Connect with us

National

Windsor to Supreme Court: Strike down DOMA

Lesbian widow’s brief says anti-gay law should be subject to heightened scrutiny

Published

on

Edith Windsor, gay news, Washington Blade

Attorneys for Edith Windsor filed their against DOMA before the Supreme Court on Tuesday (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Attorneys for New York lesbian widow Edith Windsor are arguing that the Supreme Court should strike down the Defense of Marriage Act on the basis that it violates her right to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

In a 63-page briefĀ filed on Tuesday, Windsor’s lawyers make their case against DOMA ā€” saying it furthers no federal interest in procreation or dual sovereignty with the states ā€” and argue the law should be subjected to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption it’s unconstitutional.

“DOMA’s discriminatory treatment of married gay couples violates Ms. Windsor’s right to the equal protections of the laws as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment,” the brief states.

Signers of the briefĀ include private attorney Robbie Kaplan and attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, who filed the lawsuit on behalf on Windsor.

The case pending before the Supreme Court is known as Windsor v. United States and challenges Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Windsor is suing the U.S. government because in 2009 under the law she had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes upon the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer. Married straight couples are exempt from the estate tax under current law.

A substantial portion of the brief is devoted to countering the arguments of the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which filed a brief in favor of DOMA in late January. Under the direction of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), BLAG has taken up defense of DOMA following the Obama administration’s announcement in February 2011 that it would no longer defend the law.

Windsor’s attorneys, for example, say BLAG’s argument that DOMA serves a federal interest by preserving marriage as one man, one woman to encourage responsible procreation “speaks volumes” about the lack of validity of the law.

“This one difference cannot explain the federal government’s decision to impose a sweeping disability on married gay couples that excludes them from countless federal programs and protections, and that only harms their children,” the brief states. “Because this distinction is based on the one feature that distinguishes married gay couples from married straight couples, what BLAG is really arguing is that it is acceptable to discriminate against married gay couples simply because they are gay.”

The brief from Windsor’s attorneys comes on the heels of a similar brief filed against DOMA before the Supreme Court by the Justice Department, which has assisted in litigation against the law. Both briefs argue that the court should apply heightened scrutiny to its review of DOMA.

Windsor’s attorneys makes the argument that DOMA should be subjected to heightened scrutiny because, like other suspect classes, gay people have suffered a long history of discrimination, sexual orientation is a central part of a person’s identity, and gay people lack power in the political process.

The brief also states that gay people should be considered a suspect class because sexual orientation has no bearing on their ability to contribute to society.

“Despite pervasive discrimination, lesbians and gay men have served with great distinction in virtually every facet of American society, as artists, athletes, academics, soldiers, scientists, lawyers, judges, psychologists like Dr. Spyer, and computer programmers like Ms. Windsor,” the brief states.

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals applied heightened scrutiny to DOMA in its ruling against the law. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will do the same, but if it did, that could have widespread implications on laws affecting gay people.

However, there’s a key difference between the arguments in the briefs with regard to how DOMA hold against an application of a lower standard of rational basis review. Windsor’s attorneys say the court should strike down DOMA even it applied this lower standard and didn’t apply heightened scrutiny. The Justice Department does not challenge the law on the basis of rational basis review, but admits DOMA would fail under a more searching form of that review.

The next step in the case is for other interested parties to file their friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of Windsor. Those briefs are due Friday.

The House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group has 30 days to respond to the brief filed by Windsor’s attorneys. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for March 27 and justices are expected to render a decision before their term ends in June.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

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 todayā€™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

State Department

HIV/AIDS activists protest at State Department, demand full PEPFAR funding restoration

Black coffins placed in front of Harry S. Truman Building

Published

on

HIV/AIDS activists place black Styrofoam coffins in front of the State Department on April 17, 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Dozens of HIV/AIDS activists on Thursday gathered in front of the State Department and demanded the Trump-Vance administration fully restore President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief funding.

Housing Works CEO Charles King, Health GAP Executive Director Asia Russell, Human Rights Campaign Senior Public Policy Advocate Matthew Rose, and others placed 206 black Styrofoam coffins in front of the State Department before the protest began.

King said more than an estimated 100,000 people with HIV/AIDS will die this year if PEPFAR funding is not fully restored.

“If we continue to not provide the PEPFAR funding to people living in low-income countries who are living with HIV or at risk, we are going to see millions and millions of deaths as well as millions of new infections,” added King.

Then-President George W. Bush in 2003 signed legislation that created PEPFAR.

The Trump-Vance administration in January froze nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending for at least 90 days. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later issued a waiver that allows the Presidentā€™s Emergency Plan for AIDS relief and other ā€œlife-saving humanitarian assistanceā€ programs to continue to operate during the freeze.

The Washington Blade has previously reported PEPFAR-funded programs in Kenya and other African countries have been forced to suspend services and even shut down because of a lack of U.S. funding. Two South African organizations ā€” OUT LGBT Well-being and Access Chapter 2 ā€” that received PEPFAR funding through the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in recent weeks closed down HIV-prevention programs and other services to men who have sex with men.

Rubio last month said 83 percent of USAID contracts have been cancelled. He noted the State Department will administer those that remain in place “more effectively.”

“PEPFAR represents the best of us, the dignity of our country, of our people, of our shared humanity,” said Rose.

Russell described Rubio as “ignorant and incompetent” and said “he should be fired.”

“What secretary of state in 90 days could dismantle what the brilliance of AIDS activism created side-by-side with George W. Bush? What kind of fool could do that? I’ll tell you who, the boss who sits in the Harry S. Truman Building, Marco Rubio,” said Russell.

Health GAP Executive Director Asia Russell, center, speaks in front of the State Department on April 17, 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Continue Reading

U.S. Military/Pentagon

Pentagon urged to reverse Naval Academy book ban

Hundreds of titles discussing race, gender, and sexuality pulled from library shelves

Published

on

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Lambda Legal and the Legal Defense Fund issued a letter on Tuesday urging U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to reverse course on a policy that led to the removal of 381 books from the Nimitz Library of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

Pursuant to President Donald Trump’s executive order 14190, “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” the institution screened 900 titles to identify works promoting “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” removing those that concerned or touched upon “topics pertaining to the experiences of people of color, especially Black people, and/or LGBTQ people,” according to a press release from the civil rights organizations.

These included “I Know Why the Caged Bird Singsā€ by Maya Angelou, ā€œStone Fruitā€ by Lee Lai,Ā ā€œThe Hate U Giveā€ by Angie Thomas, ā€œLies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrongā€ by James W. Loewen, ā€œGender Queer: A Memoirā€ by Maia Kobabe, and ā€œDemocracy in Black: How Race Still Enslaves the American Soulā€ by Eddie S. Glaude, Jr.Ā 

The groups further noted that “the collection retained other books with messages and themes that privilege certain races and religions over others, including ‘The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan’ by Thomas Dixon, Jr., ‘Mein Kampf’ by Adolf Hitler, and ‘Heart of Darkness’ by Joseph Conrad.

In their letter, Lambda Legal and LDF argued the books must be returned to circulation to preserve the “constitutional rights” of cadets at the institution, warning of the “danger” that comes with “censoring materials based on viewpoints disfavored by the current administration.”

“Such censorship is especially dangerous in an educational setting, where critical inquiry, intellectual diversity, and exposure to a wide array of perspectives are necessary to educate future citizen-leaders,”Ā Lambda Legal Chief Legal Officer Jennifer C. PizerĀ andĀ LDF Director of Strategic Initiatives Jin Hee Lee said in the press release.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular