National
Prop 8 case wraps up, ruling expected in weeks
Appeals could take years; may be destined for Supreme Court
Attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies (front) are waging the case against Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. (Photo courtesy of Equal Rights Foundation)
Marriage equality supporters were focused this week on the closing arguments in a case that could end California’s ban on same-sex marriage and similar bans throughout the country.
In the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, attorney Ted Olson, a former U.S. solicitor general for former President George W. Bush, was set to give his final arguments in favor of same-sex marriage on Wednesday, after Blade deadline.
The legal challenge, pending before Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court of Northern California, aims to invalidate Proposition 8, a ballot initiative in 2008 that ended same-sex marriage in the Golden State.
In a conference call last week with reporters, Olson made the case for same-sex marriage in California. He noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has “declared again and again” that being able to choose the person one wants to marry “is a fundamental right in this country.”
“It is vital to the opportunity for people to be a part of communities, of neighborhoods — to be able to join together in a committed relationship and to bond with one another in a relationship sanctioned by the state,” he said.
Olson compared Prop 8 to state laws banning interracial marriage, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in the 1967 case Loving v. Virginia, and said he was presenting the same arguments in the Perry case.
“The parents of our president of the United States would have committed a crime had they been married at the time our president was born,” Olson said.
Olson said Prop 8 is unconstitutional in part because the referendum created four separate classes of people in California with respect to marriage.
They are same-sex couples who married in California before Prop 8 passed and remain married; same-sex couples who cannot marry; same-sex couples who married in other jurisdictions and have full legal marriage rights in California; and opposite-sex couples whom Olson said can marry whomever those choose “even if they’re in prison, even if they’re child abusers, or even if they’re 90 years old.”
Olson litigated the case in partnership with David Boies, an attorney who’s also been involved in high-profile cases. The two men were on opposite sides of Bush v. Gore in 2000; Olson represented then-Republican presidential candidate Bush while Boies represented Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore.
Boies, who cross-examined defendant witnesses during the trial, said, “there isn’t any support” for the arguments advanced by proponents of Prop 8 during the trial.
Proponents of Prop 8, Boies said, presented several arguments that failed under examination, such as the purpose of marriage being procreation, that marriage has always been between one man and one woman, and that same-sex marriages could endanger opposite-sex marriages.
“None of the defendant witnesses supported those propositions, and, in fact, all of their witnesses who spoke on those issued ended up giving contrary testimony,” Boies said.
For example, he said, witnesses under examination acknowledged that procreation has never been a requirement for marriage and many societies in the past have allowed same-sex marriage, including for a time California after the state’s Supreme Court in 2008 ruled that same-sex nuptials were mandated under the state constitution.
“It was only the passage of Proposition 8 that took this right away from gay and lesbian couples even in California,” Boies said.
Additionally, Boies said defendants’ witnesses acknowledged on the stand that prohibiting LGBT couples from marrying “caused them serious damage, and caused the hundreds of thousands of children that those couples were raising serious damage.”
Boies also said defendants were unable to produce witnesses that could provide “a shred of evidence” that same-sex marriage endangers opposite-sex marriage.
“It’s a critically important case, but it’s one in which the facts really are not in dispute,” Boies said. “The other side doesn’t have a legal argument, they don’t have a factual argument — they got a circular bumper sticker for a case.”
Proponents of Prop 8 will also have an opportunity to offer remarks during closing arguments. Chuck Cooper, lead attorney for defendants, will represent those arguing for the court to uphold Prop 8.
In a statement, Jim Campbell, an attorney for Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal firm working on the case, said defendants would emphasize arguments they made throughout the trial.
“The team of attorneys defending Proposition 8 will highlight all the reasons why Proposition 8 is constitutional,” he said. “In doing so, they will emphasize the reasons why Proposition 8 is not only rational, but also why preserving marriage as one man and one woman is good social policy.”
Jennifer Pizer, marriage project director and senior counsel for Lambda Legal, predicated both sides in the Perry case would “survey the evidence” already presented during the trial.
She said Olson and Boies presented “a massive evidentiary record” before the court and expected them “to offer a structure for this mountain of relevant evidence that they have submitted.”
For proponents of Prop 8, Pizer said she expects attorneys to “make a mountain out of the barely noticeable molehill of evidence” that they’ve submitted.
She said much of the defendants’ evidence was submitted from individuals who weren’t qualified as experts, meaning they weren’t in court and qualified according to the rules and therefore not examined.
“The defendants offered into evidence a pile of articles without explanation of who the authors were or why any of their writings might be relevant to anything,” she said. “So I suspect that Chuck Cooper may refer to many of those documents as if they were relevant evidence, but they’re not.”
Pizer also predicted that the defendants would argue that the “anti-gay prejudice that infused and inspired the Prop 8 campaign” isn’t legally relevant to whether the initiative is constitutional. Still, Pizer said she believes this anti-gay bias was the sole purpose of Prop 8.
“The proponents of Prop 8 were inspired by anti-gay prejudice and they sent the voting public misinformation in a deliberate attempt to confuse and induce people to vote their prejudice into law — and they succeeded,” she said.
Pizer said Lambda was involved in the Perry case by filing two friend-of-the-court briefs in favor of the legal challenge to Prop 8 as well as providing resource assistance to plaintiffs in the case.
Earlier this month, Walker presented an 11-page list of questions he wanted attorneys on both sides of the case to answer during closing arguments. Among the topics for plaintiffs was a requested review of any empirical data showing that the availability of same-sex marriage reduces discrimination against LGBT people.
During the conference call, Olson said that such data can be found in the ballot label for Prop 8, which noted the measure “eliminates the rights for same-sex couples to marry.”
“You are not only stating that the state creates discrimination, but that the state sanctions discrimination — and sanctions the points of the attitudes — that bring about private discrimination,” Olson said. “It has always been the case that when the court eliminates state discrimination … that people open up and realize that what they’re doing themselves is not permissible.”
Another question was how the court could find Prop 8 unconstitutional without also invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
Boies said the matter under consideration is different from DOMA because state law traditionally determines marriage in the United States, although some of the constitutional arguments against DOMA are similar to those against Prop 8.
“For all of the rights that are a matter of state law — which are the majority of rights that are involved — it is critical that people have the right to marry even if DOMA were to continue to exist,” Boies said.
Several observers following the case have predicted that Walker will rule in favor of plaintiffs, although how subsequent courts will rule on any appeal remains to be seen.
Pizer said she couldn’t predict how Walker will rule in the case, but noted that the questions he’s posed show a focus on “questions of causation.”
“He is focused on whether there are adequate government purposes and whether there’s a proper causal relationship between what Prop 8 actually does and goals that the state is actually permitted to have,” she said. “Advancing prejudice is never a proper government purpose.”
In response to a Blade inquiry on the timeline for the case, Olson said he expects a decision from Walker in the case within weeks of the closing arguments. The next step would be taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Olson said he hopes that Walker will find Prop 8 unconstitutional and allow LGBT people to start marrying in California immediately, but noted that if he withholds institution of that decision, plaintiffs hope the Ninth Circuit would hear the case “in a hurry.”
“That’s probably a process that would take perhaps a year, although we moved through this case fairly rapidly so far,” Olson said.
The case could then be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Olson said following the appeals court ruling, it would take six to eight months to get the case on the docket for the high court.
But Pizer said it’s difficult to determine how long the case would remain in the Ninth Circuit because it could first go before a three-judge panel — and then advance to an 11-judge panel.
“That’s a long way of saying it’s impossible to tell how long it would be between now and the Supreme Court,” she said. “It might be two years or three years. Anybody who gives you a prediction is making a guess.”
Asked whether the Supreme Court would examine only the constitutionality of Prop 8 or the validity of same-sex marriage bans throughout the country, Olson said the scope of the examination would be up to the Supreme Court.
“It will also be a part and a function of what the district court and the Ninth Circuit of Appeals decides, and who’s the party bringing the case to the Supreme Court, but I think that the court will have a menu of opportunities,” he said.
Olson said it’s possible the Supreme Court would only examine the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban in California because Prop 8 is “particularly egregious.”
He noted that California was the only state to allow same-sex couples to marry and then eliminate that right — and the only state to create four sets of classes of couples.
Still, Olson said “at the base” of the Perry case is the fundamental right to marry, which would apply to same-sex marriage bans throughout the country.
“I think there will be a great temptation once it gets to the Supreme Court for the justices to say, ‘This case can come back to us in various forms; we should look at the fundamental rights and decide the rights of these Americans now once and for all,’” Olson said. “We hope that that would be the case.”
National
Demonstrators disrupt OMB director hearing over PEPFAR
Capitol Police arrested five protesters
A group of protesters interrupted Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought during his testimony before Congress on Wednesday.
Vought was at the Cannon House Office Building to give testimony to the House Budget Committee.
Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) began the hearing by touting what he described as economic accomplishments of the Trump-Vance administration’s economic accomplishments. Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) disputed those claims in his opening statement.
Boyle went on to admonish Vought for not attending a committee hearing in the previous year.
Vought, the “Project 2025” architect, was invited to speak after Arrington and Boyle made their statements.
Shortly after Vought began reading his statement, Housing Works CEO Charles King stood up in the gallery and began shouting, “PEPFAR saves lives: spend the money!”
The U.S. Capitol Police moved quickly to escort King from the room. Other activists began chanting with King as they unfolded signs bearing a picture of Vought’s face and statements such as, “Vought’s cuts kill people with AIDS,” and “Protect PEPFAR from Vought.”
The group of HIV/AIDS activists included independent activists, former U.S. Agency for International Development and PEPFAR staff, members of Health GAP, Housing Works, and the Treatment Action Group. Six activists were escorted from the hearing and the U.S. Capitol Police detained five of them.
The HIV/AIDS treatment activists protested at the hearing in response to the dismantling of global health programs, including PEPFAR, a federally-funded program credited with saving millions of lives from HIV/AIDS, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
“Russell Vought is directly responsible for illegally withholding Congressionally appropriated funds for PEPFAR and related global health initiative,” King said in a statement provided to the Washington Blade. “These funding disruptions have already contributed to preventable deaths and threaten to reverse decades of progress in the fight against HIV worldwide. Enough is enough. Congress must ensure Vought stops this deadly sabotage.”
National
HIV/AIDS group NMAC is ‘destabilized’ and in financial crisis: sources
Organization disputes allegations of mismanagement by new CEO
A statement sent to the Washington Blade by an anonymous source claiming to be a current staff member at NMAC, formerly known as the National Minority AIDS Council, alleges that the prominent HIV/AIDS advocacy organization is facing “a rapid and systemic collapse of leadership, governance, and ethical standards.”
The three-page detailed statement sent on April 4 by someone identifying himself only as “John Doe” includes multiple specific allegations that NMAC CEO Harold Phillips, who began his position in October 2025, “has destabilized the organization at every level,” including hiring nine new high-level appointees with salaries of $220,000 each who are performing “duplicative and unjustifiable roles.”
The Blade was able to corroborate some of the allegations by talking to two other knowledgable sources who spoke on condition of anonymity. Those sources said they had received the John Doe statement and believed many, if not most, of its allegations were accurate.
With a total staff of about 30 to 35 employees, the John Doe statement claims the high salaries of the nine new staff members have added to financial problems NMAC has been facing in recent years. It says that at least two NMAC staffers who raised concerns about Phillips’s actions were terminated on grounds of insubordination.
One of the two anonymous sources who spoke to the Blade said one of the dismissed staff members was considering filing a lawsuit against NMAC in response to the firing.
“An external firm was recently brought in to assess the organizational health,” the John Doe statement to the Blade says. “The findings were staggering — more than 50% of staff reported they are actively seeking employment elsewhere,” it says.
The Blade sent the John Doe statement to NMAC this week and asked for a response to the allegations.
NMAC spokesperson Jennifer Moore Phillips, who serves as chief strategy officer and who is not related to Harold Phillips, sent the Blade a short statement calling the John Doe allegations “false and purposefully misleading,” but which did not comment on each of the specific allegations.
“A recent anonymous letter containing unfounded allegations about NMAC makes claims that are simply false and purposefully misleading,” the NMAC statement says. “Evidenced by our new strategic plan and recent successful Biomedical HIV Prevention Summit in Chicago, NMAC’s new leadership is laser focused on delivering on our mission serving the HIV community with renewed energy and vision,” the statement concludes.
The Biomedical HIV Prevention Summit referred to in the statement, which took place in Chicago April 8-10 of this year, is one of the two largest HIV/AIDS related conferences that NMAC organizes each year. Jennifer Phillips said more than 1,400 people attended the event.
The largest NMAC event, the United States Conference on HIV/AIDS, the most recent of which was held in D.C. Sept. 4-7, drew more than 2,400 participants and was hailed by AIDS activists as a highly successful gathering of a diverse group of experts seeking to push for the end to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
One of the keynote speakers at that conference was Paul Kawata, who served as executive director and CEO of NMAC for 36 years and who delivered his farewell address at the conference following the announcement that he would retire on Oct. 7, 2025.
Many of the conference speakers praised Kawata, who became NMAC’s leader two years after its founding in 1987, as the leading force behind its growth and evolution into one of the nation’s leading HIV/AIDS advocacy organizations with a special outreach to people of color.
It was at that time that Harold Phillips, who served as director of the White House Office of AIDS Policy under then-President Joe Biden and who later joined NMAC as deputy director before the NMAC board named him Kawata’s successor as CEO, emerged as NMAC’s next leader.
“The Board has exuberantly elected Harold Phillips as our new CEO,” said Lance Toma, chair of the NMAC Board of Directors at the time Phillips’s appointment was announced. “In this unprecedented moment, there is no one more strategically positioned and experienced to lead our movement through what we know will be some of the most tumultuous and complicated times ahead,” the statement said.
The John Doe statement raising questions about Phillips’s actions and leadership says NMAC staff members formally appealed to the board of directors to intervene.
“The Board has remained silent, while Harold arrogantly told the staff that ‘the board has my back,’” the statement says.
The Blade has also attempted to reach out to Kawata by email for comment on how he feels NMAC is doing six months after his retirement. As of April 14, Kawata had not responded to the Blade’s inquiry.
According to the John Doe statement, NMAC officials have recently “sought external financial rescue,” including a visit by an NMAC official to California to request assistance from the pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences. “Without such intervention, layoffs seem imminent,” the statement says.
“This is not a functioning nonprofit,” the John Doe statement concludes. “It is an organization in crisis – bleeding resources, hemorrhaging staff, and operating without transparency, accountability, or governance,” it says, adding, “The communities NMAC serves, the donors who fund its mission, and the public at large deserve to know what is happening behind closed doors.”
By contrast, the NMAC website describes the organization as a highly functioning nonprofit continuing to lead the fight against HIV/AIDS.
“Launched in 1987 during the early years of the HIV/AIDS crisis in the United States, NMAC is a national HIV organization that offers capacity building, leadership development, policy education, and public engagement to end the HIV epidemic among communities most impacted in the United States,” a statement on the NMAC website says.
“In 2026, we mark 45 years of the HIV movement,” the statement adds. “NMAC continues to pivot to center the needs of people of color impacted by HIV by responding to political challenges that threaten federal funding and programs that have provided an essential survival safety net,” it says. “Simultaneously, as HIV treatment allows people to age with HIV, our whole-person approach extends to achieving optimal quality of life beyond attaining viral suppression.”
In its most recent action, NMAC issued a detailed press release on April 14 criticizing President Donald Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2027 budget provisions that call for cutting more than $1.5 billion in HIV prevention, substance use, housing and other programs. The release provides details on how the cuts would negatively impact important HIV prevention programs and urges Congress to reject the proposed cuts.
Federal Government
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
Two men are acting attorney general, DHS secretary
President Donald Trump became famous for his use of the phrase “You’re fired!” while hosting the reality TV show “The Apprentice” in the early 2000s. However, during his time in the Oval Office, he has attempted to distance himself from that image.
Despite those efforts, the phrase once again comes to mind as Trump has fired two high-level female Cabinet members within the past month: Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem.
Their replacements — Todd Blanche at the Justice Department and Markwayne Mullin at the Department of Homeland Security — bring records that, while different in depth, both reflect limited support for LGBTQ protections and, in some cases, direct opposition.
Todd Blanche
Acting attorney general
Little has been found regarding Todd Blanche’s LGBTQ history prior to his role as acting head of the Department of Justice. Unlike those who have worked within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division or served as state attorneys general, he has not developed a public-facing legal ideology on LGBTQ issues.
Blanche attended American University for his undergraduate studies — like fellow Trump attorney Michael Cohen — where he met his future wife, Kristin, who was studying at nearby Catholic University in D.C.
He began his legal career as an intern at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, which eventually became a full-time position. He later worked as a paralegal in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York while attending Brooklyn Law School at night. Blanche graduated cum laude in 2003. He and his wife later married and had two children.
Blanche left the U.S. attorney’s office in 2014, taking a job in the Manhattan office of the law firm WilmerHale. In September 2017, he moved to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, where he was a partner in the White Collar Defense and Investigations practice.
In his personal capacity, he represented several figures associated with Donald Trump and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, including Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, businessman Igor Fruman, and attorney Boris Epshteyn.
In 2024, Blanche switched from Democrat to Republican, aligning himself with Trump’s political orbit. He later served as Trump’s personal defense attorney in the New York State case that led to Trump’s 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to bisexual adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Now the highest-ranking official at the Justice Department, Blanche has played a central role in overseeing the department and has been involved in leadership decisions tied to several controversial actions affecting LGBTQ people.
In a letter to New York Attorney General Letitia James, Blanche declared that the Justice Department “will not sit idly by while you attempt to use your office to force harmful procedures on our most vulnerable population,” if legal action were taken against NYU Langone. The hospital had “permanently” ended a program earlier that month after the Trump-Vance administration threatened to pull all federal funding if it continued prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to minors.
Blanche wrote that “the Justice Department believes the law is clear, and anti-discrimination laws cannot be used to force NYU Langone to perform sex-rejecting procedures on children.”
“As just one example, your office’s position would require a hospital to prescribe certain medications for certain diagnoses, regardless of the hospital’s or its doctors’ independent medical determination about the propriety of such treatment,” he said.
Blanche also echoed his predecessor’s public stance on limiting LGBTQ-related protections at the federal level, aligning with Bondi’s sentiments in June 2025 regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision that restricted LGBTQ history lessions in schools and limits lower federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — rulings that have often blocked Trump administration policies.
Calling it “another great decision that came down today,” Blanche argued that the ruling “restores parents’ rights to decide their child’s education,” adding: “It seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight, and we thank them for that. And now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct.”
In December 2025, a Justice Department memo stated that, “effective immediately,” prisons and jails would no longer be held responsible for violations of standards meant to protect LGBTQ people from harassment, abuse, and rape under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. The law, passed unanimously by Congress in 2003, requires that incarcerated people be screened for their risk of sexual assault, including consideration of LGBTQ status, and applies to all correctional facilities.
Additionally, when the Justice Department, under Blanche’s deputy leadership and at Trump’s behest, attempted to force Children’s National Hospital in D.C. to turn over medical records related to gender-affirming care, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin ruled that the effort “appears to have no purpose other than to intimidate and harass.”
Blanche is also described as having a “strong belief in executive authority.”
Markwayne Mullin
Secretary of Homeland Security
While Blanche’s record is defined more by recent actions than a long paper trail, Markwayne Mullin brings a more established history on LGBTQ issues from his time in Congress.
The head of the Department of Homeland Security has served in Congress since 2013, in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. He has been actively engaged in shaping restrictions and aligns with broader cultural rhetoric that frames anti-LGBTQ speech as protected expression.
In May 2016, Mullin criticized the Department of Education and the Justice Department’s “Dear Colleague” letter on transgender students, arguing that trans girls should not use girls’ restrooms in public schools.
By January 2021, Mullin and then-Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard had introduced a bill to prevent trans women from participating in women’s sports.
Mullin was not recorded as voting on the final passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriage.
In 2023, Mullin received a rating of just 6 percent from the Human Rights Campaign.
While serving in the Senate and as a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Mullin has been a vocal critic of policies aimed at expanding LGBTQ inclusion in federal programs. He has participated in broader Republican efforts questioning equity-based implementation of the Older Americans Act, including guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity in aging services, arguing such policies could have unintended consequences.
Mullin also makes history as the first Native American — and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation — to lead the Department of Homeland Security.
He was among the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results despite no evidence of widespread fraud, and was present in the House on Jan. 6.
The Washington Blade reached out to DHS and the DOJ for comment on the two cabinet choices’ records on LGBTQ rights. DHS responded, telling the Blade, “Secretary Mullin’s record at the Department of Homeland Security will be one of protecting ALL Americans,” while the DOJ has yet to respond.
Gay D.C. police lieutenant arrested on child porn charges
Demonstrators disrupt OMB director hearing over PEPFAR
HIV/AIDS group NMAC is ‘destabilized’ and in financial crisis: sources
Madonna announces release date for new album
Senegalese court issues first conviction under new anti-LGBTQ law
An effort to increase the number of psychiatrists of color
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Comings & Goings
Minimal version of ‘Streetcar Named Desire’ heading to Dupont Underground
