National
Obama administration seeks stay on ‘Don’t Ask’ case
Congressional votes are cause for pause, brief says
President Barack Obama’s administration is asking a federal court to halt proceedings on a legal challenge to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ (Photo by Pete Souza, courtesy of White House)
The Obama administration is asking a federal court to hold off on advancing 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 June 9 in 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 the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
The pending case, 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 last week 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 plaintiffs’ lack of standing.
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 says.
Late last month, the House and the Senate Armed Services Committee 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 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 he 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 tied 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 says.
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 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 says.
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.”
But NeJaime said he disagrees with the Justice Department’s determination that the Beller case applies to Log Cabin’s litigation and not Witt.
Although 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 said the Witt court drew on protections afforded to LGBT people in the 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.”
Federal Government
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Spending package would restrict Pride flags on federal buildings, trans healthcare, LGBTQ envoys
As Congress finalizes its funding for fiscal year 2027, Republicans are attempting to include five anti-LGBTQ riders in the National Security and Department of State Appropriations Act.
A rider is an unrelated provision tacked onto a bill that must pass — in this instance, the bill provides funding for national security policy and for the State Department.
The riders range from restricting Pride flags in federal buildings to banning transgender healthcare, but all aim to limit the visibility and rights of LGBTQ Americans.
The five riders are:
Section 7067(a) prohibits Pride flags from being flown over federal buildings.
Section 7067(c) restricts the United States’ ability to appoint special envoys, representatives, or coordinators unless expressly authorized by Congress. These roles have historically been used to promote U.S. interests in international forums — including advancing human and LGBTQ and intersex rights and other policy priorities. The change would halt what the Congressional Equality Caucus describes as providing “critical expertise to U.S. foreign policy and leadership abroad.”
Section 7067(d) reinforces multiple anti-equality executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, effectively requiring that foreign assistance funded by the United States comply with those orders. This includes rescinding federal contractor nondiscrimination protections, including for LGBTQ people.
Section 7067(e) prohibits funding for any organization that provides or promotes medically necessary healthcare for trans people or “promotes transgenderism” — effectively banning funds for organizations that recognize trans people exist. This is despite the practice of gender-affirming care being supported by nearly every major medical association.
Section 7067(g) reinforces two global gag rules put forward by the Trump-Vance administration. One is the Trans Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that acknowledge the existence of trans people or advocate for nondiscrimination protections for them, among other activities. The second is the DEI Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that engage in efforts to address the ongoing effects of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry outside the United States.
The global gag rule has its roots in anti-abortion policy introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, when the 40th president barred foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance from providing information, referrals, or services for legal abortion, or from advocating for access to abortion services in their own countries. Planned Parenthood notes that the policy also affects programs beyond abortion, including efforts to expand access to contraception, prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, combat malaria, and improve maternal and child health.
If organizations funded by the State Department engage in these activities, they could lose funding.
This anti-LGBTQ push aligns with broader actions from the Trump-Vance administration since the start of Trump’s second term, which have focused on restricting human rights — particularly those of trans Americans.
The House Appropriations Committee is responsible for drafting the appropriations legislation. U.S. Representative Tom Cole (R-Okla.) serves as chair, with U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) as ranking member. The committee includes 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
For FY27 appropriations, Congress is supposed to pass and have the president sign the funding bills by Sept. 30, 2026.
Noticias en Español
The university that refuses to let go
Joanna Cifredo is a trans woman participating in University of Puerto Rico strike
Over the past days, I have been walking with a question that refuses to leave me. Not the kind of question you answer from a desk or from a distance, but one that grows out of what you witness in real time, at the gates, in the faces of those who remain there without knowing how any of this will end. What is truly happening inside the University of Puerto Rico, and why have so many students decided to risk everything at a moment when they can least afford to lose anything.
I write as someone who lives just steps away from the Río Piedras campus. These days, the silence has replaced the constant movement that once defined this space. The absence is felt in every corner where students used to pass at all hours. Since arriving in Puerto Rico three years ago, I have come to know firsthand stories that rarely make it into reports or official statements. One of the reasons I chose to stay was precisely this, to serve the university community, to help create a space where students could find something as basic as a safe meal at night and, in some way, ease burdens that are often carried in silence.
I have listened, asked questions, and tried to understand without imposing answers. What I have found is not a collective outburst or a generational whim. What exists is a fracture, a deep break between those making decisions and those living with their consequences every single day.
There has been an effort to reduce this strike to an issue of order, scheduling, or academic disruption. Conversations revolve around missed classes, delayed semesters, and students supposedly unaware of the consequences of their actions. What is rarely addressed are the conditions that lead an entire student body to pause its own future to sustain a protest that offers no guarantees.
Because that is the reality. These are students who fully understand what they are risking, and yet they remain. When someone reaches that point, the least they deserve is not judgment, but to be heard.
From the outside, there have also been attempts to discredit what is happening. Familiar narratives are repeated, legitimacy is questioned, and doubt is cast over intentions. It is easier to do that than to acknowledge that this did not begin at the gates, but long before, in decisions made without building trust.
And something must be said clearly. This is not limited to the gates of Río Piedras. What we are witnessing extends across every unit of the University of Puerto Rico system. Mayagüez, Ponce, Arecibo, Bayamón, Cayey, Humacao, Carolina, Aguadilla, Utuado, and the Medical Sciences Campus. This is not an isolated reaction. It is a movement that runs through the entire institution. Río Piedras may be more visible, but it is not alone. What is happening there reflects a broader unrest felt across the system.
Within that context, one demand has grown increasingly present, the call for the resignation of University of Puerto Rico President Zayira Jordán Conde. This is not the voice of a small group. It reflects a deeper level of mistrust that has spread across multiple campuses.
The Puerto Rican Association of University Professors has also made it clear that this is not solely a student issue. There is real concern among faculty, and a shared recognition of the conditions currently shaping the university. When students and professors arrive at the same conclusion, the problem can no longer be minimized.
Meanwhile, the administration continues to speak in the language of dialogue. But dialogue is not a word, it is a practice. And when trust has been broken, it cannot be restored through statements alone, but through decisions that prove a willingness to truly listen.
In the midst of all of this, there are voices that cannot be ignored. Voices grounded not in theory, but in lived experience. One of them is Joanna Cifredo, a student at the Mayagüez campus, a young Puerto Rican trans woman, and someone widely recognized for her advocacy.
I spoke with her in recent days. What follows is her voice, exactly as it is.
How would you describe what is happening inside the University of Puerto Rico right now, beyond what people see from the outside?
Estamos viviendo momentos muy difíciles, en el sentido de que hay mucha incertidumbre y una presión constante por parte de la administración para reabrir el recinto, pero, entre todo el caos e inestabilidad provocado por las decisiones de esta administración, también hemos vivido momentos muy poderosos. Esta lucha ha sacado lo mejor de nuestra comunidad.
Lo vimos en las asambleas y plenos, donde 1,500, 1,700, hasta 1,800 estudiantes llegaron —bajo lluvia, bajo advertencias de inundaciones— y aun así se quedaron, participaron y votaron a favor de una manifestación indefinida hasta que se atiendan nuestros reclamos.
He conocido a tantas personas en los diferentes portones, estudiantes graduados, aletas, estudiantes de intercambio, estudiantes de todo tipo de concentraciones y se unieron para apoyar el movimiento estudiantil. Estudiantes que vienen a los portones después del trabajo o antes de trabajar. Estudiantes que vienen a dejar agua y suministros entre turnos de trabajo. Viejitos que vienen a los portones con desayuno, almuerzo o cena.
Más allá de lo que se ve desde afuera, lo que estamos viviendo es una mezcla de tensión y resistencia, pero también de comunidad, solidaridad y compromiso colectivo.
Much of what is discussed remains at the level of headlines or social media. From your direct experience, what specific decisions or actions from the administration have led to this level of mobilization?
Desde el inicio, la designación de la Dra. Zayira Jordán Conde careció de respaldo dentro de la comunidad universitaria. No contaba con experiencia administrativa en la UPR ni con un conocimiento básico de nuestros procesos, cultura y reglamentos. Por eso, en asamblea, el estudiantado votó para solicitarle a la Junta de Gobierno que no considerara su candidatura, y múltiples organizaciones docentes hicieron lo mismo. Existía un consenso amplio de que no tenía la experiencia necesaria para liderar una institución como la nuestra.
A pesar de ese rechazo claro, la Junta de Gobierno decidió ignorar los reclamos de la comunidad universitaria e imponer su nombramiento.
Una vez en el cargo, su estilo de gobernanza ha sido poco transparente y poco colaborativo. Sin embargo, el detonante principal de la movilización en el Recinto Universitario de Mayagüez fue su decisión de destituir, de manera unilateral y en medio del semestre, a cinco rectores, incluyendo al nuestro, el Dr. Agustín Rullán Toro, para reemplazarlo por un rector interino, el Dr. Miguel Muñoz Muñoz.
Esta acción, tomada de forma abrupta, provocó de inmediato un clima de caos e inestabilidad dentro de la institución. Y deja una pregunta inevitable: ¿no anticipó el impacto de esa decisión, lo que evidenciaría una falta de experiencia? ¿O lo anticipó y aun así decidió proceder? No está claro cuál de las dos es más preocupante.
Además, esta decisión tuvo consecuencias concretas para el estudiantado, incluyendo el retiro de becas educativas para nuevos integrantes del RUM por parte de la Fundación Ceiba, que calificó la movida como “sorprendente” y “preocupante”. Decisiones impulsivas como la que tomó la presidenta ponen en peligro la estabilidad de nuestra institución y la acreditación de la universidad.
As a trans woman within this movement, how does your identity intersect with what is happening, and why does this also shape the future of people like you?
Soy una de varias chicas trans que formamos parte activa de este movimiento estudiantil.
For those outside the UPR who believe this does not affect them, what are the real consequences of this crisis?
La Universidad de Puerto Rico se fundó para servir al pueblo.
It is impossible to overstate the role the University of Puerto Rico and its students have played in shaping the social, cultural, and economic life of this country. Its impact extends into science, medicine, and every profession that has sustained Puerto Rico over time. No other educational institution has contributed more.
After listening to her, one thing becomes undeniable. This is not just another protest, but a generation refusing to let go of what little remains within its reach. And when a generation reaches that point, the issue is no longer the strike, the issue becomes the country itself.
National
Advocacy groups issue US travel advisory ahead of World Cup
Renee Good’s death in Minneapolis among incidents cited
More than 100 organizations have issued a travel advisory for the U.S. ahead of the 2026 World Cup.
The World Cup will take place in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico from June 11-July 19.
“In light of the deteriorating human rights situation in the United States and in the absence of meaningful action and concrete guarantees from FIFA, host cities, or the U.S. government, the undersigned organizations are issuing this travel advisory for fans, players, journalists, and other visitors traveling to and within the United States for the June 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. World Cup games will be played in 11 different cities across the United States, which, like many localities, have already been the target of the Trump administration’s violent and abusive immigration crackdown,” reads the advisory that the Council for Global Equality and other groups that include the American Civil Liberties Union issued on April 23. “The impacts of these policies vary by locality.”
“While the Trump administration’s rising authoritarianism and increasing violence pose serious risks to all, those from immigrant communities, racial and ethnic minority groups, and LGBTQ+ individuals have been and continue to be disproportionately targeted and affected by the administration’s policies and, as such, are most vulnerable to serious harm when traveling to and/or within the United States,” it adds. “This travel advisory calls on fans, players, journalists, and other visitors to exercise caution.”
The advisory specifically mentions Renee Good.
A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed her in Minneapolis. Good, 37, left behind her wife and three children.
The full advisory can be read here.
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Calendar: May 1-7
The university that refuses to let go
Judge issues revised order in Capital Pride stalking case
New Zealand blood donation rules shift
From red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
World premiere of ‘Everything, Devoured’ oozes queer energy
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
-
The White House4 days agoFrom red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
-
Federal Government3 days ago
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
-
Theater5 days ago
World premiere of ‘Everything, Devoured’ oozes queer energy
-
News3 days ago
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
