National
Judge lifts stay on Prop 8 ruling
Same-sex marriages could resume in Calif. next week

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)
A federal judge in California has lifted his self-imposed stay on the ruling he handed down overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, but he ordered that the stay must remain in effect until Aug. 18.
The action by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker came as crowds of same-sex couples waited anxiously on the steps of San Francisco’s city hall, hoping to be able to obtain marriage licenses within minutes of any decision to lift the stay.
“Because proponents [of Proposition 8] fail to satisfy any of the factors necessary to warrant a stay, the court denies a stay except for a limited time solely in order to permit the court of appeals to consider the issue in an orderly manner,” Walker wrote in an 11-page ruling released Thursday.
Walker’s ruling came eight days after he issued a strongly worded decision overturning California’s Prop 8 on grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection and due process clauses. Same-sex marriage opponents who defended Prop 8 were expected to immediately challenge Walker’s lifting of the stay before the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, where they are appealing the case.
Activists on both sides of the marriage issue were unsure whether the appeals court would have time to issue its own stay on Walker’s ruling overturning Prop 8 by Aug. 18 or whether the appeals court would reject a stay and allow same-sex marriage to resume in California. Both sides plan to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if they lose on the appeals court level.
Jennifer Pizer, senior attorney for Lambda Legal, an LGBT litigation group, said all federal appeals courts have a standard process in place for hearing emergency motions for stays on lower court rulings.
She said it’s “quite possible” that a required three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would be ready to hear arguments for a stay and rule on it before Walker’s Aug. 18 deadline.
“The evidence presented at trial and the position of the representatives of the State of California show that an injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 is in the public’s interest,” Vaughn said in Thursday’s ruling. “Accordingly, the court concludes that the public interest counsels against entry of the stay proponents seek.”
Pizer noted that Walker raised a potentially explosive issue in his ruling Thursday lifting the stay when he cited legal precedent indicating Prop 8 supporters may no longer have legal standing to appeal the case to the Ninth Circuit.
Walker noted that legal precedent suggests that the state may have sole legal standing to appeal a case like the one involving Prop 8. This could sideline private parties seeking an appeal.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state’s attorney general, Jerry Brown, filed papers last week that sought to immediately reinstate same-sex marriage in the Golden State. Last year, when same-sex couples filed their lawsuit seeking to overturn Prop 8, Brown refused to defend the same-sex marriage ban law and Schwarzenegger did not challenge Brown’s decision.
That meant California effectively chose not to defend a state law, forcing private groups and legal activists supportive of Prop 8 to fill in for the state in defending the law in court.
Walker said in his ruling Thursday that the private groups did have standing in the U.S. District Court, but a lack of support for an appeal by the state makes it doubtful that Prop 8 backers can file the appeal.
“If, however, no state defendant appeals, proponents will need to show standing in the court of appeals,” he said in his ruling. “Proponents’ intervention in the district court does not provide them with standing to appeal.”
California voters passed Prop 8 in November 2008 in the form of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The vote came less than a year after California’s Supreme Court overturned an earlier ban on same-sex marriage, enabling gay and lesbian couples to marry up until the enactment of Prop 8.
Vaughn’s decision Thursday to lift his stay on his own ruling came on the same day that CNN released a public opinion poll showing for the first time that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage.
According to CNN, 52 percent of the respondents to the poll replied “yes” when asked, “Do you think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?”
Forty-six percent of the respondents replied “no” to the question and 2 percent had no opinion, CNN reported. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percent, CNN said.
Vaughn’s action also came two days after the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates approved a resolution supporting legal recognition of same-sex marriage. The ABA is considered the nation’s preeminent membership organization of legal professionals, including lawyers and judges.
Upon issuing his Aug. 4 ruling overturning Prop 8, Vaughn placed an indefinite stay on the ruling, while giving the opposing parties in the case until Aug. 6 to file motions on whether they would like the hold to be lifted or remain in place until the Ninth Circle appeals court acts on the case.
Attorneys for the group that defended Prop 8 filed papers calling for retaining the stay. But in a development that surprised some political observers, Schwarzenegger, a Republican, filed papers asking Vaughn to lift the stay so same-sex couples could begin marrying immediately. The state attorney general also filed papers seeking the lifting of the stay.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.
In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.
The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.
He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”
Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”
Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.
Federal Government
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”
The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.
“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”
Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”
Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”
“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”
Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.
Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.
The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.
New York
Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade
One of the victims remains in critical condition

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.
According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.
The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.
The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.
In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.
The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.
New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.
“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”