News
Gorsuch confirmed to the dismay of LGBT rights supporters
Senate approves new justice after nuking filibuster

The U.S. Senate confirmed Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.
(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
The U.S. Senate confirmed on Friday Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court much to the dismay of LGBT rights supporters who think he’ll oppose LGBT rights and Democrats who say the seat was unfairly awarded to him.
The Senate confirmed him to the seat by a largely party-line vote of 54-45, although Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) joined Republicans to confirm the nominee. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), who’s recovering from back surgery, missed the vote.
Russell Roybal, deputy executive director for the National LGBTQ Task Force, said in a statement the confirmation amounts to “the triumph of bullying over moderation.”
“Taking their lead from the Bully-in-Chief Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell twisted and turned the rules of the Senate to ram this extremist nominee through — slashing and burning safeguards for moderation, such as the rule calling for a 60 votes threshold needed to confirm an Associate Supreme Court Justice,” Roybal said. “We now have a new Justice who is so conservative that he makes Antonin Scalia look moderate,”
The Gorsuch confirmation is a win for President Trump after a first 100 days in office marked by questions about his presidential campaign’s relationship with Russia, the failure of legislation he endorsed to repeal Obamacare and national security challenges in Syria and North Korea.
But Democrats put up a fight in the road to confirmation, citing Senate Republicans’ unwillingness to even hold a hearing for President Obama’s choice for the seat — U.S. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland — when it was first made open by the death of the U.S. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia last year.
Democrats on Thursday successfully filibustered by the nomination after speaking out on the Senate floor against Gorsuch on the Senate. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who said he’d filibuster any nominee other than Garland, spoke for 15 hours on the Senate floor against Trump’s nominee.
In the end, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was able to move forward by changing the rules and exercising the “nuclear option,” which ended the ability for senators to filibuster nominees to the Supreme Court. McConnell cited as precedent for this action former Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid ending the filibuster in 2013 for administrative appointments and lower court judicial nominees.
Commending McConnell for his actions to ensure the confirmation of Gorsuch was Tony Perkins, president of the anti-LGBT Family Research Council.
“Leader McConnell is to be commended for holding fast to historical precedent of not allowing an outgoing president to pack the Court with ideological jurists on his way out of the White House,” Perkins said. “The Supreme Court vacancy after the death of Justice Scalia became a defining issue of the 2016 presidential election. President Trump made history by telling voters who he would appoint to the Court by providing a list — the American people chose him and he in turn chose from the list, keeping his promise.”
LGBT rights supporters have expressed concerns about Gorsuch largely because of his record as a judge on the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Chief among those concerns is a ruling the Hobby Lobby case in which he determined the retail chain should afforded “religious freedom” despite requirements under Obamacare to deny contraceptive coverage for female employees. Many LGBT rights supporters say that could be a prelude to Gorsuch being willing to institute “religious freedom” carve-outs in LGBT non-discrimination laws.
Other LGBT criticism over Gorsuch relates to his decisions on transgender rights. In 2015, Gorsuch joined an 11th Circuit decision against a transgender inmate who alleged she was denied transition-related hormone therapy and unfairly housed in an all-male facility. In 2009, Gorsuch also joined an unpublished opinion finding the provision against sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t apply to transgender people.
In a 2005 op-ed for the National Review “Liberals & Lawsuits,” Gorsuch excoriated the progressive movement for seeking advancements in the courts, identifying same-sex marriage an issue that should be decided elsewhere a decade before the Supreme Court would rule for marriage equality nationwide.
Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of GLAAD, condemned Senate Republicans for the confirmation of Gorsuch in a statement based on his anti-LGBT rulings and writings.
“Republicans in the Senate just destroyed a steadfast American tradition for the purpose of confirming a person to the U.S. Supreme Court who will most certainly vote in opposition to the safety and well-being of the LGBTQ community and many marginalized groups for his entire career on the bench,” Ellis said. “With his history of siding against transgender Americans and arguing against marriage equality, Neil Gorsuch is yet another reprehensible pawn in the Trump Administration’s goal of erasing the LGBTQ community from the fabric of America.”
During his confirmation hearing, Gorsuch said the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage is “settled law,” but added “there is ongoing litigation about its impact and application right now,” suggesting he thinks limitations to the ruling are still on the table. According to the Human Rights Campaign, Gorsuch also refused to answer in response to written questions from the Senate whether he thinks LGBT people are eligible for protections under current federal civil rights laws.
Stan Sloan, CEO of the Family Equality Council, said in a statement he hopes concerns about Gorsuch’s views on legal protections for LGBT people prove incorrect now that the jurist has been confirmed to the Supreme Court.
“Family Equality Council opposed the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and we are disappointed that this confirmation is now a reality,” Sloan said. “We hope that our fears concerning his ability to assure fair treatment of LGBTQ individuals and families — and members of all marginalized communities — will now be proven wrong, and that Justice Gorsuch rises to support and protect the civil liberties of all Americans.”
District of Columbia
New queer bar Rush beset by troubles; liquor license suspended
Staff claim they haven’t been paid, turn to GoFundMe as holidays approach
The D.C. Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board on Dec. 17 issued an order suspending the liquor license for the recently opened LGBTQ bar and nightclub Rush on grounds that it failed to pay a required annual licensing fee.
Rush held its grand opening on Dec. 5 on the second and third floors of a building at 200114 Street, N.W., with its entrance around the corner on U Street next to the existing LGBTQ dance club Bunker.
It describes itself on its website as offering “art-pop aesthetics, high-energy nights” in a space that “celebrates queer culture without holding back.” It includes a large dance floor and a lounge area with sofas and chairs.
Jackson Mosley, Rush’s principal owner, did not immediately respond to a phone message from the Washington Blade seeking his comment on the license suspension.
The ABC Board’s order states, “The basis for this Order is that a review of the Board’s official records by the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration (ABCA) has determined that the Respondent’s renewal payment check was returned unpaid and alternative payment was not submitted.”
The three-page order adds, “Notwithstanding ABCA’s efforts to notify the Respondent of the renewal payment check return, the Respondent failed to pay the license fee for the period of 2025 to 2026 for its Retailer’s Class CT license. Therefore, the Respondent’s license has been SUSPENDED until the Respondent pays the license fees and the $50.00 per day fine imposed by the Board for late payment.”
ABCA spokesperson Mary McNamara told the Blade that the check from Rush that was returned without payment was for $12,687, which she said was based on Rush’s decision to pay the license fee for four years. She said that for Rush to get its liquor license reinstated it must now pay $3,819 for a one-year license fee plus a $100 bounced check fee, a $750 late fee, and $230 transfer fee, at a total of $4,919 due.
Under D.C. law, bars, restaurants and other businesses that normally serve alcoholic beverages can remain open without a city liquor license as long as they do not sell or serve alcohol.
But D.C. drag performer John Marsh, who performs under the name Cake Pop and who is among the Rush employees, said Rush did not open on Wednesday, Dec. 17, the day the liquor board order was issued. He said that when it first opened, Rush limited its operating days from Wednesday through Sunday and was not open Mondays and Tuesdays.
Marsh also said none of the Rush employees received what was to be their first monthly salary payment on Dec. 15. He said approximately 20 employees set up a GoFundMe fundraising site to raise money to help sustain them during the holiday period after assuming they will not be paid.
He said he doubted that any of the employees would return to work in the unlikely case that Mosley would attempt to reopen Rush without serving liquor or if he were to pay the licensing fee to allow him to resume serving alcohol without having received their salary payment.
As if all that were not enough, Mosley would be facing yet another less serious problem related to the Rush policy of not accepting cash payments from customers and only accepting credit card payments. A D.C. law that went into effect Jan. 1, 2025, prohibits retail businesses such as restaurants and bars from not accepting cash payments.
A spokesperson for the D.C. Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection, which is in charge of enforcing that law, couldn’t immediately be reached to determine what the penalty is for a violation of the law requiring that type of business to accept cash payments.
The employee GoFundMe site, which includes messages from several of the employees, can be accessed here.
Malaysia
Malaysian police raids spark renewed concern among LGBTQ activists
202 people arrested at men-only venues in Kuala Lumpur on Nov. 28
In the weeks since a Nov. 28 police raid on men-only venues in Kuala Lumpur, queer activists in Malaysia say they have stepped up efforts to coordinate legal assistance for people detained under state Shariah laws.
Justice for Sisters, Pelangi, and other groups have been providing legal referrals, court monitoring, and emergency support following the arrests, as advocates warn that enforcement targeting LGBTQ communities has intensified.
In Malaysia, a Muslim-majority but multi-ethnic and multi-faith country, consensual same-sex sexual conduct is criminalized under both civil and Islamic law. The federal penal code bans “carnal intercourse against the order of nature,” a provision that applies nationwide, while state-level Shariah laws governing Muslims prohibit same-sex relations and gender nonconformity, including cross-dressing. Together, the dual-track legal system allows authorities to pursue LGBTQ people under parallel civil and religious statutes.
According to Justice for Sisters, 202 people — including venue owners, staff, and customers — were arrested and detained overnight. The organization in a statement said detainees were repeatedly denied access to legal counsel and communication with family members, and that their identities and images were exposed publicly — actions it said led to humiliation and, in some cases, job losses.
According to testimonies collected by Justice for Sisters and several other NGOs, detainees reported multiple procedural violations during the legal process. In a document the group published, detainees said they were not informed of the charges against them, were denied access to legal counsel, and phone communication for hours, and, in the case of foreign nationals, were not given access to embassies or translators. The document also described interrogations that included intrusive questions about sexual practices and orientation, as well as detention conditions in which detainees were repeatedly ordered to sit, stand, and recline without explanation and transported in overcrowded vehicles, with 30 to 40 people placed in trucks designed for far fewer passengers.
Detainees also reported being subjected to degrading treatment while in custody.
Accounts said detainees were denied access to toilets for extended periods and instructed to urinate into bottles, which were later thrown at them. Some detainees said officers suggested using rubber bands to restrict urination. Detainees also said authorities kept them awake overnight and repeatedly ordered them to sit upright or monitor others to prevent them from sleeping.
“We call on the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) and the Ministry of Health (KKM) to immediately launch an independent and unbiased assessment and investigation into the actions of the agencies involved during the raid, detention, and subsequent procedures, after the court rejected the remand extension request on Nov. 29, 2025,” Justice for Sisters said in a statement. “This raid has had a serious impact on public health. Many individuals reported heightened mental distress, including suicidal thoughts and severe psychological stress, affecting their ability to carry out daily activities such as eating, working, sleeping, and accessing medical treatment. When safe-sex tools such as condoms or pre-exposure prophylaxis are used to imply criminal activity, it directly undermines progress in the country’s public health response.”
Justice for Sisters also said law enforcement officers must conduct investigations professionally and fairly, while upholding the presumption that detainees are innocent until proven guilty. The organization in a statement said police must carry out their duties in a manner that preserves public trust and confidence in the justice system.
Rights groups say enforcement actions against LGBTQ gatherings in Malaysia have not been limited to the capital.
In June 2025, police in the northeastern state of Kelantan raided a private rented property described by authorities as a “gay party,” arresting 20 men, according to state police statements.
According to Reuters, Malaysian law enforcement authorities said they would review their procedures following the November raid. The report cited Kuala Lumpur Police Chief Fadil Marsus as saying that 171 Malaysian nationals were released from custody after authorities found no evidence to prosecute them.
The Washington Blade reached out to the Royal Malaysia Police for comment, but did not receive an immediate response.
“We do not want a situation where raids and arrests are carried out but, in the end, the evidence is inadmissible,” Marsus said, according to Reuters.
As of Dec. 1, all but one of the 37 foreign nationals detained in the raid had been released, with the remaining person held on an immigration-related matter, according to Reuters. Authorities have not publicly disclosed whether they remain in custody.
The White House
HHS to restrict gender-affirming care for minors
Directive stems from President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced Thursday that it will pursue regulatory changes that would make gender-affirming healthcare for transgender children more difficult, if not impossible, to access.
The shift in federal healthcare policy stems directly from President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order, Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, which formally establishes U.S. opposition to gender-affirming care and pledges to end federal funding for such treatments.
The executive order outlines a broader effort to align HHS with the Trump–Vance administration’s policy goals and executive actions. Those actions include defunding medical institutions that provide gender-affirming care to minors by restricting federal research and education grants, withdrawing the 2022 HHS guidance supporting gender-affirming care, requiring TRICARE and federal employee health plans to exclude coverage for gender-affirming treatments for minors, and directing the Justice Department to prioritize investigations and enforcement related to such care.
HHS has claimed that gender-affirming care can “expose them [children] to irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other irreversible physiological effects.” The nation’s health organization published a report in November, saying that evidence on pediatric gender-affirming care is “very uncertain.”
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is now in the process of proposing new rules that would bar hospitals from performing what the administration describes as sex-rejecting procedures on children under age 18 as a condition of participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs. Nearly all U.S. hospitals participate in Medicare and Medicaid. HHS said that “this action is designed to ensure that the U.S. government will not be in business with organizations that intentionally or unintentionally inflict permanent harm on children.”
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released a statement alongside the announcement.
“Under my leadership, and answering President Trump’s call to action, the federal government will do everything in its power to stop unsafe, irreversible practices that put our children at risk,” Kennedy said. “This administration will protect America’s most vulnerable. Our children deserve better — and we are delivering on that promise.”
Those claims stand in direct opposition to the positions of most major medical and healthcare organizations.
The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest and most influential physician organization, has repeatedly opposed measures that restrict access to trans healthcare.
“The AMA supports public and private health insurance coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and opposes the denial of health insurance based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” a statement on the AMA’s website reads. “Improving access to gender-affirming care is an important means of improving health outcomes for the transgender population.”
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, warned the proposed changes would cause significant harm.
“Parents of transgender children want what all parents want: to see their kids thrive and get the medical care they need. But this administration is putting the government between patients and their doctors. Parents witness every day how their children benefit from this care — care backed by decades of research and endorsed by major medical associations across the country. These proposed rules are not based on medical science. They are based on politics. And if allowed to take effect will serve only to drive up medical costs, harm vulnerable children, and deny families the care their doctors say they need. These rules elevate politics over children — and that is profoundly unAmerican.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson echoed Levi’s sentiments.
“The Trump administration is relentless in denying health care to this country, and especially the transgender community. Families deserve the freedom to go to the doctor and get the care that they need and to have agency over the health and wellbeing of their children,” Robinson said. “But these proposed actions would put Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in those doctor’s offices, ripping health care decisions from the hands of families and putting it in the grips of the anti-LGBTQ+ fringe. Make no mistake: these rules aim to completely cut off medically necessary care from children no matter where in this country they live. It’s the Trump administration dictating who gets their prescription filled and who has their next appointment canceled altogether.
The announcement comes just days after U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) advanced legislation in Congress that would make it a felony to provide gender-affirming care to a child.
