National

Republicans argue DOJ can’t litigate against DOMA

Boehner group asserts Obama admin got what it wanted from lower court ruling

Published

14 years ago

February 22, 2013

Former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement argues DOJ lacks standing in his latest DOMA brief .(Public domain photo)

Attorneys representing House Republicans in litigation against the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court are asserting that the Justice Department lacks standing to participate in the lawsuit.

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, under the direction of U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, makes the argument in a 38-page brief filed on Friday in response to the court’s jurisdictional questions on standing in the challenge to Section 3 of DOMA, known as Windsor v. United States.

BLAG argues the Justice Department lacks standing because the Obama administration received the result it wanted from lower courts — including the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals — striking down DOMA.

“It obtained the precise relief it believed was appropriate based on the precise theory (heightened scrutiny) it advocated,” the brief states. “The executive can fare no better before this Court. While this Court’s affirmance would have a greater precedential impact, the executive cannot ground its appellate standing on a desire for an opinion with the identical effect on this case and controversy, but a broader precedential scope for other cases.”

The brief is signed by private attorney Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general hired at $520 an hour to defend DOMA, and House General Counsel Kerry Kircher, among other lawyers.

But BLAG contends the court can nonetheless hear the case because it has standing to defend DOMA now that the Obama administration has declined to continue defending it.

“Indeed, without the House’s participation, it is hard to see how there is any case or controversy here at all,” the brief states. “Both Ms. Windsor and the executive agree that DOMA is unconstitutional and that Ms. Windsor was entitled to a refund. And the lower courts granted them all the relief they requested. Only the House’s intervention provides the adverseness that Article III demands.”

The Obama administratio discontinued defense of DOMA in court in February 2011 and since that time has filed briefs against the anti-gay law and litigated against it in oral arguments. House Republicans have taken up defense of the law in the administration’s stead following a 3-2 party line in BLAG.

In the brief, the committee also invokes as a source of its standing the rules passed at the start of the 113th Congress by the Republican-controlled House giving authority to the committee to speak for the House against DOMA. The rules were approved by a vote of 228-196.

Notably, the brief in a footnote asserts the House Democrats also believe that BLAG has standing to defend DOMA, even though they oppose House Republican intervention in the lawsuit.

“While the Democratic Leader and the Democratic Whip have declined to support the position taken by the Group on the merits of DOMA Section 3’s constitutionality in this and other cases, they support the Group’s Article III standing,” the brief states.

Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said the case against DOMA should indeed proceed on the merits regardless of who has standing in the lawsuit.

“We believe that the case should proceed to the merits, regardless of who has standing, and that the Supreme Court should rule DOMA unconstitutional once and for all,” Hammill said.

The BLAG brief was but one that was filed on Friday in response to jurisdictional questions in the DOMA case. In another 39-page brief, the ACLU asserts that the Supreme Court has standing to hear the case because a “controversy” remains in the case; existing law and appellate practice affirm the court has jurisdiction; and practice concerns favor the court exercising jurisdiction.

“[L]eaving DOMA’s constitutionality to the courts of appeals poses its own set of problems for married gay couples,” the brief states. “It may well take years for ‘a uniform rule’ to emerge. … And absent this Court’s intervention, uniformity may never come. In the meantime, married gay couples will continue to be denied equality under the law and essential government benefits that all other married couples can depend on.”

The ACLU also veers away from a position on whether BLAG has standing in the case — saying it at most can be an intervenor or have “piggyback” standing in the lawsuit — but maintains the court has jurisdiction to hear the case regardless of whether BLAG has standing.

“Whether BLAG would have had independent Article III standing if the United States had not petitioned for certiorari is a counterfactual question that this Court need not answer,” the brief states. “Indeed, because of controlling Second Circuit precedent, neither court below found it necessary to resolve the nature of BLAG’s standing.”

The brief is signed by attorneys that include private attorney Roberta Kaplan, who’s slated to deliver oral arguments against DOMA before the Supreme Court on March 27, as well as James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s LGBT Project.

The court hired Vicki Jackson, a Harvard law professor, to argue that neither the Justice Department nor BLAG have standing to participate in the DOMA case. In a brief filed last month, she contended the Supreme Court doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Justice Department was due on Friday to file its own brief on the jurisdictional questions presented by the court and another brief on the constitutionality. The brief wasn’t available as of this posting.

After those briefs, the next step in the lawsuit is for the ACLU to file its brief on the merits against the constitutionality of DOMA, which is due on Tuesday. Oral arguments in the DOMA case are set for March 27.

National

Man charged in Mall of America shooting plot inspired by Pulse massacre: report

Suspect exchanged hundreds of messages, pledged loyalty to ISIS

Published

4 days ago

October 8, 2026

Margaret Hetherman

The U.S. Department of Justice charged Sheikhdoon Abdullahi Mohamud with planning a crime of terrorism.

The U.S. Department of Justice charged Sheikhdoon Abdullahi Mohamud, 18, of Richfield, Minn., on Oct. 7 with one count of knowingly receiving a firearm and ammunition in order to commit a federal crime of terrorism. Mohamud allegedly planned to carry out a mass-casualty attack in support of ISIS, inspired in part by the Pulse nightclub massacre that took place on June 12, 2016 when then-29-year-old Omar Mateen murdered 49 people and wounded 58 – one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, and the deadliest targeting the LGBTQ+ community.

According to a DOJ statement release, Mohamud was arrested on Oct. 6 by the FBI, which had arranged to sell him an AK-47 assault rifle, magazines, and ammunition through an undercover FBI employee. Mohamud was arrested shortly after paying $600 in cash and taking possession of those items; he reaffirmed his intention to shoot people at the Mall of America during the transaction.

“Mohamud allegedly sought to carry out a mass-casualty shooting at the Mall of America, expressing a desire to emulate some of the most horrific ISIS-inspired attacks in the United States, including the atrocities at Pulse Nightclub and 2025 New Year’s Day attack in New Orleans,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg in the statement by the DOJ. “The National Security Division will continue to work closely with the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force to track down and prosecute ISIS-inspired terrorists in the United States.”

According to the complaint, beginning on or about December 2024, Mohamud had exchanged hundreds of messages through multiple social media and messaging apps with a confidential source, and expressed a desire to travel to Somalia to join a designated foreign terrorist organization to fight on their behalf.

The defendant stated many times that if he was unable to travel overseas because of a lack of funds, he planned to carry out a mass-casualty event in Minnesota in support of ISIS.

According to the DOJ, “In July 2026, Mohamud sent messages discussing his intent to carry out a mass-casualty shooting attack at the Mall of America because he claimed it was owned by Jews. He wrote that [he] wanted to kill 30 to 60 people so no one would go there.”

“During the course of his communications, Mohamud stated that he wanted to commit an attack similar to those of the Pulse Nightclub mass-shooting in Orlando, the Bondi Beach mass-shooting in Australia, and the New Year’s Day vehicle-ramming attack in New Orleans.”

This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Ryan White of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Bejar for the District of Minnesota.

California

Calif. GOP gubernatorial candidate ad ‘disgusting attempt to exploit lesbian intimacy’

Activists, anti-LGBTQ religious leaders criticized Steve Hilton spot

Published

5 days ago

October 8, 2026

Caleb Kaufman

(Screenshot of Steven Hilton ad)

Two women sit on a bed, a Pride flag hanging behind them. One is nervous; the other tells her to be calm and that she’ll do “all the work.” The music swells. The two hold hands and — fill out a ballot voting for Steve Hilton?

This is the new advertisement from the Hilton gubernatorial campaign that is drawing rebuke from both sides of the aisle, but for very different reasons.

Jorge Reyes Salinas, the communications director at Equality California, said the ad was an insult to the queer community.

“This ad is a disgusting attempt to exploit lesbian intimacy for political attention,” he said. The advertisement plays on media tropes that Salinas says “reduce lesbian and bisexual women … to sexual entertainment,” rather than showing them as well-rounded characters. “Any group of the LGBTQ+ community deserves the same dignity and respect as everyone else,” he said.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Caleb Kaufman (@caleb_kaufman_photography)

The ad is truly hyper-sexualized. It ends with one woman telling the other, “Now lick it.” The two pause and stare before she reveals an envelope to send the ballot, and large text pops up saying, “Just try it!”

Salinas characterized the ad as a desperate attempt to get attention from a candidate who is trailing far behind in the polls in heavily Democratic California. The Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra, who is endorsed by Equality California, holds a 25-point lead over Hilton according to recent polling by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.

Conservatives have also criticized the ad.

Influential evangelical Pastor Jack Hibbs thought the ad was distasteful and said, “lesbianism among college girls and some high school girls that right now is an actual pandemic of social ill.” Republican attorney general candidate Michael Gates said it undermines “the sanctity of the relationship between parents and their children.” This criticism is rather confusing because although the ad features two relatively young women, they both appear to be adults, not minors.

“The comments from Pastor Jack Hibbs should be criticized because there is nothing wrong with two women being attracted to each other,” Salinas said. “We’re calling out the ad’s stereotypes, while also rejecting the homophobia in the response to it … by other Republicans.”

The backlash from Hilton’s own party and supporters shows that an advertisement full of queer innuendo was ill-considered, considering the national GOP’s attacks on LGBTQ people in recent years. Hilton himself has been campaigning against transgender girls and women competing in school sports and using locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity. This context might be why Hilton’s political base responded to the ad just as poorly as the liberal voters he was attempting to court.

Hilton says the ad is part of a new series rolling out before Election Day, showing stereotypical California liberal archetypes voting for Hilton. He claims these ads are authentically filmed with real actors, as opposed to being A.I. generated, like many of his previous ads. One other advertisement has been released so far by the campaign showing a man at a spiritual retreat also being swayed to vote for Hilton, although it is notably absent of sexual innuendo.

Caleb Kaufman is a California Local News Fellow placed with the Los Angeles Blade. The California Local News Fellowship is a state-funded initiative to support and strengthen local news reporting. Learn more about it at fellowships.journalism.berkeley.edu/cafellows.

2026 Midterm Elections

Trump uses anti-trans slur against Democratic Senate candidate

President mocked Annie Andrews

Published

5 days ago

October 7, 2026

Joe Reberkenny

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

President Donald Trump used an anti-trans slur against Democratic South Carolina Senate candidate Annie Andrews on Monday as he sought to rally support for Republicans in the state’s Senate race.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump attacked Andrews three times, referring to her as “trannie” while promoting U.S. Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.)’s campaign.

Andrews is running against Graham for a Senate seat in the solidly Republican state.

Earlier this year, Graham was specially appointed to the seat following the death of her brother, Lindsey Graham, who represented South Carolina in the Senate from 2003 to 2026.

Andrews, the Democratic nominee from the state, is a pediatrician that lives in Charleston with her three children. She told NBC News that she will “work with anyone to put South Carolina first.”

“As a mom and a pediatrician, I’m in this race to fight for my patients, my three kids, and South Carolina,” Andrews said, adding that “lowering costs and making life better for families across our state is going to take all of us working together.”

Andrews used the attention from the president’s attack to emphasize what she described as a focus on policy issues rather than the culture wars that have dominated much of the political debate.

“If you care more about your bills than the politics in Washington, this campaign is for you,” she added.

Trump’s remarks have drawn criticism from leaders on both sides of the aisle.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) condemned Trump’s words Monday night on social media, calling his attacks on Andrews “despicable.”

“Annie Andrews is a mom and pediatrician who’s always put her community first — and she’s exactly who South Carolina needs representing them in the Senate,” Schumer said on X.

Former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley, a Republican, also criticized the president’s attack on Andrews, urging voters to “reject politics based on division and hate.”

“This is abhorrent. Elections don’t have to be about cruelty and lies. South Carolina deserves better,” Beasley wrote Monday night on X.

South Carolina has not elected a Democratic senator in nearly three decades.

Andrews’s campaign website does not mention her positions on LGBTQ issues.

The Washington Blade reached out to Andrews’s campaign for comment on Trump’s attack and her positions on transgender rights but did not hear back by time of publication.