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.”
National
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Delegates also voted for other LGBTQ-inclusive measures
The United Methodist Church on Wednesday removed a ban on gay clergy that was in place for more than 40 years, voting to also allow LGBTQ weddings and end prohibitions on the use of United Methodist funds to “promote acceptance of homosexuality.”
Overturning the policy forbidding the church from ordaining “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” effectively formalized a practice that had caused an estimated quarter of U.S. congregations to leave the church.
The New York Times notes additional votes “affirming L.G.B.T.Q. inclusion in the church are expected before the meeting adjourns on Friday.” Wednesday’s measures were passed overwhelmingly and without debate. Delegates met in Charlotte, N.C.
According to the church’s General Council on Finance and Administration, there were 5,424,175 members in the U.S. in 2022 with an estimated global membership approaching 10 million.
The Times notes that other matters of business last week included a “regionalization” plan, which gave autonomy to different regions such that they can establish their own rules on matters including issues of sexuality — about which international factions are likelier to have more conservative views.
Rev. Kipp Nelson of St. Johns’s on the Lake Methodist Church in Miami shared a statement praising the new developments:
“It is a glorious day in the United Methodist Church. As a worldwide denomination, we have now publicly proclaimed the boundless love of God and finally slung open the doors of our church so that all people, no matter their identities or orientations, may pursue the calling of their hearts.
“Truly, all are loved and belong here among us. I am honored to serve as a pastor in the United Methodist Church for such a time as this, for our future is bright and filled with hope. Praise be, praise be.”
Federal Government
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
New rules protect LGBTQ students from discrimination
Four Republicans state attorneys general have sued the Biden-Harris administration over the U.S. Department of Education’s new Title IX policies that were finalized April 19 and carry anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ students in public schools.
The lawsuit filed on Tuesday, which is led by the attorneys general of Kentucky and Tennessee, follows a pair of legal challenges from nine Republican states on Monday — all contesting the administration’s interpretation that sex-based discrimination under the statute also covers that which is based on the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The administration also rolled back Trump-era rules governing how schools must respond to allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely perceived as biased in favor of the interests of those who are accused.
“The U.S. Department of Education has no authority to let boys into girls’ locker rooms,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement. “In the decades since its adoption, Title IX has been universally understood to protect the privacy and safety of women in private spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms.”
“Florida is suing the Biden administration over its unlawful Title IX changes,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote on social media. “Biden is abusing his constitutional authority to push an ideological agenda that harms women and girls and conflicts with the truth.”
After announcing the finalization of the department’s new rules, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told reporters, “These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights.”
The new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, a question that is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.
LGBTQ and civil rights advocacy groups praised the changes. Lambda Legal issued a statement arguing the new rule “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” adding that it “appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity.”
Federal Government
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Ruling a response to N.C., W.Va. legal challenges
BY ERIN REED | The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that transgender people are a protected class and that Medicaid bans on trans care are unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the court ruled that discriminating based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is discrimination based on gender identity and sex. The ruling is in response to lower court challenges against state laws and policies in North Carolina and West Virginia that prevent trans people on state plans or Medicaid from obtaining coverage for gender-affirming care; those lower courts found such exclusions unconstitutional.
In issuing the final ruling, the 4th Circuit declared that trans exclusions were “obviously discriminatory” and were “in violation of the equal protection clause” of the Constitution, upholding lower court rulings that barred the discriminatory exclusions.
The 4th Circuit ruling focused on two cases in states within its jurisdiction: North Carolina and West Virginia. In North Carolina, trans state employees who rely on the State Health Plan were unable to use it to obtain gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria diagnoses.
In West Virginia, a similar exclusion applied to those on the state’s Medicaid plan for surgeries related to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Both exclusions were overturned by lower courts, and both states appealed to the 4th Circuit.
Attorneys for the states had argued that the policies were not discriminatory because the exclusions for gender affirming care “apply to everyone, not just transgender people.” The majority of the court, however, struck down such a claim, pointing to several other cases where such arguments break down, such as same-sex marriage bans “applying to straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people equally,” even though straight people would be entirely unaffected by such bans.
Other cases cited included literacy tests, a tax on wearing kippot for Jewish people, and interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.
See this portion of the court analysis here:
Of particular note in the majority opinion was a section on Geduldig v. Aiello that seemed laser-targeted toward an eventual U.S. Supreme Court decision on discriminatory policies targeting trans people. Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 ruling, determined that pregnancy discrimination is not inherently sex discrimination because it does not “classify on sex,” but rather, on pregnancy status.
Using similar arguments, the states claimed that gender affirming care exclusions did not classify or discriminate based on trans status or sex, but rather, on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and treatments to alleviate that dysphoria.
The majority was unconvinced, ruling, “gender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.” In doing so, the majority cited several cases, many from after Geduldig was decided.
Notably, Geduldig was cited in both the 6th and 11th Circuit decisions upholding gender affirming care bans in a handful of states.
The court also pointed to the potentially ridiculous conclusions that strict readings of what counts as proxy discrimination could lead to, such as if legislators attempted to use “XX chromosomes” and “XY chromosomes” to get around sex discrimination policies:
Importantly, the court also rebutted recent arguments that Bostock applies only to “limited Title VII claims involving employers who fired” LGBTQ employees, and not to Title IX, which the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination mandate references. The majority stated that this is not the case, and that there is “nothing in Bostock to suggest the holding was that narrow.”
Ultimately, the court ruled that the exclusions on trans care violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The court also ruled that the West Virginia Medicaid Program violates the Medicaid Act and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of anti-trans expert testimony for lacking relevant expertise. West Virginia and North Carolina must end trans care exclusions in line with earlier district court decisions.
The decision will likely have nationwide impacts on court cases in other districts. The case had become a major battleground for trans rights, with dozens of states filing amicus briefs in favor or against the protection of the equal process rights of trans people. Twenty-one Republican states filed an amicus brief in favor of denying trans people anti-discrimination protections in healthcare, and 17 Democratic states joined an amicus brief in support of the healthcare rights of trans individuals.
Many Republican states are defending anti-trans laws that discriminate against trans people by banning or limiting gender-affirming care. These laws could come under threat if the legal rationale used in this decision is adopted by other circuits. In the 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction, West Virginia and North Carolina already have gender-affirming care bans for trans youth in place, and South Carolina may consider a similar bill this week.
The decision could potentially be used as precedent to challenge all of those laws in the near future and to deter South Carolina’s bill from passing into law.
The decision is the latest in a web of legal battles concerning trans people. Earlier this month, the 4th Circuit also reversed a sports ban in West Virginia, ruling that Title IX protects trans student athletes. However, the Supreme Court recently narrowed a victory for trans healthcare from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and allowed Idaho to continue enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for everyone except the two plaintiffs in the case.
Importantly, that decision was not about the constitutionality of gender-affirming care, but the limits of temporary injunctions in the early stages of a constitutional challenge to discriminatory state laws. It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately hear cases on this topic in the near future.
Celebrating the victory, Lambda Legal Counsel and Health Care Strategist Omar Gonzalez-Pagan said in a posted statement, “The court’s decision sends a clear message that gender-affirming care is critical medical care for transgender people and that denying it is harmful and unlawful … We hope this decision makes it clear to policy makers across the country that health care decisions belong to patients, their families, and their doctors, not to politicians.”
****************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
Blade Summer Kickoff Party returns to Rehoboth
Andy Cohen coming to D.C.
Want to dance for a good cause?
Calendar: May 3-9
Brittney Griner considered suicide in Russian prison
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Pride season has begun
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
