National
High stakes in marriage cases awaiting Supreme Court
Legal experts weigh in on what to expect next week
The U.S. Supreme Court could decide as soon as next week whether it’ll hear cases related to DOMA and Proposition 8. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
All eyes will be on the U.S. Supreme Court next week when it could announce whether it will take up high-profile LGBT-related cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 — and the results of those decisions could have an immediate impact on the marriage rights of same-sex couples.
On Monday, justices are scheduled to hold their first conference to decide cases they will consider when they reconvene in October following their summer recess. Among the cases docketed for this meeting is federal litigation challenging Prop 8, now known as Hollingsworth v. Perry, and one of the cases challenging Section 3 of DOMA, Windsor v. United States.
Justices can decide to take up a case, decline to hear it or put off the decision on considering the lawsuit for a future conference. It takes a vote of four justices to grant a writ of certiorari (to take up a case) but the decision will be put off if any one justice wants more time to decide.
The decision on the Prop 8 case is of particular note because if the court decides against taking up the case and lets stand an appeals court decision against the same-sex marriage ban, gay couples would once again have the right to marry in the nation’s most populous state immediately following a mandate from the U.S. Ninth Circuit of Appeals.
But if the Supreme Court decides to take up the case, the ban would remain in effect until the justices make their own ruling in the lawsuit. It’s possible the court could make a decision saying lower courts erred in overturning Prop 8. For the same-sex marriage ban to come to an end at that point, another lawsuit coming up from the district courts or repeal of Prop 8 at the ballot would be necessary.
Jennifer Pizer, legal director for the Williams Institute, said while she thinks the court is likely to take up cases related to DOMA, it’s a “much harder guess” whether justices will decide to hear the Prop 8 litigation.
“There might well be four justices that disagree with what the Ninth Circuit held, but I think it would be challenging for them probably — as it is for everybody else who’s watching the court — to wonder where a fifth vote might go,” Pizer said. “So I think it’s even odds that the court will not review in Perry.”
Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, said in the event that the Supreme Court decides not to hear the Prop 8 case, gay couples should wait for the mandate from the Ninth Circuit before marrying in California.
“My advice to people is plan a nice wedding as opposed to running that day to go get married because there’s always some risk for couples that get married and 10 years split up, one might say, ‘You didn’t really get legally married because the injunction wasn’t in place yet and Prop 8 was still the law and they shouldn’t have married us,'” Davidson said. “Although I think that argument would lose, people don’t need to take on potentially having to fight about that later. If they just wait until the mandate, there won’t be any question.”
There could be an advantage for the LGBT community if the Supreme Court takes up the lawsuit because it could produce a ruling that would affect not only California, but all states with same-sex marriage bans throughout the country. Still, this level of examination bring a new scope of review to the Prop 8 lawsuit because the Ninth Circuit was limited in the way it restricted its reasoning to California.
Pizer said the Supreme Court could rule with a larger scope when considering the constitutionality of Prop 8, but such an evaluation would be unlikely given the limited nature of the Ninth Circuit ruling.
“I think it’s extremely unlikely that there would be a ruling either calling in question all the marriage restrictions of all the states that have them, or on the flip-side, holding that marriage absolutely as a matter of federal law must be restricted just to different-sex couples,” Pizer said. “The things that could be done on the more extreme ends of something favorable or unfavorable to same-sex couples is not so likely.”
The situation is slightly different for the DOMA lawsuits because the Windsor case is the only one that has been fully briefed and docketed for the Sept. 24 conference. The court may not issue a decision on reviewing DOMA until the full range of lawsuits challenging the anti-gay law have been scheduled for consideration.
More DOMA-related cases haven’t yet been set for consideration even though the high court has been asked to consider them. They’re the consolidated case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services, the only lawsuit in which an appeals court has ruled against DOMA, as well as Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management.
Davidson said the Supreme Court could also wait to make a decision on whether to hear the Prop 8 lawsuit until making a decision on whether to hear the DOMA cases.
“Different issues in the cases, but they might say, ‘Well, let’s think about all these at the same time to think about whether we should grant review in both kinds of cases or one, and which order,” Davidson said.
As with the Prop 8 case, if the Supreme Court decided against hearing the DOMA cases, it would have significant immediate impact. The federal government would recognize the same-sex marriages of states within the jurisdiction of the First Circuit and other challenges against DOMA would continue up the pipeline.
But the court is widely expected to decide to take up the constitutionality of DOMA because unlike Prop 8, the issue is related to federal law and the U.S. Justice Department has interceded — first in July and again this month — to ask the court to take up each of the four cases pending before the court related to the law. And a ruling from the Supreme Court would almost certainly have a nationwide scope that would enable federal recognition of same-sex marriages throughout the country as opposed to a ruling that would affect only one state.
There’s another benefit to the LGBT community if the Supreme Court were to take up the cases: the application of higher standard of review for cases related to sexual orientation. The Golinski and Pedersen cases are unique among the other DOMA lawsuits because they are the only ones in which lower courts have ruled against DOMA on the basis that they don’t meet the standards of heightened scrutiny, or the assumption they’re unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court were to consider these cases along with other DOMA cases, it could set precedent for applying heightened scrutiny to other laws in the future.
A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the anti-gay side would be significantly burdensome for supporters of same-sex marriage. That would mean opponents of the law would have to fight through the legislative process to lift the ban — a daunting task especially if Republicans were to retain control of the House.
Justices also have an opportunity in taking up the DOMA cases to assert whether the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which took up defense of DOMA after the Obama administration declined to defend the law, has standing to defend it. Some lower courts have hinted BLAG may lack standing to defend DOMA because it’s a committee within the House that hasn’t been approved by a floor vote in either chamber of Congress.
Doug NeJaime, who’s gay and a law professor at Loyola Law School, said the role of BLAG and where the committee derives its authority presents an interesting question to the Supreme Court.
“It would be interesting to see whether the justices actually ask those threshold questions about what the status and standing of BLAG actually is,” NeJaime said. “Because both sides want a substantive determination, I think that’s partly why we haven’t seen it become a huge issue, but it is an interesting question.”
It’s unclear what the schedule will be like for the cases if the Supreme Court decides to take them up. Briefings would ensue in the months that follow and oral arguments may take place in the spring for the court to make a ruling before it adjourns in June. For the DOMA lawsuit, the Supreme Court may take up the cases, but decline to take action until more appellate courts have made decisions on the pending litigation.
Pizer said the Supreme Court may seek to hear arguments on the Prop 8 cases at the same time because they’re both related to marriage.
“The DOMA cases are quite distinct from Perry, but at the same time, they concern marriage for same-sex couples, and certainly some of the arguments made in all these cases resemble, so it wouldn’t be that surprising for the justices to decide to consider a number of them at the same time,” Pizer said.
Legal experts also say the votes of each of the justices in granting a writ of certiorari shouldn’t be an indication of how they’ll ultimately rule in each of the cases.
NeJaime said observers “can’t read too much into” the certiorari votes because justices may decide to take up the cases either because they want to uphold or strike down the laws at hand.
“I think there are clearly going to be justices, for instance, on the DOMA cases that want to take it to overturn, and will overturn DOMA, and, I think, there are justices that want to take it and would uphold DOMA, so I think it’s hard to tell, although I think the DOMA cases are the stronger cases for the LGBT side,” NeJaime said.
Other LGBT cases pending before the Supreme Court are scheduled for September conference, but they aren’t as high-profile as the marriage cases. Justices will consider whether to take up the case of Diaz v. Brewer, in which Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has appealed an injunction placed by a district court prohibiting her from enforcing a law taking away domestic partner benefits from Arizona state employees. Another pending case is National Organization for Marriage v. McKee, in which the anti-gay organization is challenging Maine disclosure laws requiring it to reveal donors regarding its involvement in the 2009 marriage ballot initiative in the state.
National
National resources for trans and gender diverse communities
Amid attacks, help is available from wide range of organizations
The Trump administration has launched a series of executive orders and other initiatives restricting the rights of the transgender community since taking power in January, targeting military service, affirming healthcare, and participation in sports.
Though many executive orders are being challenged in court, it’s an uncertain time for a community that feels threatened. Despite the uncertainty, there are resources out there to help.
From legal assistance to mental health support, here’s a list of nonprofits and organizations dedicated to improving the everyday livelihood of trans and gender diverse people. These are mostly national organizations; there are many additional groups that work in local communities across the country. Some of these national groups will connect those in need of help to a local organization.
LEGAL HELP
President Trump issued an executive order declaring there are only two genders –– male and female –– which applies to legal documents and passports. The order doesn’t recognize the idea that one can transition their gender at birth to another gender.
Ash Lazarus Orr filed to renew his passport with a gender marker reflecting his identity. That was in January, and he still hasn’t received it. He refused to accept a passport without an accurate identification of who he is, so he filed a lawsuit with the ACLU in what is now known as Orr v. Trump.
Orr told the Washington Blade that not receiving his passport back has taken away his freedom of visiting family in Canada and receiving gender-affirming care from a trusted provider in Ireland.
The one thing getting him through this uncertain time is knowing who he’s fighting for –– the trans community, his loved ones, and himself.
“I’m trying to be that person that those younger parts of me needed growing up,” Orr said. Check out a couple of legal support organizations below:
Transgender Law Center
The Transgender Law Center (TLC) provides legal resources and assistance. TLC has a list –– called the Attorney Solidarity Network –– of attorneys that can provide advice or representation for trans people.
The organization also has a legal information help desk that answers questions regarding laws or policies impacting trans people.
Website: transgenderlawcenter.org
Phone: 510-587-9696
Email: [email protected]
Advocates For Trans Equality
With a variety of different programs tailored toward legal assistance and advocacy work, Advocates For Trans Equality’s reach is wide.
The non-profit offers the Name Change Project, which provides pro bono legal name change services to low-income trans, gender-non-conforming and nonbinary people by utilizing its partnerships with law firms and corporate law departments.
Advocates For Trans Equality also has departments and programs dedicated to increasing voter engagement, educating lawmakers on trans issues and offering litigation assistance to a small number of cases.
Website: transequality.org
Phone: 202-642-4542
General email: [email protected]
To contact a specific department or program, visit its website above.
ADVOCACY
Looking to take action and get involved? Act now.
American Civil Liberties Union
The ACLU is a national nonprofit organization that mobilizes local communities and advocates for national causes.
Getting involved is as easy as filling out letters to representatives or signing petitions. One live petition is to “defend trans freedom.”
You can also join its People Power platform, where you serve as a volunteer in your community to “advance civil liberties and civil rights for all.” ACLU has different chapters across the country, so visit its website for more information.
Website: aclu.org
Phone: 212-549-2500
MILITARY AND VETERANS
Trump signed an executive order in January banning transgender service members from serving, stating their identity “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.”
Though the order has been legally challenged and struck down by a judge, U.S. Navy Lieutenant Rae Timberlake said it’s created an uncertain atmosphere for themself and other troops.
“All of the transgender service members I know have served with honor and integrity for many years…[and we’re] targeted for removal and not subject to any kind of review based on merit,” Timberlake, who joined the Navy at age 17, said. “There’s kind of just this cloud looming over our organizations and our units, because we know any day our transgender shipmates could no longer be on the team.”
But Timberlake’s message to any service member struggling because of the executive order was one of compassion and truth: “There’s no policy that can take away what you’ve accomplished and what you’ve done.”
Here are some organizations that support service members and veterans:
SPARTA Pride
SPARTA is a peer-support group composed of active duty, veteran and “future warrior” service members.
The group also engages in advocacy work and has helped change policies on gender neutral uniforms and reducing the time a trans service member would have to wait to return to their duties during their transition.
Contact SPARTA to learn more about joining its support network.
Website: spartapride.org
Email: [email protected]
Modern Military Association
Modern Military supports service members and veterans through advocacy, legal assistance and mental health support.
It tracks LGBTQ+ and HIV discrimination through reports made on its website, and offers guidance and advice to whoever submitted the report.
It also supports the mental health of LGBTQ+ veterans and their families through its Resilient Heroes Program. By signing up, you’ll receive virtual peer support and case management services with a mental health coordinator.
Website: modernmilitary.org
Phone: 202-328-3244
Email: [email protected]
CRISIS & MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORT
If you have a more urgent matter, or just need someone to listen, here are some organizations you can reach out to:
The Trevor Project
The Trevor Project offers 24/7 counseling services. Calling, texting or chatting is free and confidential, and you’ll get to speak with someone specialized in supporting LGBTQ youth.
The organization also focuses on public education by hosting online LGBTQ suicide prevention trainings. It advocates for policies and laws that contribute to supporting queer youth.
Website: thetrevorproject.org
Crisis hotline: 1-866-488-7386
General inquiry phone number: 212-695-8650
Trans Lifeline
Trans Lifeline is a hotline run and operated by trans people. Whether you’re questioning if you’re trans or are a trans person just wanting to talk, someone will be there to help. It’s free and confidential, and there won’t be any non-consensual active rescue, such as calling the emergency services.
The line is not 24/7, however. Check out its website for hours within your time zone.
Website: translifeline.org
Phone: 877-565-8860
Here are other organizations that offer support to the trans community:
TransFamilies (support): Support for families with a gender diverse child.
TransLatina Coalition (advocacy): Advocates for the specific needs of the transgender, gender expansive and intersex communities in the U.S.
TransAthlete (information): Provides informative resources about trans athletes.
Campaign for Southern Equality’s Trans Youth Emergency Project (healthcare support): A fund to help trans youth access lifesaving healthcare.
TransTech Social (economic empowerment): Dedicated to discovering and empowering the career-ready skills of LGBTQ+ people.
World Professional Association For Transgender Health (health): Resources, symposiums and research dedicated to improving transgender health.
Sylvia Rivera Law Project (legal): Legal programs and services for marginalized communities.
Gender Spectrum (support): Resources and support groups for trans youth and families.
The Okra Project (support): Creates and supports initiatives that provide resources for the Black Trans community.
The White House
White House does not ‘respond’ to reporters’ requests with pronouns included
Government workers were ordered not to self-identify their gender in emails
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and a senior advisor in the Department of Government Efficiency rejected requests from reporters who included their pronouns in the signature box of their emails, each telling different reporters at the New York Times that “as a matter of policy,” the Trump-Vance administration will decline to engage with members of the press on these grounds.
News of the correspondence between the journalists and the two senior officials was reported Tuesday by the Times, which also specified that when reached for comment, the White House declined to “directly say if their responses to the journalists represented a new formal policy of the White House press office, or when the practice had started.”
“Any reporter who chooses to put their preferred pronouns in their bio clearly does not care about biological reality or truth and therefore cannot be trusted to write an honest story,” Leavitt told the Times.
Department of Government Efficiency Senior Advisor Katie Miller responded, “I don’t respond to people who use pronouns in their signatures as it shows they ignore scientific realities and therefore ignore facts.”
Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, wrote in an email to the paper: “If The New York Times spent the same amount of time actually reporting the truth as they do being obsessed with pronouns, maybe they would be a half-decent publication.”
A reporter from Crooked media who got an email similar to those received by the Times reporters said, “I find it baffling that they care more about pronouns than giving journalists accurate information, but here we are.”
The practice of adding pronouns to asocial media bios or the signature box of outgoing emails has been a major sticking point for President Donald Trump’s second administration since Inauguration Day.
On day one, the White House issued an executive order stipulating that the federal government recognizes gender as a binary that is immutably linked to one’s birth sex, a definition excludes the existence of intersex and transgender individuals, notwithstanding the biological realities that natal sex characteristics do not always cleave neatly into male or female, nor do they always align with one’s gender identity .
On these grounds, the president issued another order that included a directive to the entire federal government workforce through the Office of Personnel Management: No pronouns in their emails.
As it became more commonplace in recent years to see emails with “she/her” or “he/him” next to the sender’s name, title, and organization, conservatives politicians and media figures often decried the trend as an effort to shoehorn woke ideas about gender (ideas they believe to be unscientific), or a workplace accommodation made only for the benefit of transgender people, or virtue-signaling on behalf of the LGBTQ left.
There are, however, any number of alternative explanations for why the practice caught on. For example, a cisgender woman may have a gender neutral name like Jordan and want to include “she/her” to avoid confusion.
A spokesman for the Times said: “Evading tough questions certainly runs counter to transparent engagement with free and independent press reporting. But refusing to answer a straightforward request to explain the administration’s policies because of the formatting of an email signature is both a concerning and baffling choice, especially from the highest press office in the U.S. government.”
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Air Force rescinds rule barring inclusion of preferred pronouns in email signatures
Conflict with language in military funding package may explain reversal
The U.S. Air Force has issued a “directive to cease the use of ‘preferred pronouns’ (he/him, she/her, or they/them) to identify one’s gender identity in professional communications,” according to a report published in the Hill on Wednesday.
The rule, which applies to both airmen and civilian employees, was first adopted on Feb. 4 pursuant to President Donald Trump’s anti-transgender executive order called, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
Days after the administration’s issuance of that order on the first day of the president’s second term, the Office of Personnel Management instructed agencies across the whole of the federal government to remove pronouns from email signatures and enforce the policy barring employees from using them.
Additionally, on Jan. 27 Trump published an order barring trans people from joining the U.S. Armed Forces, indicating that those who are currently in serving would be separated from the military. The Pentagon is fending off legal challenges to the ban in federal courts.
Particularly given the extent of the new administration’s efforts to restrict the rights of trans Americans and push them out of public life, the Air Force’s reversal of the pronoun guidance was surprising.
According to reporting in Military.com, the move might have come because officials concluded the rule was in conflict with language in the military appropriations funding legislation passed by Congress in 2023.
The NDAA established that the defense secretary “may not require or prohibit a member of the armed forces or a civilian employee of the Department of Defense to identify the gender or personal pronouns of such member or employee in any official correspondence of the Department.”
LGBTQ budget advocates fight for D.C. resources in a tough fiscal year
Washington Blade’s Pride on the Pier returns bigger than ever with two-day WorldPride celebration
Md. schools plan to comply with federal DEI demands
Gay, nonbinary parent fights for family in Argentina’s courts
Science must not be a weapon against trans people
It’s time for new leadership on the Maryland LGBTQIA+ Commission
White House does not ‘respond’ to reporters’ requests with pronouns included
‘Gay is Good’ Pride Pils Can Celebrates Frank Kameny’s 100th Birthday for WorldPride in D.C.
THC Drinks: What You Should Know About Cannabis Beverages
Hungarian MPs amend constitution to ban public LGBTQ events
-
Opinions5 days agoIt’s time for new leadership on the Maryland LGBTQIA+ Commission
-
The White House5 days agoWhite House does not ‘respond’ to reporters’ requests with pronouns included
-
Arts & Entertainment5 days ago‘Gay is Good’ Pride Pils Can Celebrates Frank Kameny’s 100th Birthday for WorldPride in D.C.
-
Sponsored5 days agoTHC Drinks: What You Should Know About Cannabis Beverages