and take a giant step down the road of turning California into a mobocracy.”
Minter expressed concern that a decision in favor of the Prop 8 proponents could have far reaching effects, going beyond just LGBT issues.
“I was disappointed that, with some notable exceptions, too many of the court’s questions today did not address the specific legal questions before them, but rather seemed to glorify the initiative process in the abstract and to abdicate a searching examination of the California Constitution in favor of emotional appeals to ‘the people.’ The initiative process is already frequently misused to target vulnerable groups, due in part to the Court’s past reluctance to enforce any meaningful limits on the process, even when those limits are mandated by the California Constitution,” Minter concluded.
“I sincerely hope the Court does not compound that mistake by now giving initiative proponents an unprecedented new power to step outside of their proper legislative role and usurp the power that our Constitution gives only to elected state officials in the executive branch.”
Hungary
Vance speaks at Orbán rally in Hungary
Anti-LGBTQ prime minister trailing ahead of April 12 vote
Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday urged Hungarians to support Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in the country’s April 12 elections.
“We have got to get Viktor Orbán re-elected as prime minister of Hungary,” Vance told Orbán supporters who gathered at Budapest’s MTK Sportpark.
Vance and Orbán on Tuesday met before they held a press conference in Budapest. Orbán also spoke at the rally.
The U.S. vice president after he took to the stage called President Donald Trump, who told the crowd he is “a big fan of Viktor” and is “with him all the way.” Vance, as he did during Tuesday’s press conference with Orbán, criticized the European Union.
“We want you to make a decision about your future with no outside forces pressuring you or telling you what to do. I’m not telling you exactly who to vote for, but what I am telling you is that the bureaucrats in Brussels, those people should not be listened to,” said Vance. “Listen to your hearts, listen to your souls, and listen to the sovereignty of the Hungarian people.”
Vance in his speech noted “across the West, we’ve got a small band of radicals” who, among other things, “condemn children to mutilization and sterilization in the name of gender care.” Vance also criticized a “far-left ideology given quarter in university circles, in the media, and in our entertainment industry, and increasingly among bureaucrats on both sides of the Atlantic.”
Vice President JD Vance speaks at MTK Sportpark in Budapest, Hungary, on April 7, 2026
Orbán has been in office since 2010. He and his Fidesz-KDNP coalition government have faced widespread criticism over its anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
A Hungarian activist with whom the Washington Blade previously spoke said it is “impossible to change your gender legally in Hungary” because of a 2020 law that “banned legal gender recognition of transgender and intersex people.” Hungarian MPs the same year effectively prohibited same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the country’s constitution as between a man and a woman.
The European Commission in 2022 sued Hungary, which is a member of the EU, over the country’s anti-LGBTQ propaganda law.
Hungarian lawmakers in March 2025 passed a bill that banned Pride events and allowed authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs later amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
Upwards of 100,000 people last June defied the ban and marched in Budapest’s annual Pride parade.
Polls indicate Orbán is trailing Péter Magyar and his center-right Tisza party ahead of the April 12 election. Vance at Tuesday’s rally told Orbán supporters that he and Trump “want you to make a decision about your future with no outside forces pressuring you or telling you what to do.”
“I’m not telling you exactly who to vote for, but what I am telling you is that the bureaucrats in Brussels, those people should not be listened to,” said Vance. “Listen to your hearts, listen to your souls, and listen to the sovereignty of the Hungarian people.”
“Unlike some of the leadership of Brussels, I’m not threatening you or telling you that we’re going to withhold funds to which you’re legally entitled,” he added. “You will make the decision about Hungary’s future.”
The White House
White House ends protections for trans students in multiple school districts
Cape Henlopen School District in Delaware among administration’s targets
The Department of Education has terminated agreements with five school districts and a college aimed at protecting the rights of transgender students, backtracking requirements made in prior administrations, according to the Associated Press.
Allowing the reversal of these federal obligations removes formerly mandatory measures, including faculty training on responding to a student’s preferred name and pronouns, and policies allowing trans children to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity.
This policy change is a major shift from past democratic-led administrations, and will impact Delaware Valley School District in Pennsylvania, Sacramento City Unified School District in California, Cape Henlopen School District in Delaware, Fife School District in Washington, and La Mesa-Spring Valley School District, as well as Taft College in California.
Delaware Valley School District received notice from the Trump-Vance administration in February and has since voted to roll back anti-discrimination protections. Other schools, like Sacramento City Unified School District, said the change in minimum protections a district must offer will not affect their policies because it “remains committed to the support of our LGBTQ+ students and staff.”
This is part of a wider wave of anti-trans actions taken by the Trump-Vance administration. This White House has penalized schools attempting to accommodate students’ gender identity, filed lawsuits in California and Minnesota over state policies allowing trans students to participate in interscholastic sports, and opened civil rights investigations into multiple schools and universities over their policies on trans students.
Kimberly Richey, the Department of Education’s Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, said the action underscored the administration’s efforts to prevent trans students from participating in girls’ and women’s sports teams and accessing shared locker rooms.
“Today, the Trump administration is removing the unnecessary and unlawful burdens that prior administrations imposed on schools in its relentless pursuit of a radical transgender agenda,” she said in a written statement.
According to the AP, this is just one instance of the administration rescinding civil rights protections in education. Last year, the Department of Education terminated two agreements: one involving the removal of books from a school library in Georgia, and another addressing harsh discipline and unequal education opportunities for Native students in the Rapid City Area School District in South Dakota.
Shiwali Patel, the senior director of education justice at the National Women’s Law Center, issued a statement in response to the removal of protections for trans students, saying the rollback will negatively impact all students — not just trans ones.
“There is absolutely no basis for what the Department of Education is doing, and it is unimaginably cruel. Title IX exists to ensure that students are protected from discrimination and treated with dignity so that they can learn and thrive in our schools,” Patel said. “It’s what students, families, lawmakers, and advocates fought for when Title IX was passed decades ago. But the Trump administration’s Department of Education has spent its limited resources to strip Title IX of that very purpose.”
She continued, highlighting the issues that will arise from the agreement removals in schools.
“Real complaints of discrimination and sexual assault are going unanswered by the Department of Education while conservative lawmakers continue to escalate their attacks on a small minority of students,” the nationally recognized Title IX expert and advocacy leader for gender-based harassment added. “Parents, teachers, and students need the Department to focus on addressing real harms on campuses instead of rolling back policies that keep all students safe.”
The schools that had their agreements terminated vary, but stem from the same issue: treating trans students with the same protections from harassment as their cisgender peers.
In 2023, Taft College, a community college in California’s Central Valley, became one of the few schools to settle a case with the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Office after a student accused faculty of discrimination, including refusing to use the student’s preferred pronouns. The college agreed to faculty training on Title IX protections and revised its policies to clarify that refusing to use a person’s preferred name and pronoun can constitute harassment.
The now-canceled agreement with Sacramento City Unified School District stemmed from a 2022 complaint brought by a student after a teacher refused to use the student’s preferred pronouns and/or refused to allow the male-identifying student to work in a boys’ group for a class activity. The 2024 resolution agreement had mandated training for employees on civil rights law, sexual harassment, and how to handle formal complaints.
Under a settlement the Delaware Valley School District reached with the Obama-Biden administration, the district was required to permit students to use bathrooms aligned with their gender identity. In February, the Trump-Vance administration sent the district a letter rescinding the settlement and requiring the rollback of antidiscrimination protections for trans students. The school board voted in late March to change its policies accordingly.
This move is part of a broader pattern of anti-trans actions from the White House since Trump returned to office.
In addition to restricting protections in federally funded education spaces, the administration has attempted to end trans girls’ and women’s participation in sports competitions and has sued states that have not complied. It has also blocked trans and nonbinary people from choosing sex markers on passports and attempted to stop those under 19 from receiving gender-affirming medical care.
South Carolina
Man faces first S.C. ‘hate intimidation’ charge
Timothy Truett allegedly shot at gay club in Myrtle Beach on April 1
A South Carolina man remains in custody on a more than $300,000 bond after he allegedly opened fire at a Myrtle Beach nightclub on April 1, according to WMBF.
Reports say 37-year-old Timothy James Truett Jr., of Clover, S.C., was detained by the Myrtle Beach Police Department after the April 1 incident outside Pulse Ultra Club. He was later arrested and charged with possession of a weapon during a violent crime, discharging a firearm into a dwelling, discharging a firearm within city limits, malicious injury to real property valued over $5,000, and assault or intimidation due to political opinions or the exercise of civil rights.
At 10:57 a.m. on April 1, officers responded to a call about a possible shooting at Pulse Ultra Club, located in the 2700 block of South Kings Highway.
In an affidavit released later, the club’s owner, Ken Phillips, said he was doing paperwork that morning when he heard “five or six” gunshots. He went outside and found a window and the windshield of his SUV shattered by bullets. An SUV with blue plastic covering one window was left at the scene.
Police later reviewed footage that showed a silver vehicle stopping in the middle of the road. The video appeared to capture muzzle flashes coming from the passenger-side window.
According to the affidavit, an officer later pulled over a vehicle driven by Truett and found spent shell casings in the back seat, along with a gun.
Documents do not detail why Truett was ultimately charged under the state law covering assault or intimidation tied to political opinions or the exercise of civil rights.
As of April 1, records show Truett is being held in Horry County on a combined bond of more than $312,000.
WMBF spoke with Phillips after the incident and asked whether there was any prior conflict that might have led to the shooting.
“I don’t know if it’s personal, I don’t know if it’s related to being gay, I don’t know if it’s related to the bar issues,” Phillips told WMBF. “Anybody with a mindset of pulling out a weapon in broad daylight is not right.”
“My primary concern has and always will be the safety of my community and my customers,” he added. “It’s given me great concern … as to how far people will go.”
WMBF also spoke with Adam Hayes, vice chair of Myrtle Beach’s Human Rights Coalition, who was involved in pushing for the ordinance. He said that while the incident itself is troubling, it shows the policy is being put to use.
The ordinance is intended to deter “crimes that are motivated by bias or hate towards any person or persons, in whole or in part, because of the actual or perceived” identity, in the absence of a statewide hate crime law.
“It’s nice to see that something we put into policy is not just a piece of paper, that it’s actually being used,” said Hayes.
He said the shooting underscores the need for a statewide hate crime law in South Carolina and added that the incident has left the local LGBTQ community shaken.
South Carolina and Wyoming are the only two states in the U.S. without a comprehensive statewide hate crime law.
Truett remains in jail as of publication.
Vance speaks at Orbán rally in Hungary
White House ends protections for trans students in multiple school districts
Amendments to India’s transgender rights law criticized
Cuba under pressure and without answers
Police mental health struggles gain growing attention
Belarusian lawmakers approve bill to crackdown on LGBTQ rights
How new barriers to health care coverage are hitting D.C.
Kenyan advocacy groups launch LGBTQ voter mobilization campaign
Calendar: April 3-9
