Connect with us

Politics

Feds won’t enforce law barring gay veterans from spousal benefits

Holder notifies Boehner of change in Sept. 4 letter

Published

on

Eric Holder, United States Department of Justice, gay news, Washington Blade, LGBT Pride
Eric

Attorney General Eric Holder has notified Congress the DOJ won’t bar gay veterans from spousal benefits under Title 38. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Obama administration has determined that it will no longer enforce a portion of U.S. code governing veterans benefits to deny gay veterans benefits for their same-sex spouses.

In a letter dated Sept. 4, U.S. Attorney Eric Holder notifies U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) of the change in the way the Justice Department will enforce Title 38 of the U.S. code.

“[I]n light of subsequent developments and my recommendation, the President has directed the Executive Branch to cease enforcement of Sections 101(3) and 101(31) of Title 38,” Holder writes. “Decisions by the Executive Branch not to enforce federal laws are appropriately rare. Nonetheless, for the reasons described below, the unique circumstances here warrant non-enforcement.”

The letter cites the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against the Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriage, and the recent district court decision against Title 38 as part of the rationale to cease enforcement of portions of the law.

Some of the spousal benefits allocated under Title 38 are disability benefits, survivor benefits and joint burial at a veteran’s cemetery. Gay veterans were previously barred from receiving these benefits because Title 38 defined spouse in opposite-sex terms independently of DOMA.

Holder says in the letter the administration has reasoned that it couldn’t bar gay veterans from spousal benefits under Title 38 because the Supreme Court ruling against DOMA prohibits Congress from enacting laws prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

“Although the Supreme Court did not address the constitutionality of the Title 38 provisions in Windsor, the reasoning of the opinion strongly supports the conclusion that those provisions are unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment,” Holder writes.

Holder continues in the letter that enforcing of Title 38 to bar gay veterans from benefits would also have an adverse effect on veterans seeking protections for their families.

“[C]ontinued enforcement would likely have a tangible adverse effect on the families of veterans and, in some circumstances, active-duty service members and reservists, with respect to survival, health care, home loan, and other benefits,” Holder writes.

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, affirmed that President Obama accepted Holder’s recommendation and directed his administration to no longer enforce Title 38 in a way that would deny benefits to gay veterans.

“This is an important step forward for the families of veterans and their ability to access survival, health care, home loan, and other benefits,” Inouye said. “As the Attorney General’s letter to Congress states, the circumstances of the situation demonstrate that this is the appropriate course of action.”

As Holder observes in his letter, Inouye said the Obama administration has discontinued enforcement of Title 38 after the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group withdrew from lawsuits challenging DOMA, including those challenging the veterans’ statute.

“Even the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group has ceased to defend the constitutionality of those provisions of Title 38 in legal challenges,” Inouye said. “This announcement means gay and lesbian veterans who are legally married can better protect themselves and their children. The President believes that all couples who are legally married deserve respect and equal treatment under the law, and his Administration continues to work to implement the Supreme Court’s Windsor ruling swiftly and smoothly.”

Boehner’s office didn’t respond to a request to comment on the letter.

The district court ruling that Holder cites in the letter was the result of a lawsuit filed against Title 38 by the Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of Tracey Cooper-Harris, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who’s suffering from multiple sclerosis and seeking disability benefits for her spouse, Maggie.

Caren Short, staff attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said her organization is “thrilled” with the letter because it means Cooper-Harris and other gay veterans will begin to receive benefits.

“It’s great to know that the ruling in our case helped to convince the executive [branch] to no longer enforce Title 38 because it was discriminating against veterans and their spouses who have served and sacrificed just like every other veterans and every other veteran’s spouse,” Short said. “We’re extremely and are hopeful that benefits will start to flow as they should have been for our clients.”

A VA spokesperson said the department would work to act on the decision by the Obama administration “in a timely manner.”

“VA is working closely with the Department of Justice to update its policies in a timely manner to ensure that the delivery and quality of Veterans’ earned benefits remain at the highest standards,” the spokesperson said. “Our commitment to provide all Veterans and their families with their earned care and benefits will continue to be our focus as VA implements the President’s decision announced today.”

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said the decision from the administration was “great news.” She’s the sponsor of the Charlie Morgan Act, legislation that would have changed Title 38 to enable veterans benefits to flow to same-sex spouses.

“We are in the process of determining if additional legislation is still needed to provide full benefits for all of our veterans,” Shaheen said. “I believe every individual that serves in uniform is entitled to the benefits they’ve earned and I will keep working on this issue until we are certain that is the case.”

The decision marks the first time that the Obama administration has announced it’ll cease enforcement of a law other than DOMA as a result of the Windsor decision. All previous changes made on behalf of same-sex couples following the ruling — such as the extension of tax benefits, offering active duty troops same-sex spousal benefits and allowing bi-national couples to apply for marriage-based I-130 green cards — were the result of regulatory change after the ruling.

In a letter to Congress last year, Holder previously indicated that the Obama administration believes laws barring gay veterans from spousal benefits are unconstitutional and the administration wouldn’t defend them against legal challenges in court. Still, at the time, the administration kept enforcing the laws. That’s changed after the court rulings.

Michael Cole-Schwartz, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said the decision to no longer enforce Title 38 to bar gay veterans from benefits was the right course of action from the Obama administration.

“As the Court said in Windsor, our Constitution does not permit the federal government to single out some married couples for unfair treatment, and today’s announcement from the Justice Department rests solidly on that principle,” Cole-Schwartz said. “For the brave men and women of our armed forces and their spouses to be denied benefits as veterans would be an insult to their service.”

One question that remains in the aftermath of this letter is whether the Obama administration will also interpret the ruling against DOMA to provide spousal benefits to legally married gay veterans applying for benefits in a state that doesn’t recognize their union. A portion of Title 38 unaddressed in the letter looks to the state of residence, not the state of celebration, in determining whether a same-sex marriage is valid.

Brian Fallon, a Justice Department spokesperson, said the issue remains “under review” within the Obama administration.

“The Justice Department will continue to work with the VA on figuring out how to go forward on that issue,” Fallon said. “But in the meantime, today’s decision means that if you’re a same-sex married couple in a state that recognizes your marriage, the VA will no longer deprive you of veterans’ benefits.”

Cole-Schwartz called for further guidance from the Obama administration on whether spousal benefits will flow to veterans who have legal same-sex marriages, but live in states that don’t recognize their union.

“The Obama administration is doing right by our veterans and faithfully executing the Supreme Court’s opinion and we look forward to guidance as to how the VA will treat veterans and their spouses living in states that do not recognize their marriages,” Cole-Schwartz said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

2026 Midterm Elections

Meet the LGBTQ candidates running for U.S. House, Senate

Pappas would become first out gay man elected to upper chamber

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas would become the first openly gay male U.S. senator if he wins in November. (Blade photo by Michael Key)

The midterm elections are often seen as a report card for the party in power, giving voters an opportunity to weigh in on the direction of the country after two years of unified control of the federal government. With Republicans controlling the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court, the 2026 elections could reshape the balance of power in Washington and determine what the next two years of federal policy will look like.

Among the candidates looking to shape that future are a large number of openly LGBTQ politicians running for federal office. All of the candidates listed below openly identify as members of the LGBTQ community and are running as Democrats, seeking seats in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. (See below for a list of LGBTQ incumbents.)

The New Candidates

U.S. Senate:

Chris Pappas — NH

The United States House of Representatives:

Cait Conley — NY-17

Jeremy Moss — MI-11

JoAnna Mendoza — AZ-06 

Marni von Wilpert — CA-48

Scott Wiener — CA-11

Chris Gallant — NY-1

JD Ford — IN-5

Janelle Sarauw — U.S. Virgin Islands

If all of these candidates running for federal office win their seats, this would make the federal government the queerest legislative term for Congress ever. 

Chris Pappas would become the first openly gay male senator if he wins the race against Republican John E. Sununu. Pappas is currently leading early polls 50% to Sununu’s 42%, and is seen as a fairly centrist Democrat with a slew of accomplishments passed through the House since his election in 2018 that make him a desired candidate for the purple “Granite State.”

Cait Conley is fighting to take two-term incumbent Republican Mike Lawler’s seat for New York’s 17th district, covering parts of Westchester, Rockland, Putnam and Dutchess counties. Conley has a long history of working as a public servant through her extensive military service, which includes six overseas deployments with the Army and work with the National Security Council. Current polling shows she has an advantage over her opponent, 64% to his 36%, making this one a race to watch. 

Jeremy Moss is running for election in Michigan, after quickly rising in the ranks within the Great Lake state. Moss, who was elected to his city’s city council, then to the state House, then to state Senate has had a lengthy connection with state politics for someone so young. He also served as the state’s first gay president pro tempore. He is running in the Detroit suburbs, including Oakland County. Nearly all polling puts Moss in the lead with some already giving him 99%.

JoAnna Mendoza is a veteran of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps running for a House seat for the Tucson and southeastern Arizona area. She has been outspoken about how the cost of everyday necessities under the current leadership of President Trump and Republicans in Congress has made people in her state less safe. She is currently locked in a tight race with her Republican counterpart, leading Juan Ciscomani 47% to 45%.

Marni von Wilpert is running to represent northern San Diego County. She has experience representing the area as a San Diego City Council member, former prosecutor, and Obama workers’ rights attorney. Von Wilpert holds a narrow lead over Republican Jim Desmond, 45% to 42%.

Scott Wiener is looking for a chance to take former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s seat in the San Francisco area. Weiner holds a narrow lead over the Pelosi-endorsed San Francisco supervisor Connie Chan. A New York Times poll has him leading 45% to Chang’s 40%.

Chris Gallant has a slew of federal accomplishments under his belt, from working as an FAA air traffic controller to serving in the U.S. Army and New York Army National Guard, including as a Black Hawk helicopter pilot, and is a volunteer firefighter on Long Island. Despite all of this dedication to public service, he’s running in a solidly red district with recent predictions favor LaLota 81 to 26.

JD Ford is fighting to represent the northern Indianapolis suburbs and north-central Indiana against Republican incumbent Victoria Spartz. He was the first and only openly LGBTQ person elected to the Indiana Legislature, running his campaign on making living more affordable. Polling puts him slightly behind Spartz 48% to 46%.

Janelle Sarauw is trying to win the U.S. Virgin Island’s seat in the U.S. Congress. While there is no voting power, the seat can participate in debates. Sarauw is likely to win the seat after sweeping the primary earlier this year, and will face off against Shelley Moorhead, an independent, in November. 

The Incumbents

Becca Balint — VT-At Large

Emily Randall — WA-06

Eric Sorensen — IL-17

Mark Pocan — WI-02

Mark Takano — CA-39

Ritchie Torres — NY-15

Robert Garcia — CA-42

Sarah McBride — DE

Sharice Davids — KS-03

Becca Balint is running for reelection to represent all of Vermont, making her one of the few candidates on this list who represents an entire state rather than a congressional district. Balint, a former teacher and Vermont state senator, has made housing affordability, mental health, and protecting democracy central parts of her platform. Recent polling gives Balint a substantial lead over Republican challenger Gerald Malloy, 60% to Gerald’s 30%.

Emily Randall is running for reelection in Washington’s 6th Congressional District, which includes the Olympic Peninsula and parts of the Kitsap Peninsula across Puget Sound from Seattle. Randall, who previously served in the Washington state Senate, has made expanding access to affordable health care a major part of her platform. She appears to be in a relatively strong position for reelection where she won 60% of the vote in Washington’s August top-two primary, while her Republican opponent Teresa Fox received about 25%. 

Eric Sorensen is running for another term representing western Illinois. The former television meteorologist has centered his congressional work on lowering costs for working families. There is no public polling in the race, but a current nonpartisan forecast gives Sorensen 59% of the vote compared to Republican Dillan Vancil, with 40%.

Mark Pocan is seeking to continue representing Madison and south-central Wisconsin. Pocan, who has served in Congress since 2013, has focused on issues including health care affordability, workers’ rights and LGBTQ+ equality. There is no public polling of the race, but the current field has no Republican candidate, and a nonpartisan forecast gives Pocan more than a 99% modeled chance of winning.

Mark Takano is running for reelection in California’s 39th congressional district, which includes Riverside and portions of the Inland Empire east of Los Angeles. Takano has made health care and veterans’ issues major parts of his congressional work. There is no public polling of the race, but in his primary he came in first with 61% of the vote compared to Republican Steve Manos’s 39%.

Ritchie Torres is running for another term representing New York’s 15th congressional district in the Bronx. Torres, who previously served on the New York City Council, has made housing, economic development, education, and public safety major parts of his platform. There is no current public polling of the race, but multiple prediction sites have it squarely his to win.

Robert Garcia is seeking another term representing California’s 42nd congressional district, which includes Long Beach and southeastern Los Angeles County. Garcia, the former mayor of Long Beach, has focused on issues including infrastructure, transportation, education, and LGBTQ+ rights while in Congress. There is no public polling of the race, but forecasting has Garcia winning the seat over Republican Brian Burley 99% to 1%.

Sarah McBride, is running for reelection to represent Delaware’s sole congressional district, meaning she represents the entire state. McBride, who made history as the first openly transgender member of Congress, has centered her campaign on lowering health care costs, protecting reproductive health care, and strengthening workers’ rights. There is no public polling of the general election, but a current nonpartisan forecast gives McBride a 99.1% modeled chance of winning against Republican Joseph Arminio.

Sharice Davids is seeking another term representing Kansas’ 3rd Congressional District, which covers the Kansas side of the Kansas City metropolitan area. Davids, a former White House fellow and attorney, has made agriculture, lowering costs, and health care central parts of her platform. There is no current public polling of the race, but prediction polling shows she has a 94% chance of winning her race.

Continue Reading

White House

Trump-appointed judge restores White House TV pool access 

Judge called in to question president’s justification of the ban

Published

on

CNN's TV booth sat dark on Sept. 21, 2026. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

A federal judge ordered the White House to restore West Wing press credentials to three news organizations after President Donald Trump attempted to bar their access for unfavorable reporting.

Early Thursday morning, Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted a temporary restraining order brought by POLITICO, CNN, and MS NOW as part of a joint lawsuit. The lawsuit cites the imperative role of a “free press” and ordered the 78 journalists’ credentials returned to the three outlets for at least the next two weeks as litigation plays out.

In the eight-page ruling, the judge goes over a slew of laws that Trump may have violated in banning the three media groups — from stepping on their First Amendment rights to a free press to the Fifth Amendment right to due process.

The judge also questioned Trump’s justification for removing the outlets, originally saying it was a matter of national security.

“The court is skeptical — at least on this record — that defendants’ interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes,” Kelly wrote in an 8-page ruling issued just before 1 a.m. ET.

“Nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns. Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was ‘banning’ plaintiffs from the White House — instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of plaintiffs’ reporting,” the judge added.

The Washington Blade reached out to the White House press office asking if the administration would file an appeal to keep the journalists out of the West Wing but did not hear back before publication time.

Continue Reading

White House

White House press pool pushes back after Trump bars three outlets

As President Trump refuses entry to outlets he deems unreasonable, lawsuits have been filed to regain access to the West Wing

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

Past the first checkpoint to get into the White House, multiple carts filled with camera equipment sat along a fence. Wagons loaded with tripods, cables, mics, and cameras sat just past where they normally would be working at full power. Today, they were turned off and packed away.

Last week, President Donald Trump decided to bar CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO from the White House following reporting he considers “FAKE NEWS.”

Trump, in a post on Truth Social on Monday morning, described his move as “instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS,” which he said has “grown like Cancer in our beloved United States of America.”

“It is corrupt, purposeful, pervasive, fully coordinated, and totally out of control,” he wrote on the social media site he owns. “It is a threat to our National Security, and must be stopped, NOW!”

As a result, all of the major television networks that comprise the television press pool — ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox News — suspended their White House TV pool coverage. They decided to no longer send camera crews to cover President Donald Trump’s events.

“The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government,” the five White House TV pool networks said in a joint statement Monday. “No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting.”

POLITICO, CNN and MS NOW filed a lawsuit Monday to immediately restore access for their reporters, who had their credentials confiscated by the Secret Service.

In the White House, there was a noticeable shift in the atmosphere. The Washington Blade is the only LGBTQ news outlet that is part of the White House Press Pool, and was acting as the primary print pooler as the situation unfolded on Monday. 

Whispers about who might be kicked from the press pool next could be heard both in the press area of the West Wing, as well as outside the part of the White House dedicated to filming the president’s office. The area where TV stations normally film their live shots of the White House while reporting looked less busy than a normal Monday — especially as the president made his way to New York City ahead of the UN General Assembly meeting this week.

(Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

CNN’s outdoor filming area, which is staffed nearly at all times, sat dark with a green cover over the space that normally houses its cameras and political reporters like Kaitlan Collins.

There were small signs of solidarity from other outlets in the press office. A sign that has hung outside one of the news offices in the West Wing was updated. It originally read, “WE STAND WITH AP” following President Trump’s first attempt at removing a news outlet he deemed unfavorable. It now includes “I STAND WITH AP CNN MSNOW POLITICO.”

The change could also be felt as the press pool attempted to cover the president.

There was a ribbon cutting in honor of the $6 million helipad installed at Trump’s behest — which had nearly no audio as a result of fewer microphones in the space following the outlets’ removal on Monday afternoon, and partly because of the loud sound of Marine One.

Vice President JD Vance defended Trump when asked about the changes to TV access at the White House, standing with the president despite this likely being a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free and fair press.

“He’s not banning media outlets. What he’s doing is saying we’re not going to give you special access to the White House if you engage in what is effectively propaganda,” Vance said, alleging that 92% of the stories from CNN, MS NOW and Politico about Trump are “negative.”

“That’s not representative of the American people. It’s not representative of public opinion,” Vance said.

He pushed back on the notion that this is a hindrance on free speech — claiming access to the president through White House visitation is a privilege — a privilege that in this administration, at least until courts weigh in, could change the landscape of the American media system.

“It’s about basic fairness. They can still report. They still have the access to free speech. They’re just not going to get an office in the White House anymore,” Vance said.

Jacqui Heinrich, the White House Correspondents Association President condemned the president’s actions in restricting media access in a statement sent to WHCA members on Saturday.

“Today’s action revoking access for journalists from CNN, POLITICO, and MSNOW violates the First Amendment. The implications extend beyond these organizations: a standard used to exclude one news outlet because of its coverage could be applied to any outlet in the future.

“The American people, through a free and independent press, must be able to scrutinize those elected to power, regardless of whether government officials view it favorably. That’s why courts have repeatedly held that once the White House provides access to journalists, it cannot deny that access arbitrarily or based on the content of their reporting. The WHCA calls on the administration to immediately restore our colleagues’ access.”

Continue Reading

Popular