Connect with us

National

Conn. federal court latest to rule against DOMA

Bush-appointed judge says anti-gay law unconstitutional

Published

on

Law gavel, gay news, Washington Blade

(Photo via Wikimedia)

A Connecticut federal court has added yet another ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and determined the law is unconstitutional on the basis of two standards of review.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Vanessa Bryant of the U.S. District Court of Connecticut granted summary judgment in the case of Pedersen et al v. Office of Personnel Management andĀ ruled against DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, on the basis that it violates equal protection under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Among the reasons why Bryant, who was appointed in 2007 by former President George W. Bush, determined that DOMA is unconstitutional is the negative effect that it has on children reared by married same-sex couples.

“For example, Section 3 of DOMA deprives members of same-sex marriages of the right, under the FMLA, to take leave to care for a spouse with a serious health condition,” Bryant writes. “Children of same-sex families would undoubtedly suffer from their parents’ inability to rely on this federal marital benefit, as their household would be put under greater stress in attempting to cope with the serious illness of a parent.”

The lawsuit was filed by the New England-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.Ā Co-counsel onĀ PedersenĀ are Jenner & Block LLP in D.C., Horton, Shields & Knox in Hartford, Conn., and Sullivan & Worcester LLP in Boston.

The 104-page ruling first lays out reasons why DOMA fails first on the heightened scrutiny standard of review, but also under the lower standard of rational basis review.Ā Only in the case of Golinksi v. United States has a court before determined that DOMA is unconstitutional on both of these standards of review.

Doug NeJaime, who’s gay and a professor at Loyola Law School, said the application of both standards of review in the case is noteworthy, and added that Bryant isn’t the first judge to strike down DOMA in this manner.

“The striking thing is that the judge has applied the heightened scrutiny standard and determined that sexual orientation should get heightened scrutiny and does an analysis on why DOMA fails rational basis anyway,” NeJaime said.

The plaintiffs in the case are five couples and a widower from Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire who have been denied the federal benefits, including benefits afforded to the spouses of federal employees. The lead plaintiff isĀ Joanne Pedersen, who retired from aĀ civilian position within the Department of the Navy after 30 years and is seeking health benefits for her spouse,Ā Ann Meitzen.

Pedersen said she’s “thrilled” the court ruled her marriageĀ should be respected by the federal government just as it is in her home state of Connecticut, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2008.

ā€œI loved working for the Navy for many years, and now that I am retired I now just want to care for my wife and make sure we can enjoy some happy and healthy years together,” Pedersen said. “DOMA has prevented us from doing that.ā€

Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s civil rights project director, said in a conference call with reporters that the ruling makes convincing arguments against DOMA on both heightened scrutiny and rational basis standards of review.

ā€œJudge Bryant’s ruling is very clear: married people are married and should be treated as such by the federal government. There is no legitimate basis for DOMA’s broad disrespect of the marriages of same-sex couples,ā€ Bonauto said in a statement. ā€œWe are very pleased that the court recognized that DOMA’s creation of second-class marriages harms our clients who simply seek the same opportunities to care and provide for each other and for their children that other families enjoy.ā€

Additionally, Bonauto said she expects the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to appeal the case to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which must happen within 60 days. BLAG, under the direction of U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other Republicans, took up defense of DOMA after the Obama administration stopped defending DOMA in court last year.

A spokesperson for Boehner’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the Connecticut court ruling against DOMA.

Several courts at various levels have made rulings against DOMA. The tally now stands at five district courts, one appeals court and one bankruptcy court. A number of parties both for and against DOMA have asked the Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of DOMA, although no such request has been made in the Pedersen case.

TheĀ Pedersen case could be joined on appeal to the Second Circuit withĀ Windsor v. United States, in which a New York federal district court ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional, because both cases have been filed in the Second Circuit. Windsor is among the cases through which both plaintiffs — and supporters of DOMA repeal like New York City Michael Bloomberg and New York City Speaker Christine Quinn — have asked the Supreme Court to overturn DOMA.

The decision comes on the same day the proponents of California’s Proposition 8 appealed a U.S. Ninth Circuit Court panel’s decision overturning the amendment to the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s possible that the high court could weigh the constitutionality of California’s gay ban at the same time it determines the constitutionality of DOMA.

 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

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

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

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 parents’ 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 — Tamer Mahmoud, Enas Barakat, and other parents — argue ā€œthe storybooks were chosen to disrupt ā€˜cisnormativity’ and ā€˜either/or thinking’ among students.ā€ 

ā€œThe board’s own principals objected that the curriculum was ā€˜not appropriate for the intended age group,’ presented gender ideology as ā€˜fact,’ ā€˜sham[ed]’ students with contrary opinions, and was ā€˜dismissive of religious beliefs,ā€™ā€ according to the petition on the Supreme Court’s website. 

The petition goes further, saying the parents are ā€œnot challenging the curriculum, but arguing that compelling their elementary-age children to participate in instruction contrary to their parents’ religious convictions violated the Free Exercise Clause. Construing Wisconsin v. Yoder, the 4th Circuit found no free-exercise burden because no one was forced ā€˜to change their religious beliefs or conduct.ā€™ā€

The Coalition for Inclusive Schools and Communities, an organization that aims to bring together ā€œadvocates, educators, families, and organizations committed to inclusive, affirming, fact and science-based education,ā€ will participate in the ā€œRally for Inclusive Educationā€ rally outside the Supreme Court alongside Live In Your Truth and the Montgomery County Pride Family.

ā€œInclusive education isn’t just a value — it’s a necessity,ā€ said Phillip Alexander Downie, co-chair of the Coalition for Inclusive Schools and Communities and CEO of Montgomery County Pride Family. ā€œThe 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 — 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 ā€œnonpartisan community gathering rooted in education, advocacy, and solidarity.ā€ 

ā€œThe 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 Women’s Law Center, MoCoPride Center, and Authors Against Book Bans are among the LGBTQ groups sponsoring the event.

Continue Reading

National

EXCLUSIVE: Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen to step down from Advocates for Trans Equality

A4TE formed last year when two transgender rights groups merged

Published

on

Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen (Photo courtesy of Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen)

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.

ā€œNow that we’ve made it through the merger, and A4TE is established as a new, prominent institution fighting hard for trans equality, it’s 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. ā€œWhen Andy (Hong Marra) and I began envisioning the merger, I committed to seeing it through. I’m 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, I’m 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, it’s 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.

ā€œWe thank Rodrigo for his years of dedicated leadership and service,ā€ said Marra. ā€œA4TE 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.ā€Ā 

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. I’ve always felt deeply supported and heard by him, which is something I value deeply.ā€

ā€œI 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. 

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge blocks Trump passport executive order

State Department can no longer issue travel documents with ‘X’ gender markers

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

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 today’s 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 ā€œXā€ 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.

ā€œThis 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.

ā€œBy 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€

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular