News
Gay juror decision bodes well for marriage cases: experts
Ninth Circuit applies heightened scrutiny to laws related to sexual orientation
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied heightened scrutiny in ruling against discrimination against gay jurors (image via wikimedia).
A ruling handed down by a federal appeals court on Tuesday in favor of LGBT non-discrimination in jury selection bodes well for the success of marriage equality litigation, according to legal experts who spoke to the Washington Blade.
Suzanne Goldberg, a lesbian and co-director of Columbia University’s Center for Gender & Sexuality Law, said the decision is important in and of itself, but also because of its impact on the case pending before the same court against Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage.
“The ruling will make it even more difficult for Nevada’s marriage law to withstand the current challenge to it because heightened scrutiny means that the government will have to identify an ‘important’ state interest if it wants to continue to exclude gay and lesbian couples from marriage,” Goldberg said.
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined the trial judge erred in allowing one litigant to remove a juror because of his sexual orientation, remanding the case for a new trial.
The case — Glaxo Smith Kline v. Abbott Laboratories — is the result of antitrust, contracts and business tort claims filed against the company for quadrupling the price of its protease inhibitor booster drug used by people with HIV. During jury selection, Abbott used its first peremptory challenge to strike a prospective juror after learning he was gay.
Writing for the majority, U.S. District Judge Roy Reinhardt ruled that Abbott “unconstitutionally used a peremptory strike” to exclude Juror B from the case because of his sexual orientation, but goes further by saying the court must apply heightened scrutiny in its ruling in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision against the Defense of Marriage Act.
“Windsor requires that when state action discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, we must examine its actual purposes and carefully consider the resulting inequality to ensure that our most fundamental institutions neither send nor reinforce messages of stigma or second-class status,” Reinhardt writes. “In short, Windsor requires heightened scrutiny.”
It’s not the first time that an appellate court has applied heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption a law is unconstitutional, when considering a case related to sexual orientation. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals applied that standard when ruling in favor of Edith Windsor in her case against DOMA before that lawsuit came before the Supreme Court.
Several federal district courts have made similar rulings, as have the state high courts of California, Iowa, Connecticut and New Mexico. The view that laws related to sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny is also shared by the Obama administration.
But the decision in the Ninth Circuit is significant because it creates precedent within that jurisdiction to apply heightened scrutiny in the numerous cases before it involving gay people and may encourage courts outside the circuit to do the same.
Doug NeJaime, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said the court application of heightened scrutiny to its decision “is very significant.”
“This Ninth Circuit ruling will likely encourage other courts to engage with the issue of whether Windsor suggests some heightened form of scrutiny,” NeJaime said. “More concretely, it will directly influence the challenge to Nevada’s marriage law currently before the Ninth Circuit; whether sexual orientation merits heightened scrutiny for federal equal protection purposes has been an issue throughout that case, and the district court had decided that it did not.”
Still, NeJaime said the Ninth Circuit’s decision to draw on the DOMA decision to apply heightened scrutiny “will likely be proven controversial” because U.S. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy never explicitly invoked the level of scrutiny in his ruling.
The high-profile case involving sexual orientation before the Ninth Circuit is Sevick v. Sandoval, the challenge filed by Lambda Legal against Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Jon Davidson, Lambda’s legal director, said the ruling will have “a very significant impact” on the court’s examination of the Nevada marriage case.
“The Ninth Circuit’s ruling that sexual orientation discrimination must be given heightened scrutiny is further proof of the progress we are making in convincing courts that the Constitution affords LGBT people meaningful protections against government-imposed inequality,” Davidson said.
Opponents of the case, known as the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, filed their brief before the Ninth Circuit on the same day as the jury selection ruling, arguing in an untimely manner that “there is no legal or factual basis for deploying ‘heightened scrutiny’ in this case.”
But the Nevada marriage case isn’t the only lawsuit pending before the Ninth Circuit. Other cases in the jurisdiction are the recently filed challenge against Arizona’s ban on same-sex marriage and the case against Oregon’s ban, which is currently before gay U.S. District Judge Michael McShane.
Additionally, the challenge against the Arizona law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer rescinding domestic partner benefits for gay state employees is also before the Ninth Circuit. The court’s use of heightened scrutiny in the juror case could influence the decision in any of these cases.
Davidson added the application of heightened scrutiny in the juror case also has implications on gay government workers seeking relief if they feel they’ve faced discrimination on the job.
“If any federal, state, or local government agency or official in any of the nine states in the Ninth Circuit discriminates against someone based on their sexual orientation, they will have the burden of demonstrating that their action substantially furthers an important and legitimate government goal,” Davidson said. “They will not be able to rely on hypothetical or after the fact justifications.”
Despite the celebration over the standard of review in the case, LGBT advocates are also celebrating the ruling in its own right for establishing non-discrimination against gay people in the juror selection process.
D’Arcy Kemnitz, executive director of the National LGBT Bar Association, commended the Ninth Circuit.
“Jury service is a fundamental civic duty,” Kemnitz said. “LGBT people are proud to serve the courts when summoned. While some might jest at jury duty, in fact the courts demand through a subpoena that a person suspends their usual daily activity to be part of the rule of law.”
Legislation known as the Jury ACCESS Act, which would institute a rule of non-discrimination for gay jurors in federal courts, is also pending before Congress. Last year, it was incorporated into the Senate version of the fiscal year 2014 financial services appropriations bill, but it’s technically no longer pending because Congress passed omnibus spending legislation instead.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), chief sponsor of the legislation, commended the Ninth Circuit for issuing the ruling, but said more action is needed from Congress.
“There is no place for discrimination in our judicial system, and it should be the right and obligation of every citizen to sit on a jury,” Shaheen said. “The appellate court’s ruling is an important step, but I will continue working to make sure no American can be excluded from this important civil responsibility on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
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.
Congress
House Democrats oppose Bessent’s removal of SOGI from discrimination complaint forms
Congressional Equality Caucus sharply criticized move
A letter issued last week by a group of House Democrats objects to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s removal of sexual orientation and gender identity as bases for sex discrimination complaints in several Equal Employment Opportunity forms.
Bessent, who is gay, is the highest ranking openly LGBTQ official in American history and the second out Cabinet member next to Pete Buttigieg, who served as transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.
The signatories to the letter include a few out members of Congress, Congressional Equality Caucus chair and co-chairs Mark Takano (Calif.), Ritchie Torres (N.Y.), and Becca Balint (Vt.), along with U.S. Reps. Nikema Williams (Ga.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Joyce Beatty (Ohio), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas).
The letter explains the “critical role” played by the EEO given the strictures and limits on how federal employees can find recourse for unlawful workplace discrimination — namely, without the ability to file complaints directly with the Employment Opportunity Commission or otherwise engage with the agency unless the complainant “appeal[s] an agency’s decision following the agency’s investigation or request[s] a hearing before an administrative judge.”
“Your attempt to remove ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as bases for sex discrimination complaints in numerous Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) forms will create unnecessary hurdles to employees filing EEO complaints and undermine enforcement of federal employee’s nondiscrimination protections,” the members wrote in their letter.
They further explain the legal basis behind LGBTQ inclusive nondiscrimination protections for federal employees in the EEOC’s decisions in Macy v. Holder (2012) and Baldwin v. Foxx (2015) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).
“It appears that these changes may be an attempt by the department to dissuade employees from reporting gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without forms clearly enumerating gender identity and sexual orientation as forms of sex discrimination, the average employee who experiences these forms of discrimination may see these forms and not realize that the discrimination they experienced was unlawful and something that they can report and seek recourse for.”
“A more alarming view would be that the department no longer plans to fulfill its legal obligations to investigate complaints of gender identity and sexual orientation and ensure its
employees are working in an environment free from these forms of discrimination,” they added.
Latin America
Protests, demands for rights define Pride month in Latin America
More than 3 million people participated in São Paulo march
Activists across Latin America marked Pride month with massive demonstrations, cultural activities, and demands that their countries guarantee equality and protect LGBTQ people from violence.
From Santiago, Chile, to Mexico City, activists took to the streets to celebrate the rights that have been won and the many that are still pending.
Chile
The Pride march that the Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation (Movilh) and Fundación Iguales organized took place in downtown Santiago, the country’s capital, on June 22. Authorities and the two organizations say more than 120,000 people participated.
Under the slogan “Pride with memory and hope,” marchers demanded lawmakers approve a bill that would allow reparations for LGBTQ Chileans who Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship targeted. There were also calls for the government to promote an LGBTQ-inclusive educational reform.
“This time we are marching on high alert,” said Movilh spokesperson Javiera Zúñiga. “For the first time in decades, we are losing achieved rights. We demand the state wake up. The reform of the Zamudio Law has been stalled for 13 years.”
Marches also took place in Valparaíso, Antofagasta, Temuco, and Concepción, highlighting the growing visibility of transgender groups and feminist organizations.
Mexico
Mexico City on June 29 was the epicenter of one of the region’s largest Pride marches.
More than 300,000 people participated in the march. Comité IncluyeT organized the 46th annual march under the slogan “Not one step back: rights are respected.”
Several organizations denounced the increase in hate crimes — Mexico’s National Observatory of Hate Crimes notes more than 80 LGBTQ people have been reported murdered in the last year. They also urged Mexican lawmakers to criminalize transfeminicides across the country.
Argentina
Although Buenos Aires’s official Pride march takes place in November, the Argentine LGBT+ Federation and other groups in the Argentine capital and in other cities across the country in June organized activities.
More than 5,000 people on June 24 marched from Plaza de Mayo to the Argentine Congress to reject the government’s dismantling of public policies. President Javier Milei’s decision to eliminate the country’s Women, Gender, and Diversity Ministry and cut sexual health programs were among the moves the protesters denounced.
“Today Pride is also resistance to the adjustment,” pointed out Comunidad Homosexual Argentina, an LGBTQ advocacy group.
Colombia
Thousands of people in Bogotá, the Colombian capital, and the cities of Medellín, Cali, and Barranquilla marched on June 29.
The marchers’ slogan was “diversity is also peace,” in a context where violence against LGBTQ people remains high. Caribe Afirmativo, a Colombian LGBTQ rights group, notes more than 45 people from the community has been reported killed in the country over the last 12 months, with most of them trans women.
Organizations also demanded lawmakers resume debate of a bill that would extend comprehensive protections to LGBTQ Colombians. The measure has been stalled in Congress since 2023.
Brazil
More than 3 million people participated in the 28th São Paulo LGBTQ+ Pride Parade that took place on the city’s Paulista Avenue on June 22.
The parade took place under the slogan “LGBT+ social policies: we want the whole thing, not half of it.” Organizers demanded expanded access to health care, employment, and education for the most vulnerable communities, especially Black trans people. They also denounced ultraconservative figures who seek to curtail LGBTQ rights.
Peru and Paraguay
More than 15,000 people took part in a Pride march in Lima, the Peruvian capital, on June 28. Participants demanded lawmakers approve a trans rights law, which has been stalled in the Peruvian Congress since 2016, and recognition of civil unions.
Members of SomosGay, a Paraguayan LGBTQ rights group, and other organizations participated in a Pride march that took place in Asunción, the country’s capital, on June 29.
The march took place without incident, despite threats and anti-LGBTQ hate speech on social media. Participants demanded an end to anti-LGBTQ discrimination and rhetoric from social and religious groups.
Central America
Upwards of 2,000 people participated in a Pride march in Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, on June 22. A Pride demonstration took place in San Salvador, the capital of neighboring El Salvador, on June 28.
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
House Democrats oppose Bessent’s removal of SOGI from discrimination complaint forms
Protests, demands for rights define Pride month in Latin America
PHOTOS: Montgomery County Pride in the Plaza
Walkinshaw wins Democratic primary in Va. 11th Congressional District
Supreme Court upholds ACA rule that makes PrEP, other preventative care free
Supreme Court rules parents must have option to opt children out of LGBTQ-specific lessons
‘White Lotus,’ ‘Severance,’ ‘Andor’ lead Dorian TV Awards noms
Berkshire Choral to commemorate Matthew Shepard’s life
We can’t afford Medicaid cuts in fight against HIV
-
U.S. Supreme Court4 days agoSupreme Court upholds ACA rule that makes PrEP, other preventative care free
-
U.S. Supreme Court4 days agoSupreme Court rules parents must have option to opt children out of LGBTQ-specific lessons
-
Television5 days ago‘White Lotus,’ ‘Severance,’ ‘Andor’ lead Dorian TV Awards noms
-
Music & Concerts5 days agoBerkshire Choral to commemorate Matthew Shepard’s life