National
Frank: ENDA to be introduced ‘any day now’
Gay Mass. lawmaker skeptical of passage in either House, Senate
Rep. Barney Frank (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Wednesday that he expects the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to be introduced in the House “any day now” but he remains skeptical about its chances for passage in the 112th Congress.
“We’re going to be [introducing the bill] any day now,” Frank told the Washington Blade. “We’ll introduce it the way it was introduced last year. But that one — there’s no real prospects for in this Congress, but we are going reintroduce it.”
As it was introduced in the previous Congress, ENDA would bar job bias based on sexual orientation and gender identity in most private and public workforce settings.
But the general consensus among Capitol Hill observers is that passage of any pro-LGBT legislation, including ENDA, will be a significant challenge for at least two years with Republicans in control of the U.S. House. Last year, Frank told the Blade there would be “zero chance” for the passage of any legislation that would directly benefit the LGBT community.
Still, Frank said introduction of the legislation is important to educate the public and members of Congress, especially on the transgender protections included in the bill.
“It’s important to introduce it to give people a chance to lobby their members on it,” Frank said. “Having a bill there encourages people to lobby their members. Particularly, we need people to do more lobbying and educating on the transgender issue, and so having a bill there is a very important part of getting the votes ultimately to be able to pass it.”
Frank, the longest-serving openly gay member of Congress, said he didn’t immediately have an estimate for how many co-sponsors he would have for ENDA upon its introduction, but said the legislation may have some Republican supporters based upon conversations he had in the 111th Congress.
“I personally talked to nine Republicans who were ready to vote for the bill with transgender inclusion last year,” Frank said. “We lost [former Delaware Rep.] Mike Castle, but I believe we will have some co-sponsors. But I worked very hard on Republicans. We did have nine Republican hard commitments to vote with us against any effort to knock out transgender.”
Frank was referring to potential motion to recommit in the 111th Congress in which opponents of ENDA could have called for a vote on a portion of ENDA — such as the transgender protections — to return the legislation to committee and scuttle the bill.
“Without the transgender piece, you have a dozen, but on the transgender issue, we had, as I said, nine commitments and we’ll be approaching them to see how many of them will co-sponsor,” Frank added.
Asked whether the House introduction of ENDA would coincide with a Senate introduction, Frank said he was unsure.
“I don’t know,” he said. “It doesn’t make any difference. What difference does it make whether it’s simultaneous or not? I don’t focus on things that have no significance.”
In the previous Congress, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced the Senate version of ENDA. It was the first time that a Senate version of ENDA had been introduced with transgender protections. On Friday, Julie Edwards, a Merkley spokesperson, said she had no updates for when ENDA would introduced in the Senate during the 112th Congress.
Even though Democrats remain in control of the Senate, Frank said he doesn’t think supporters of the legislation in that chamber will be able to pass ENDA in that chamber alone.
Asked about the prospects for Senate passage of ENDA, Frank replied, “No. Because first of all you need 6o votes. Secondly, the way it works — if there is zero chance of passing a controversial bill in the other house, the one house, people say, ‘Why should I do that?”‘
“It’s very hard to get members to vote for a controversial bill in any case, but to get them to vote for a controversial bill when there’s no chance of passing it in the other house becomes impossible,” Frank added.
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.”
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
Community comes together to repair WorldPride history exhibition
Va. court allows conversion therapy despite law banning it
Celebrate the Fourth of July the gay way!
Longtime DC resident Thomas Walsh dies at 87
Upwards of 100K people march in Budapest Pride
‘Andy Warhol in Iran’ a charming look at intersection of art, politics
Two new books on dining out LGBTQ-style
Pragmatic presidents invest in America
