Former Uruguayan President José “Pepe” Mujica died on Tuesday. He was 89.

Mujica, a farmer, was a member of Tupamaros National Liberation Movement, a leftist guerrilla group that carried out bank robberies and bombings and kidnapped politicians and businessmen in the South American country during the 1960s and 1970s.

Mujica spent nearly 15 years in prison. The right-wing military dictatorship that governed Uruguay from 1973-1985 tortured him and held him in solitary confinement for a decade.

Mujica in 1989 joined the Movement of Popular Participation, a party that is part of the Broad Front, a leftist political coalition. Mujica was Uruguay’s president from 2010-2015.

Laws that extended marriage rights to same-sex couples and legalized abortion took effect in 2013 and 2012 respectively. Mujica in 2013 also signed a law that legalized recreational marijuana in Uruguay.

Mujica earlier this year announced he would not undergo further treatment for esophagus cancer that had spread to his liver. The AP notes he died in his small house outside of Montevideo, the Uruguayan capital.

“With profound pain we announced that our friend Pepe Mujica has died,” said Uruguayan President Yamandú Orsi, who currently leads the Broad Front, on X. “President, activist, guide, and leader. We are going to miss you very much, dear old man. Thank you for everything that you gave us and for your profound love for your people.”

Esteban Paulón, a gay congressman in neighboring Argentina, celebrated Mujica as a “guide” for “Latin American progressivism.”

“He made humility, honesty and austerity his hallmarks,” said Paulón on social media.

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments May 7 on whether a 2023 decision by a D.C. Superior Court judge dismissing a lawsuit against seven of the eight former board members of the now-defunct Casa Ruby LGBTQ community services center should be overturned.

The Wanda Alston Foundation, an LGBTQ youth housing services group that assumed control over the operations of Casa Ruby in August 2022 under a court appointed receivership role, filed its lawsuit against the former board members in December 2022 under the Casa Ruby name.

It accuses them of violating D.C.’s nonprofit corporations’ law by failing to “hold regular meetings/or maintain official records – thereby exercising no oversight or governance over the organization.” 

Among other things, the lawsuit said the former board members failed to take steps to prevent Casa Ruby’s founder and former executive director, Ruby Corado, from embezzling large sums of Casa Ruby funds for personal use.

Corado, who was arrested in March 2024 on multiple embezzlement related charges, pleaded guilty in July 2024 to a single charge of wire fraud under a plea agreement with prosecutors. She is scheduled to be sentenced on July 29, 2025.

The lawsuit called on the court to require Corado and the former board members to pay “restitution, compensatory damages, punitive damages, receivership fees and expenses, court costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses and any other relief the court deems necessary and proper.”

In May 2023, at the request of defense attorneys, D.C. Superior Court Judge Danya A. Dayson dismissed the lawsuit against seven of the eight former board members but did not dismiss the case against Corado and one of the board members who allegedly received improper financial benefits from Corado.

Dayson stated in her dismissal decision that it was based on her interpretation of a D.C. law that members of an organization’s board of directors can only be held liable for harming an organization like Casa Ruby if they “intentionally, rather than negligently, inflicted harm on Casa Ruby.”

According to Dayson, the law in question also says board members can be held responsible for harming an organization if a “board member intentionally violated a criminal law or that the board member received some amount of money to which they were not entitled.” She states in her decision that the Alston Foundation lawsuit did not provide sufficient evidence that the seven board members committed those types of violations.

Attorneys for the Alston Foundation disputed Dayson’s interpretation of the law in their initial legal brief filed before the D.C. Court of Appeals in February 2024. Among other things, the brief argued that the Alston Foundation’s Third Interim Report in its role as Casa Ruby receiver provides sufficient evidence that the former board members are legally liable for harming Casa Ruby.

That and follow-up briefs and their oral arguments at the May 7, 2025, hearing state that the appeals court can find that the former board members “were deliberately indifferent’ or ‘willfully blind’ to the alleged wrongful conduct of the nonprofit’s executive director amounting to actual knowledge on their part that inaction would harm the non-profit, ultimately and forcibly leading to its financial inability to continue operating.”

A follow-up brief filed by Alston Foundation attorney Theodore Howard argues that the former board members violated Casa Ruby’s by-laws by conducting only one board meeting in six years.

According to the brief, that “allowed Ms. Corado to maintain complete authority over the organization, including by allowing her to unilaterally appoint new Board members” and allowed her “to maintain sole control over Casa Ruby’s bank and financial accounts, even after Ms. Corado cut off access to those accounts to anyone but herself.”

An opposing brief filed by attorney Marlin Grifith, who is representing former board member Miguel Rivera, states that the decision dismissing the lawsuit correctly interpreted the law pertaining to nonprofit corporations.

“The Superior Court did not err…,” the brief states, adding “there are no facts alleged that support a conclusion of reasonable inference that the individual board members acted with actual knowledge that their inaction would cause harm to the organization.”

Howard, the attorney representing the Alston Foundation in its role as Casa Ruby receiver, said the attorneys on both sides of the case are now waiting for the three-judge appeals court panel to issue their decision. 

If they rule in favor of Casa Ruby/Alston Foundation, the case will be sent back to the Superior Court for further proceedings on the lawsuit, Howard said. He said negotiations would likely begin for a possible out-of-court settlement.

If the appeals court rules in favor of the former board members by finding they did not intentionally and knowingly inflict harm to Casa Ruby, “then the case, at least as between Casa Ruby [via the Alston Foundation] and the former board of directors, will be over,” Howard said.

The cuts to federal spending in a reconciliation proposal published on Monday by the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee’s Republican majority could jeopardize critical programs that disproportionately serve LGBTQ communities, the Human Rights Campaign warned.

As lawmakers were set to convene for a markup on Tuesday, the country’s largest LGBTQ advocacy group said in a press release that the bill would “pose significant threats” particularly for those that might be “low-income, living with HIV, or facing food insecurity.”

HRC added that conservative members have added provisions that would (1) prohibit the use of federal Medicaid and CHIP funding to support guideline-directed, medically necessary healthcare interventions for transgender youth (2) prevent “states from defining that care as ‘essential health benefits’ for transgender people of all ages,” and (3) block funding for health providers like Planned Parenthood that “have worked diligently to create welcoming, affirming environments for the LGBTQ+ community and that are committed to reproductive freedom and providing care to all who need it.”

Since reconciliation is carved out as an exemption to the Senate filibuster, which typically requires a 60-vote threshold for legislation to pass, Republicans would need only a simple majority in the upper chamber.

In a statement, HRC President Kelley Robinson said:“People in this country have been clear — they want policies and solutions that make life better and expand access to the American Dream. Instead, anti-equality lawmakers drafted a handout for billionaires built on the backs of hardworking people — with devastating consequences for the LGBTQ+ community.

“Proposed cuts to programs like Medicaid and SNAP or resources like Planned Parenthood clinics, all of which  disproportionately support LGBTQ+ Americans, are not just numbers on a page. They would mean families forced to choose between seeing a doctor and paying the rent. They would mean people forced to skip check ups and testing. They would mean kids missing meals.

“And attempts to load up the bill with attacks on access to health care for transgender youth drive home the point that this bill is not about the American people, but inflicting harm for political gain. This country deserves better, and we’re going to fight for it.”

Per HRC’s press release, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the Republican led proposal “could kick 13.7 million people off of Medicaid,” a program that covers “a disproportionate share of low-income LGBTQ+ people, including 21 percent of transgender individuals and 40 percent of people living with HIV.”

Along with the threat of withholding access to medicines for individual patients living with HIV, the proposed cuts could also undermine public health goals with respect to America’s decades-long effort to combat the epidemic, along with the work of community health centers that provide “services like mental health support, gender-affirming care, and STI testing.”

The group notes that LGBTQ populations — especially women, younger individuals, and LGBTQ people of color — tend to experience higher rates of food insecurity, the group noted, which means they are likely to suffer greater harm from the “stricter eligibility requirements, work mandates, and benefit reductions” targeting the SNAP program.