Politics
Obama administration seeks stay on 'Don't Ask' litigation
The Obama administration is asking a federal court to hold off on a legal challenge to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” until Congress completes legislative action on the issue this year.
In a reply brief issued Wednesday in the case of Log Cabin v. United States, the Justice Department argues the U.S. District Court of Central California should defer adjudicating the case in light of recent votes in the House and Senate on measures that would lead to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
The pending litigation, initially filed by Log Cabin Republicans in 2004, seeks to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on the grounds that it violates the freedom of speech rights of gay, lesbian and bisexual service members.
The Justice Department brief that was made public Wednesday comes after U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips ruled late last month to deny the government’s call for summary judgment in the case based on plaintiff’s lack of standing.
Download a copy of the Justice Department’s reply brief here. The deadline for the plaintiffs’ response to the brief is June 23.
In the brief, the Obama administration contends that “principles of constitutional avoidance and respect for the coequal branches of government” necessitate that the court should support a stay in proceedings until “completion of the process already undertaken by the political branches.”
“Accordingly, the Court should await the outcome of the process in which the political branches are now engaged before deciding the constitutional question presented,” the brief states.
Late last month, the House and the Senate Armed Services Committee in two separate actions voted in favor of attaching “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language to the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.
The Justice Department argues the proceedings on the case should stop until Congress completes this action because, among other reasons, courts “should not decide constitutional issues if they can reasonably avoid doing so.”
Further, the government argues that holding off on adjudication is in the best interest of all parties involved because it would save the court from “expending considerable time and resources on pretrial motions, trial preparation, trial, and any potential post-trial briefing concerning the constitutionality of a statute that may be repealed.”
Doug NeJaime, a gay law professor at Loyola Law School, said his disagrees with the Justice Department’s argument to hold off on proceedings because the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal measure under consideration in Congress is a compromise that “still leaves some uncertainty.”
The measure that lawmakers have put forward wouldn’t take effect until after the Defense Department completes its study on the issue at the end of the year and the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the U.S. military is ready for repeal.
“And given the way in which the [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell]’ repeal has crawled up to this point, I don’t think it makes sense for a court to stay the case pending legislative action,” NeJaime said. “The constitutional questions are ripe for consideration.”
The reply brief also responds to a request from the court to address the potential application of a heightened standard of review set forth in the 2008 Ninth Circuit of Appeals ruling in Witt v. Air Force, which was related to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
The Witt decision, which was construed to only apply to the plaintiff, determined the Pentagon needed to prove lesbian Maj. Margaret Witt’s sexual orientation was a detriment to unit cohesion in order to discharge her from the Air Force.
The Justice Department argues that the Witt standard doesn’t apply in the Log Cabin case because Witt was an as-applied challenge while Log Cabin is a facial challenge.
In a facial challenge, the plaintiff alleges that a statute is always and under all circumstances unconstitutional and therefore void. But in an as-applied challenge, a plaintiff contends that a statute may in part be unconstitutional in redress of a specific injury.
The Justice Department argues that the U.S. District Court of Central California already determined last year that the Witt standard — as an as-applied case — doesn’t apply to the Log Cabin litigation.
“There is no basis to reconsider that ruling, which was and remains correct,” the brief states.
However, should the court decide to evaluate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” under a more heightened review, the Justice Department says the court already rejected a legal challenge with this standard of scrutiny against the policy for gays in the military in the 1980 case of Beller v. Middendorf.
“Because Witt does not disturb the analysis employed in Beller with respect to facial challenges, the Beller standard, not the as-applied Witt standard, is binding,” the brief states.
The Justice Department further contends it’s entitled to summary judgment in its favor because Log Cabin’s challenge “would fail under the Beller analysis.”
NeJaime said he also disagrees with Justice Department’s determination that the Beller case applies to Log Cabin’s litigation and not Witt.
Even though the Witt is an as-applied challenge, NeJaime said that doesn’t mean “the court’s analysis in Witt, and its application of a heightened standard of review, is irrelevant to the pending facial challenge.”
NeJaime noted the Witt court drew on protections afforded to LGBT people in 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws throughout the country.
He said the application of Lawrence in the Witt case is “certainly relevant” in Log Cabin’s facial challenge and “counsels against applying rational basis review, as the government urges the court to do.”
“And, furthermore, I think it casts doubt on the government’s argument that Beller, and not Witt, should govern this case,” NeJaime said. “The pre-Lawrence Beller decision must certainly be re-evaluated in light of the Lawrence decision.”
The White House
HRC files class action over federal ban on gender-affirming care coverage
Lawsuit filed Monday challenges White House effort to restrict care
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the nonprofit sister organization to the largest LGBTQ human rights lobbying and advocacy organization in the U.S., along with law firms Correia & Puth and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, filed a class action lawsuit against the government as it attempts to restrict gender-affirming healthcare for federal employees.
The suit, filed on Monday, alleges that the Office of Personnel Management, run by Trump appointee Scott Kupor, is discriminating against LGBTQ federal employees (and their families and retired employees) by prohibiting health insurance coverage for gender-affirming care under the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits plans. There are five plaintiffs named in the complaint, but it extends to others who have those healthcare plans.
The document asserts that OPM’s prohibition on coverage for “gender transition” care in the FEHB and PSHB programs violates Title VII, the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin.
The policy, which was implemented on Jan. 1 following the 2025 issuing of Program Carrier Letter, mandated that insurance providers in these programs deny any coverage for gender-affirming care. In February, HRC filed a federal complaint with OPM over the change in healthcare policy, which was ultimately passed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for review. That complaint is now an officially filed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Research from the Williams Institute at UCLA Law, a think tank that collects data and conducts research on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, indicates that this policy denying gender-affirming care will impact healthcare access for at least 39,400 current and former federal employees and their dependents.
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released a statement following the lawsuit’s filing.
“Our message to the Trump administration is simple: we’ll see you in court,” said Robinson. “Healthcare access should never be weaponized to advance discrimination — and the denial of coverage for critical healthcare based simply on who you are blatantly violates the rights of all of us.”
Gender-affirming care has been under constant attack by the Trump-Vance administration since its return to the White House, despite the practice being considered as extensively evidence-based but also supported by nearly every major medical organization. This type of care is provided to all people—not just transgender people—and includes things such as social affirmation, including using correct names and pronouns and wearing clothing that matches a person’s gender identity; mental health support, such as counseling to reduce depression and anxiety; and, in some cases, medical interventions such as reversible puberty blockers or hormone therapy when deemed medically appropriate.
“Federal employees have been through the wringer with the Trump administration,” said Cathy Harris, partner at Correia & Puth. “We draw the line at blatant discrimination to deny healthcare to our nation’s dedicated civil servants.”
“This odious policy is the latest example of the Trump administration’s obsession with targeting transgender people, using shameful and cruel tactics to threaten their employment, their health, and the well-being of themselves and their families,” Robinson added. “OPM’s actions will not go unchallenged, and we’ll continue to fight so that federal employees and their families receive the dignity they deserve.”
This is not the first time the White House has directly attacked gender-affirming care.
In January 2025, the administration issued Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” The order directs federal agencies to restrict gender-affirming medical care — including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries — for individuals under the age of 19.
For more information on how to get involved with the lawsuit, visit hrc.org.
Politics
Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028
Former Transportation Secretary was in Biden-Harris administration’s Cabinet
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told a podcaster he is considering throwing his hat in the ring for president once again.
“I don’t know,” Buttigieg told Steven Bartlett, the British host of The Diary of a CEO, the most popular top business and tech podcast on Spotify, which aired Monday. “I think I’m more inclined than not, but there’s so much we don’t know.”
“There’s so much I don’t even know about what’s going to happen this year, let alone … what we need to know later,” he added.
Buttigieg is no stranger to running for the Oval Office.
In 2019, the former South Bend, Ind., mayor was a serious contender in the Democratic primary for the 2020 presidential election but ultimately ended his campaign and endorsed Joe Biden.
In May, an Emerson College Polling survey found Buttigieg at the top of the list of potential presidential contenders, leading California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and others.
In addition to discussing his future in federal politics, Buttigieg also discussed President Donald Trump’s handling of the Iran war — which reached its 5-month mark two weeks ago — the changing landscape of U.S. jobs due to the rise of artificial intelligence, and the growing national debt, all issues he could face if he ultimately returns to the White House.
Following his 2020 presidential campaign, Buttigieg gained prominence within the Democratic Party, eventually leading to his confirmation as Transportation Secretary. In February 2021, he became the first openly gay Cabinet member to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
In addition to his experience as an elected official, the 44-year-old served as a Navy intelligence officer in the reserves from 2009-2017, including a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan in 2014. Buttigieg came out as gay in 2015 and later married his husband, Chasten Glezman, in 2018. The couple now has two children: twins.
Buttigieg also has an extensive educational background.
He graduated from Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in history and literature and later became a Rhodes Scholar, attending the University of Oxford, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics.
This is not the first time Buttigieg has made headlines this year.
In June, he went public about being falsely accused of posing a threat to his children’s safety. An anonymous police report claimed he was a danger to his 4-year-old twins and was not allowed to be with them until after police interviews were conducted.
The police report was later determined to be false. The Washington Blade reached out to the Michigan State Police to ask what course of action, if any, would be taken against the woman who filed the false report, but the agency did not answer the question.
The Blade reached out to Buttigieg’s team for comment on his potential 2028 presidential bid, but did not hear back before publication.
Congress
House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law
Lawmakers approved two anti-trans NDAA amendments
The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have codified a ban transgender servicemembers in the military.
The bipartisan vote was 212-217.
The NDAA is for the 2027 fiscal year and sets policies for the Defense Department programs and activities and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.
U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) proposed the amendment on July 21. It stated that all personnel are required to serve in accordance with their biological sex, citing military readiness and discipline.
Human Rights Campaign Senior Director of Government Affairs Jennifer Pike Bailey stated that she is grateful for the bipartisan vote that rejected President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “dangerous and discriminatory policy that has kicked brave transgender servicemembers out of the military and weakened our national security.”
“Everyone who meets the same rigorous standards should be able to serve their country. We should honor that patriotism, particularly in this moment where we are witnessing brave servicemembers making the ultimate sacrifice for our country, instead of ending their careers and politicizing their existence. We’re grateful that a permanent extension of this ban failed, and we will keep fighting to reverse this senseless policy,” Bailey said.
Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, stated that he and his members put in countless hours of work to kill the amendment.
“When Americans know they or their families are going to be targeted by or not supported by the military, that leads them to avoid signing up to serve or staying in the service — making it harder to keep the ranks of the armed services full and our nation safe. My colleagues in the Equality Caucus and I will continue working to prevent these attacks on our servicemembers and their families from becoming law,” Takano said.
According to the Congressional Equality Caucus, two other bills could potentially be passed that would also target the transgender community, both of which were proposed by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).
The first was a bill that would have prohibited gender-related medical care under TRICARE and to prevent TRICARE from covering certain gender-related medical procedures and treatments, which was approved in a vote of 219-208.
The second was a bill that would have prohibited male participation in female sports at DoDEA schools. DoDEA schools are Department of Defense Dependents Schools, which is a network of primary and secondary schools.
The amendment was approved in a vote of 221-203.
Flanagan beats Craig in Minn. Senate primary after winning key LGBTQ endorsements
Gay ANC commissioner sues D.C. over police ‘failure’ to pay reward money
New LGBTQ visitor center slated for Wilmington, Del.
Jason DePuy on coping with homophobia in ‘Big Brother’ house
