National
Gay group calls on Supreme Court to strike down DOMA
GLAD brief says ‘reasons are strong’ for review
GLAD’s Mary Bonauto (center) poses for a photo with Gill plaintiffs (Blade file photo by Chris Johnson)
The New England-based LGBT group responsible for the most successful lawsuit to date targeting the Defense of Marriage Act on Thursday filed a formal request asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the anti-gay law.
The filing from Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders responds to petitions from the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group and the U.S. Justice Department calling on the Supreme Court to take up the lawsuit — the consolidated case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services.
In a historic decision on May 31, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, as a result of this litigation.
BLAG, which is defending DOMA under the direction of House Speaker John Boehner, had filed a request with the Supreme Court in June asking justices to overturn the ruling and uphold the constitutionality of the anti-gay law.
In the 39-page brief filed Thursday, GLAD’s lawyers say they agree that “the arguments for a grant of review in this case are strong.” The plaintiffs also present the same question for the Supreme Court to answer as other petitions: does Section 3 of DOMA violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for legally married same-sex couples?
But GLAD and BLAG have wildly different conclusions on what the Supreme Court should determine with regard to this question. In its filing, GLAD says the court shouldn’t “be persuaded by the distorted analysis” put forward by BLAG, and, instead, affirm the First Circuit’s ruling.
“The Court should not be swayed by the arguments on the merits that BLAG chose to present in its petition,” GLAD writes, “[A]s multiple courts have recently recognized, there are compelling arguments that Congress violated the equal protection guarantee when it decided for the first time to deny all recognition to a single class of state-sanctioned marriages.”
GLAD notes BLAG devotes much of its petition to contending the First Circuit was “inventing” a new standard of review in its decision to overturn DOMA. Disputing this argument, GLAD says BLAG “does not accurately characterize the First Circuit’s holding or analysis” and the First Circuit had correctly applied rational basis holdings from earlier cases.
GLAD lays out several reasons why the First Circuit ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional, saying Congress could only have passed DOMA out of animus toward gay people.
“Whether animated by ‘moral disapproval’ toward gay men and lesbians, open hostility, ‘insensitivity’ to the lives of the people against whom they were discriminating, or simply a reaction against people who ‘appear[ed] to be different,’ Congress enacted a statute whose object was to subject gay men and lesbians to different, and less-favorable, treatment,” the brief states. “This Congress may not do.”
Additionally, GLAD says the Supreme Court should take up the case to establish that laws targeting gay Americans should be subject to heightened scrutiny, on the assumption that they’re unconstitutional.
“Because DOMA imposes indisputable de jure discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, this case presents an ideal vehicle for this Court to clarify how courts should scrutinize such laws going forward, and to ensure that lower courts afford gay men and lesbians the constitutional protections to which they are entitled under a proper application of the Equal Protection Clause,” the brief states.
The Obama administration announced it held the view that laws related to sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny at the same time it announced it would no longer defend DOMA in court in February 2011. BLAG, under the direction of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) following a party-line vote, has since taken up defense of DOMA.
GLAD is now one of several groups asking the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of DOMA. The Justice Department has asked the high court to take up the Massachusetts case as well as a California lawsuit known as Golinski v. United States. Additionally, New York widower Edith Windsor has asked the Supreme Court to take up her lawsuit against DOMA filed by the American Civil Liberties Union as has New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn in a jointly filed friend-of-the-court brief.
The Supreme Court won’t decide whether it will take up DOMA until Sept. 24. The high court will begin hearing arguments for its 2012-2013 term in October.
In the meantime, Aug. 31 is the last day for BLAG to respond to or oppose the Justice Department’s petition, and Sept. 10 is the last day for the Justice Department to reply to BLAG. Additionally, BLAG can choose to reply to GLAD’s filing. There’s no set deadline for that, but normally, that would occur within 10 days.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.
In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.
The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.
He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”
Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”
Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.
Federal Government
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams
In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”
The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.
“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”
Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”
Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”
“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”
Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.
Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.
The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.
New York
Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade
One of the victims remains in critical condition
On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.
According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.
The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.
The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.
In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.
The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.
New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.
“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”
Trans cyclist’s victory sparks outrage in conservative media
Activist recalls experience in Tel Aviv after Israel-Iran war began
Congress passes ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ with massive cuts to health insurance coverage
Nina West’s ‘Sugar in the Tank’ tour comes to Rehoboth Beach
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
Upwards of 100K people march in Budapest Pride
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
Celebrate the Fourth of July the gay way!
Silver Spring holds annual Pride In The Plaza
