Adelita Grijalva was elected by Arizona’s 7th District with overwhelming support in a special election in September. More than a month has passed, and she has yet to be sworn in, marking the longest delay of a swearing-in in American history. Republicans—most notably Speaker of the House Mike Johnson—blame the government shutdown for the delay, despite having the power to call the House in session for her swearing-in. Grijalva, however, believes other motives are at play.

Republicans currently control the House, Senate, the executive branch, and a majority on the Supreme Court, giving party leadership the ability to act in line with their goals, including supporting President Donald Trump.

Trump’s motives, according to observers, appear tied to consolidating power and controlling sensitive information. During his campaign, he promised to release the Epstein files—a collection of documents detailing the alleged crimes of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, his associates, and other high-profile figures, perhaps including Trump. Despite controlling the Department of Justice, which holds the files, Trump has still not fully released them and has criticized supporters who continue to demand disclosure.

Grijalva has been vocal about her support for releasing the files, a stance that helped her secure a decisive victory in the special election. Once sworn in, she would become the 218th member of the House to support a discharge petition, potentially forcing a vote that Johnson has delayed on releasing the files. She believes this is a major reason for her delayed swearing-in.

“It shouldn’t matter my party. It shouldn’t matter whether I am going to support whatever agenda Speaker Johnson has,” Grijalva told the Blade in an exclusive interview on Tuesday. “I should be sworn in, period.”

Her frustration with the delay is compounded by the real-world consequences for her constituents. She emphasizes that this is not just a political game.

“I don’t care who’s implicated. I don’t care what party they are. If you committed a crime, if you’re a pedophile, if you raped children and women, then you deserve legal consequences, and the survivors need to be able to try to move on and see justice for what they said has happened to them, have consequences, and then be able to move forward.”

Grijalva warns that the stakes go beyond the files, extending to the functioning of government itself.

“For there to be votes in Congress, and I’m not sworn in before that happens, that would be major constitutional lawsuit time. The unfortunate part is, who’s really suffering through all of this are the federal workers and the 900,000 Arizonans who use SNAP benefits—they don’t know if they’re going to get a check or be able to feed their families.”

Following in her father’s footsteps, who held the same House seat until his death earlier this year, Grijalva also emphasized her commitment to the LGBTQ community and her outspoken support for trans rights—at a time when transgender identity is increasingly targeted by Republicans and other conservative figures, including Johnson and Trump.

Her stance is clear and uncompromising:

“Trans rights are human rights. That’s it. I’m going to speak up for those who don’t feel like they have a voice and don’t have a place at the table — that means everybody,” she said.

With the prolonged delay and high stakes, Grijalva’s fight to be sworn in is as much about representation as it is about accountability. Her unwavering advocacy signals the priorities she will champion once in office. The Blade will publish the full interview with Grijalva later this week.

On Oct. 17, West Hollywood gay bar The Abbey found itself in the center of a social media storm as clips were shared depicting the presumed presence of federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

In a video posted on Oct. 18 by Charles Hernandez, who often creates content around gay nightlife in Los Angeles, several people are seen standing in a line as they are apprehended and handcuffed by officers wearing sheriff’s vests and tees. Hernandez noted that, while dressed in varying attire with the word “sheriff” on it, none of the officers were willing to identify themselves or present their badges upon request. 

Hernandez can be heard asking the officers about the cause for arrest, to which one responded: “I don’t have to tell you our cause.” The video creator also questioned another officer, who can be seen wearing a gaiter to cover his face.

“Isn’t it illegal to wear a mask in California?” Hernandez asked.

“He has COVID,” an officer replied.

In September, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed five bills that weakened federal agents’ abilities to access school sites and health facilities, and prohibited them from hiding their identities. More specifically, Senate Bill 627 requires all California law enforcement agencies to create written policies limiting their officers’ use of facial coverings by July 1, 2026. 

As this video circulated around the web, the West Hollywood Sheriff’s Station released an online statement of their own, denying allegations that the officers present were federal immigration officers. The station also claimed that the night’s events were a result of an “undercover operation” that was conducted in response to reports made about pickpocketing and the transportation, use, and sale of illegal substances.

“Several arrests were made,” the statement read. “ICE was not involved.”

Still, residents remained unconvinced, criticizing the station’s lack of transparency, careful conduct, and accountability. Over 50 people took to the comments of this statement to voice their discontent.

“[It] was not that long ago when officers would raid LGBTQ spaces and arrest people simply for being there,” one comment read. “A raid such as this does not inspire feelings of safety for our community. Especially in times when people are being kidnapped off the street by masked federal agents. There simply must be a better response to pickpockets and ‘other criminal activity’ than undercover raids by masked officers and transporting detainees in unmarked vehicles. DO BETTER.” 

Two days later, at the West Hollywood City Council meeting, West Hollywood Sheriff’s Station Capt. Fanny Lapkin took to the podium to address some of these concerns. Echoing the station’s Instagram statement, Lapkin confirmed that the “pre-planned operation” was created in response to “concerns from our businesses and our community in regards to the pickpocketing, to the narcotics, and also to the illegal vending and some of the criminal activity during illegal vending.” Lapkin also confirmed that no federal agents were present, stating that everyone who took part in the operation was “sheriff’s department personnel.” And because the arrests were made as part of a planned operation, Lapkin further stated that warrants were not “necessary.” 

The events were discussed with brevity at the meeting, but community ire has not been dispelled. Several people continue to question the ethics of this undercover operation: Why were the individuals being arrested not clearly told the reason for their detainment? Why were unmarked vehicles present? Why conduct the operation in this way, as Los Angeles neighborhoods continue to stay on high alert over immigration raids?

These questions remain unanswered as more specifics about the operation have yet to be released.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider whether to hear Kim Davis’s latest challenge to same-sex marriage — a case that, if accepted, could have major implications for LGBTQ rights in the United States.

Kim Davis, the former county clerk for Rowan County, Ky., made national headlines in 2015 when she defied federal court orders by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — and later, to any couples at all. Davis, a Pentecostal Christian, said that signing same-sex marriage licenses would violate her religious beliefs, claiming protection under the First Amendment. When questioned at the time, Davis told reporters she was acting “under God’s authority” and suggested couples could obtain licenses in other counties.

Her refusal came just weeks after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which guaranteed same-sex couples the constitutional right to marry under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. One of the couples who sought a license from Davis, April Miller and Karen Roberts, filed a federal lawsuit — Miller v. Davis — challenging her actions. Around the same time, another couple, David Moore and David Ermold, also sued after Davis again refused to issue them a license despite a court order directing her to do so.

In Kentucky, marriage licenses bore the county clerk’s name and title — something Davis argued forced her to personally endorse a practice she found morally objectionable. It wasn’t until the state legislature changed the law in 2016, removing clerks’ names from marriage licenses, that Davis and her deputies resumed issuing them.

In 2023, a federal jury awarded Moore and Ermold $50,000 each in damages for Davis’s repeated refusals. Davis appealed the decision, but the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the verdict earlier this year. The court ruled that Davis’s actions were not protected by the First Amendment because she was acting in her official capacity as a government official, not as a private citizen.

“The Bill of Rights would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates,” the court wrote, emphasizing that personal religious opposition cannot be translated into public policy.

Davis has now asked the Supreme Court to take up her case. Her petition, filed in August, argues that Obergefell “has no basis in the Constitution” and should be reconsidered. The justices are scheduled to review her petition in a private conference on Nov. 7, where they will decide whether to grant the case a full hearing.

Whether the court will take the case depends on whether at least four justices vote to hear it. Even if there are four votes to grant review, legal observers note that the justices would likely avoid taking up the case unless they are confident there is a fifth vote to overturn Obergefell.

Mathew Staver, Davis’s attorney, told Newsweek that Obergefell “has no basis in the Constitution” and could be overturned “without affecting any other cases.”

Legal experts, however, see such an outcome as unlikely. According to SCOTUSblog, while the case raises important questions about religious liberty and government authority, it centers on Davis’s personal liability rather than a direct challenge to the constitutionality of same-sex marriage itself.

Still, the case has reignited debate over the balance between religious freedom and LGBTQ rights — and whether the Supreme Court’s conservative majority might be open to revisiting one of its most significant civil rights decisions of the 21st century.