National
Justice Dept. objects to ‘Don’t Ask’ injunction
Obama administration calls proposal ‘untenable’
The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday issued an objection to a proposed judgment seeking to bar enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on the basis that a military-wide injunction of the statute is “untenable.”
The Obama administration issued the 19-page objection in the wake of the California federal court ruling in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States that found “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs in the case had sought an injunction against the enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as a result of their victory, but the Justice Department this week urged U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips not to issue that order.
Instead, the Justice Department asks the court to limit the injunction to members of the Log Cabin Republicans who serve in the armed forces.
The next step in the process is for Phillips to determine what judgment she will enter in the case. The Obama administration will then have 60 days to make an appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In a statement, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs maintained President Obama is committed to legislatively repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” even though his administration filed the objection.
“This filing in no way diminishes the president’s firm commitment to achieve a legislative repeal of [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] — indeed, it clearly shows why Congress must act to end this misguided policy,” Gibbs said,
But advocates working for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal are expressing indignation over the Obama administration’s objection to the injunction.
Executive director of Servicemembers United, Alex Nicholson (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United and sole named plaintiff in the lawsuit, said Obama is “certainly taking his so-called ‘duty to defend’ this anti-gay military as far as he possibly can.”
“Two blows from the White House in one week is a bit much,” Nicholson said. “First, the president cannot find the time to make any phone calls to senators to help us avoid a crushing loss on Tuesday, although he does manage to find the time to call the WNBA national champions to congratulate them on their victory. Then, the president once again goes much farther than he has to in defense of the discriminatory and unconstitutional ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law.”
R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the National Log Cabin Republicans, also chastised Obama for the Justice Department’s objection.
“We are not surprised by this but we are extremely disappointed with the Obama administration,” Cooper said. “Many times on the campaign trail, President Obama said he would support the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ Now that it’s time to step up to the plate, he isn’t even in the ballpark.”
The Justice Department offers various reasons for why Log Cabin’s proposed judgment is untenable. One justification that the administration offers is that a military-wide injunction against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would interfere with higher court rulings and foreclose the possibility of litigation in other courts.
“If this court were to enjoin all discharges under [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] throughout the world, it would not only effectively overrule the decisions of numerous other circuits that have upheld [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’], but also preclude consideration of similar challenges by courts in other circuits that have not addressed the issue (not to mention other district judges in the Central District of California) prior to any decision by the Ninth Circuit,” the administration states.
The Justice Department argues that Log Cabin’s proposed judgment would be at odds with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Witt v. Air Force, which allows the opportunity for the U.S. military to prove a gay service member undermines unit cohesion before discharging them.
Additionally, the Justice Department says an injunction would interfere with legislative efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as well as the Pentagon working group’s efforts to develop a plan to implement repeal.
“Entering an injunction with immediate effect would frustrate the ability of the Department of Defense to develop necessary policies, regulations, and training and guidance to accommodate a change in the [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell] law and policy,” the administration states. “An injunction with immediate effect will put [Defense Department] in the position where it must implement ad hoc potentially inadequate policies at a time when the military is in the midst of active combat operations.”
Dan Woods, an attorney at White & Case representing plaintiffs in the case, said the objections from the Justice Department suggest that it doesn’t realize it’s the losing party in the lawsuit.
“The Justice Department’s objections fail to recognize the implications of the government’s defeat at the trial,” Woods said. “It is as if the South announced that it won the Civil War.”
Woods notes that the court previously dismissed the administration’s requests for a stay in the case on three prior occasions and “nothing has changed to suggest that a stay is now appropriate.”
“What is most troubling is that the government’s request for a stay ignores the harm that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell causes to current and potential members of our Armed Forces,” Woods said. “That is the saddest, most disappointing, and, in light of the president’s position, most hypocritical part of the objections.”
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
Trump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
