National

Court strikes down DOMA in historic ruling

Anti-gay activist accuses Obama of ‘sabotaging’ case

Published

15 years ago

July 15, 2010

Melba Abreu & Beatrice Hernandez are plaintiffs in the case Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al. (Photo courtesy GLAD)

A federal court in Massachusetts has issued two decisions finding that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional in response to legal challenges against the statute.

Judge Joseph Tauro of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts ruled July 8 in the case of Gill v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In his decision, Tauro writes that “only sexual orientation” differentiates married couples that can receive federal benefits and those who cannot.

“As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” he writes.

In a separate decision in the case of Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services, Tauro concludes that regulating marriage is a state’s right under the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment. He says that DOMA violates this right for Massachusetts.

“The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment,” Tauro writes. “For that reason, the statute is invalid.”

In a statement, Freedom to Marry Executive Director Evan Wolfson praised the court for its decision in the Gill case.

“Today’s ruling affirms what we have long known: federal discrimination enacted under DOMA is unconstitutional,” he said. “The decision will be appealed and litigation will continue. But what we witnessed in the courtroom cannot be erased: federal marriage discrimination harms committed same-sex couples and their families for no good reason.”

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes marriage rights for LGBT couples, criticized the decisions and Tauro’s willingness to overturn DOMA.

“With only Obama to defend DOMA, this federal judge has taken the extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by huge bipartisan majorities and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996,” Brown said. “A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States.”

Brown attributed the rulings to the failure of U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan to defend DOMA adequately. Her nomination to become an associate justice for the U.S. Supreme Court is pending before the U.S. Senate.

“Under the guidance of Elena Kagan’s brief that she filed when she was solicitor general, Obama’s Justice Department deliberately sabotaged this case,” Brown said.

The rulings came in response to separate legal challenges filed last year by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

During a conference call Thursday, Coakley said the court rulings were “a landmark decision” and a “very important step toward achieving equality for all married couples, particularly here in Massachusetts.”

“We believe that today is a victory for civil rights in Massachusetts and I hope progress toward the understanding of all as to why marriage equality is a civil rights issue,” she said.

Janson Wu, staff attorney for GLAD, said, “it’s almost certain” that both decisions will be stayed upon appeal to a higher court and that access to federal benefits for married same-sex couples right now is “almost somewhat an irrelevant point.”

“I think it’s safe to say that it’s likely that the judgment for both cases will not go into effect while the case is being appealed,” Wu said.

Both lawsuits in which the court reached decisions were aimed at Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

But Doug NeJaime, a gay law professor at Loyola Law School, said the result of the Gill case doesn’t necessarily mean an end to Section 3 of DOMA, but only the programs to which the plaintiff couples in the case were denied access.

“This decision itself, while it puts pressure on Congress to repeal DOMA and provide case law in which to have broader challenges, it’s just sort of an initial chipping away at Section 3,” he said.

Nan Hunter, a lesbian law professor at Georgetown University, said her understanding of the Gill lawsuit is that it “only deals with the particular programs that these plaintiffs were challenging.”

“However, if they sustain this victory on appeal, there won’t be anything left of Section 3 of DOMA,” she said. “It won’t make sense for a court to uphold it as to any other provisions of federal law.”

NeJaime said the Gill opinion could set precedent that would influence marriage lawsuits elsewhere. In particular, NeJaime noted a passage in which Tauro discusses the relationship between procreation and marriage.

“This court can readily dispose of the notion that denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages might encourage responsible procreation, because the government concedes that this objective bears no rational relationship to the operation of DOMA,” Tauro writes.

The judge adds “a consensus” has emerged among the medical and psychological communities that children raised by LGBT people “are just as likely to be well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual parents.”

NeJaime said Tauro’s decision to make this point as part of his ruling is “very relevant to broader analysis of the right to marry for same-sex couples.”

“I think he’s going down that path in a way that other courts might look to it,” he said.

NeJaime said this reasoning could be applied in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a legal challenge against the ban on same-sex marriage in California that is pending before Judge Vaughn Walker in district court.

Although social conservative groups defending the ban in this case have used the argument that marriage is for procreation, NeJaime said the Gill decision can provide a reference to counter that rationale.

“I think Judge Walker can look to not only the federal government’s rejection of those rationales in the DOMA cases, but this judge’s reasoning about why that’s not a good interest anyway,” NeJaime said.

Appeals likely for lawsuits

According to GLAD, the next step in the Gill case is for the federal government to decide whether it will appeal to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision is expected within the next 60 days.

Tracy Schamler, a spokesperson for the U.S. Justice Department, said last week the Obama administration was still “reviewing the decision.” Many observers expect the rulings to be appealed.

Gary Buseck, legal director for GLAD, said he believed the Justice Department would have to appeal the decisions.

“Everyone tells us — and it seems to be true — that the executive branch has a responsibility to defend acts of Congress and it would be very difficult for them not to take an appeal of this,” he said. “I suppose anything is technically possible, but I think it would be unusual for them — highly unusual — for them not to appeal this decision from the judge.”

NeJaime said he also believed the Justice Department would appeal the decisions, although he didn’t believe the administration is required to do so.

“It’s certainly conventional to see a case like this [go] up the appeals chain, but there’s instances in which the government loses at the district court level and then there’s a policy change, so there’s nothing that forecloses that,” he said.

Still, Buseck said having a win at a lower court is helpful going into appeal and that Tauro wrote a “strong opinion” that will be helpful if the case goes to a higher court.

“We’ve got a platform, which is about the best possible platform we can have going to the First Circuit,” Buseck said.

NeJaime said the plaintiffs would have an added edge upon appeal with the Gill case because Tauro didn’t apply heightened scrutiny or consider LGBT people a suspect class in his opinion.

“If you went down the path of there’s a fundamental right because of the family relationship or sexual orientation as a suspect class, it would provide a sort of threshold question for both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to really say, ‘Oh, he got it wrong,’ and then the rest of the analysis then sort of goes out the window,” NeJaime said.

Hunter said she believed having the case be appealed and succeed at a higher court would be beneficial in the effort to overturn DOMA.

“To have DOMA struck down by just one judge’s opinion — it’s not a very strong basis for getting rid of the statute,” she said. “So personally — and this is probably a reflection that I’m pretty optimistic about the overcome of repeal — I think we may better off, frankly, if they do appeal it and it goes to the U.S. Court of Appeals and wins in the Court of Appeals.”

Up Next

Gay Fla. city councilman seeks U.S. House seat

Don't Miss

National news in brief

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge hears case that challenges Trump passport executive order

State Department no longer issues passports with ‘X’ gender markers

Published

4 hours ago

March 26, 2025

Michael K. Lavers

A federal judge in Boston on Tuesday heard oral arguments in a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s executive order that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers.

Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Chastain Anderson, Drew Hall, Bella Boe, and Reid Solomon-Lane are the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the private law firm Covington & Burling LPP filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit names Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio as defendants.

Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.

Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an “X” gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.

The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022.

Trump signed the executive order that overturned it shortly after he took office. Rubio later directed State Department personnel to “suspend any application requesting an ‘X’ sex marker and do not take any further action pending additional guidance from the department.”

“Even before Donald Trump was inaugurated, it was clear to me he wanted to control the lives and identities of transgender people like myself,” said Orr, a transgender man who lives in West Virginia, in a press release the ACLU released before U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick heard the case. “Like many others, I rushed to update my passport hoping I could get an accurate version. Now, the State Department has suspended my application and withheld all my documents from me, including my passport, my birth certificate, and even my marriage license.”

Li Nowlin-Sohl, a staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, described the Trump-Vance administration’s passport policy as “openly discriminatory and animated by a transparent desire to drive transgender people out of public life altogether.”

Germany, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands are among the countries that have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who plan to visit the U.S.

WorldPride is scheduled to take place in D.C. from May 17-June 8. InterPride, the organization that coordinates WorldPride events, on March 12 issued its own travel advisory for trans and nonbinary people who want to travel to the U.S.

It is unclear when Kobick will issue her ruling.

Federal Government

Trump ‘culture war’ complicates HUD’s distribution of $3.6B in housing grants

Senate Dems call for new agreements

Published

24 hours ago

March 25, 2025

Christopher Kane

U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The disbursement of more than $3.6 billion in federal grants to housing providers has been paused for weeks while the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development seeks to condition receipt of the funding on compliance with President Donald Trump’s executive actions targeting DEI and transgender and immigrant communities.

March 4 was the statutory deadline for the agency to distribute the funds, which come through the Continuum of Care Program in support of local governments and nonprofit organizations working to promote “a community-wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness.”

On March 13, a group of Senate Democrats led by U.S. Sens. Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Tina Smith (Minn.) wrote to HUD Secretary Scott Turner urging him to move quickly on distributing the grants and warning of the consequences that recipients are now facing and the harm they will encounter in the future if delays persist.

“To keep the lights on, providers are now being forced to draw on lines of credit at significant cost and risk to their organizations,” the senators said. “These projects enable homeless service providers to help veterans, families with children, youth, seniors, and vulnerable individuals access permanent and temporary housing, crisis counseling, and other supportive services.”

HUD subsequently disseminated grant agreements — and Schiff published an example on his office’s website — that included, among other provisions, language stipulating that the awardee (1) “shall not use grant funds to promote ‘gender ideology,’ as defined in E.O. 14168, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” (2) certifies that it does not operate any programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws, and (3) agrees not to use “that funding in a manner that by design or effect facilitates the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration or abets so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.”

On March 14, the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals stayed a nationwide injunction enjoining three parts of Trump’s executive order on DEI, and the following day, HUD rescinded the CoC contracts and said to expect new agreements within a week as the agency was “working to revise its CoC grant agreements to be consistent with Federal law and compliant with applicable court orders.”

Schiff then led a second letter to Turner on March 19 with the Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and U.S. Sens. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mazie Hirono (D- Hawaii), and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.).

“We urge the department to immediately issue new CoC grant agreements consistent with longstanding practice— free of the aforementioned conditions— to ensure all individuals experiencing homelessness receive protection and support, regardless of gender identity, location, or other characteristics,” they said, requesting a response by March 31.

“The initial FY2024 grant agreements issued to CoC funding recipients contained new requirements that are deeply problematic, and likely unlawful, requirements,” the senators argued. “These mandates, such as barring shelters from serving transgender people, prohibiting DEI initiatives, and certifying that they do not support ‘sanctuary’ policies protecting noncitizens, conflict with federal civil rights, fair housing, and immigration laws, raising serious legal and constitutional concerns.”

The lawmakers noted “the harm caused by these delayed and unfulfilled CoC grant agreements will fall disproportionately on our most vulnerable populations, including women, families with children, youth, veterans, survivors of domestic and intimate partner violence, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ individuals.” They added, “Women experiencing homelessness — many of whom are fleeing domestic abuse — already face significant barriers to safety and stability, and restricting access to critical housing services will only further endanger their lives and well-being.”

Citing research that nearly one in three transgender Americans has experiences homelessness in their lives, Schiff and his colleagues stressed that “Transgender and nonbinary people in the U.S. face significant barriers to securing safe housing, with many experiencing homelessness and high rates of mistreatment and violence in shelters.”

With respect to the language in the agreements about “sanctuary” policies, the senators wrote “The organizations receiving CoC funds exist to provide critical, non-discriminatory aid to those in need, regardless of their immigration status. These organizations do not set or enforce immigration policy — they simply fulfill their legal duty to provide life-saving and life-changing care.”

Later on March 19, HUD began issuing new contracts that did not contain the provision concerning DEI but did include the same language about “gender ideology” and “sanctuary” policies.

U.S. Federal Courts

Court halts removal of two transgender service members

Case challenging anti-trans military ban proceeds in D.C.

Published

2 days ago

March 24, 2025

Christopher Kane

Laila and Logan Ireland (Photo courtesy of the couple)

A federal court in New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order on Monday that will halt the separation of two transgender service members from the U.S. military while their case in D.C. challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s ban moves forward.

The order by Judge Christine O’Hearn pauses proceedings against Staff Sgt. Nicholas Bear Bade and Master Sgt. Logan Ireland, who “have been pulled from key deployments and placed on administrative absence against their will because of the ban,” according to a joint press release Monday by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD Law, which are representing the service members together with other litigants in Ireland v. Hegseth and in the case underway in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Talbott v. Trump.

“That court granted a preliminary injunction March 18 barring the Department of Defense from implementing the ban, finding that it discriminates based on sex and transgender status; that it is ‘soaked in animus;’ and that, due to the government’s failure to present any evidence supporting the ban, it is ‘highly unlikely’ to survive any level of judicial review,” the groups noted in their press release.

Ireland spoke with the Washington Blade in January along with other trans service members and former service members who shared their experiences with the military and their feelings on the new administration’s efforts to bar trans people from the U.S. armed forces.