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.”
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says Pentagon will appeal to SCOTUS
A panel of federal appeals court judges ruled that President Donald Trump’s policy banning transgender troops likely violates their constitutional rights.
The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Trump’s Executive Order 14183, also known as “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” was created with the intent to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.
The policy argues that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history of or signs of gender dysphoria as the cause. According to the Defense Department, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.”
The policy states that, regardless of the physical or intellectual capabilities of each applicant, it views trans military applicants as a monolith, considering them less qualified than their cisgender peers.
Despite the panel’s majority opinion issued on Monday, the first day of Pride Month, the ban remains in effect. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to enforce the policy last year and will continue to allow it to remain in place as litigation proceeds.
The panel’s new ruling will prevent the military from discharging current service members named in the lawsuit, but it does not allow new transrecruits to join.
The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins, a Democratic appointee of President Barack Obama wrote for the majority.
Judge Justin Walker, the author of the dissenting opinion and a Republican Trump appointee, argued that the authority to determine military policy does not rest with the courts. Instead, he wrote, the Constitution grants that power to Congress through legislation and to the president as commander in chief of the armed forces.
“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the commander-in-chief,” Walker wrote.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that an appeal is in the works, posting, “See you at SCOTUS” on X on Monday in response to the ruling.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which has led the litigation since last November, applauded the decision.
“Today’s decision is a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs’ extraordinary courage and unwavering commitment to their country,” Levi said.
The Washington Blade spoke with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott of the U.S. Army, the lead plaintiff in the case, and Levi from GLAD Law back in November.
While discussing the case and his experiences as a trans service member, Talbott said his identity is an asset rather than a hindrance, particularly when it comes to identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others may think or say.
“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through,” Talbott told the Blade. “This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today … my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”
He also discussed the impact of removing qualified and dedicated service members from the military, arguing that the consequences will be felt long after Trump leaves office.
“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals … those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody,” he said. “[That’s] military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”
“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that … We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”
Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible to the Blade.
“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”
She also argued that the administration’s cost justification is flawed, saying that removing and replacing trans service members is more expensive than retaining them.
“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost … it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people … than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”
National
Results from key Tuesday primary races
State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election.
The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump.
In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.
In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.
In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.
The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple.
National
White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting
‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’
The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.
Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.
“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members.
She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing.
Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.
This post will be updated as more details are announced.
Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops
Outright International honors Cyndi Lauper at annual NYC gala
Results from key Tuesday primary races
AIDS Healthcare Foundation announces 3 million people globally in its care
10 HIV/AIDS activists arrested on Capitol Hill
Time travelers from the AIDS era
Books for a pre-Pride celebration
Barney Frank’s powerful legacy for LGBTQ federal employees
Claudia López comes up short in Colombian presidential election
