National
Legal experts disagree over Obama action on ‘Don’t Ask’
Does Oath of Office force presidents to defend all laws?
Nan Hunter, a Georgetown University law professor and prominent gay rights attorney, says President Obama has done the right thing in appealing a decision by a federal judge that overturned the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law.
Hunter’s view contradicts the position of nearly all national LGBT rights groups, which have urged Obama not to appeal the decision. But she is joined by a number of other legal and constitutional experts who oppose ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ but believe U.S. presidents are obligated to defend laws passed by Congress under most circumstances.
“I think the president, through the Justice Department, should defend federal laws, including this one,” Hunter said. “Otherwise you just get way too much. You get the president being able to ignore laws that are passed by Congress, and that’s not a good situation.”
Hunter cautioned LGBT activists that dismantling the longstanding tradition that presidents should defend duly enacted laws — even unpopular ones — could result in the refusal by a different president to enforce laws beneficial to LGBT people.
Other legal experts, including constitutional specialists with the American Civil Liberties Union and the LGBT litigation group Lambda Legal, agree that presidents generally should defend federal laws. But they say the obligation to defend a law should not apply to cases where strong evidence exists that the law is unconstitutional and a court issues a ruling overturning the law on constitutional grounds.
“The ACLU recognizes the Executive’s duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero in an Oct. 14 open letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.
“This duty includes the responsibility to defend Acts of Congress in court, provided there is at least a reasonable argument in favor of the Act’s constitutionality,” Romero said. “At the same time, the Executive is duty bound to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,’ which guarantees that no person is ‘deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.’”
Romero noted that U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips in California ruled in September that the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law is unconstitutional on those same grounds.
“The question is no longer whether the Executive will defend an Act of Congress, but whether the Executive will appeal from a well-reasoned, obviously correct federal court ruling based on findings of fact that are exceedingly unlikely to be reversed,” he said in his letter.
“Given these findings and the proper legal standard of review to be applied, there is no reasonable argument for the constitutionality of the policy, and no reason for the government to appeal,” he said.
Hunter, who personally opposes ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ said following that course could become a “political disaster” that prompts a possible Republican Congress next year to take action to reinstate the law or attempt to force the president to continue to enforce it.
A far better course of action, according to Hunter, would be for the administration to appeal the decision and use a careful, strategic approach to presenting its arguments before the appeals court.
“There are many, many possibilities for how the administration could respond,” she said. “It could respond by filing the appeal so that the case goes to the appeals court and then making arguments that represent the president’s view that it’s a bad law…And then the court of appeals will decide, and that will have much more authority than one District Court judge.”
Susan Sommer, director of constitutional litigation for Lambda Legal, says Obama should not have appealed Judge Phillip’s decision to overturn ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’
“It’s really a shame that the Obama administration is appealing this decision,” Sommer said. “The president is in no position to appeal a decision on a policy that the courts say is unconstitutional. He has an obligation to uphold the Constitution.”
Sommer said she agrees that Obama has an obligation to uphold laws as well as the Constitution.
“But he does not have an obligation to defend a statute whose constitutionality is being challenged in court,” she said. “There have been precedents of a president not defending a law under court challenge. The Justice Department exercises discretion all the time on whether to take cases or not, both civil and criminal.”
David Rittgers, legal policy analyst for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, and an attorney with the Army Reserves, called the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ case a “unique situation” that involves all three branches of the federal government.
Saying he’s speaking for himself and not the Army, Rittgers said he sides with those who believe the president should defend laws, including this one.
“Congress ultimately has to answer this question,” he said. “This will not be a settled issue until Congress acts. This is constitutionally within the realm of Congress.”
Susan Low Bloch, a Georgetown University law professor who specializes in constitutional law, said presidents have refused to enforce laws or chosen not to appeal court decisions overturning them mostly in cases where the law interferes with the president’s or the executive branch’s ability to carry out its duties.
“That’s not the situation with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” she said. “And that’s why it’s not at all surprising to me that the administration has chosen to defend the law, even though they don’t like it. The way to get rid of it is to undo it the proper way—to get Congress to undo it.”
“Now if the court strikes it down, I’m sure behind the scenes the president will be very happy. But he’s not supposed to go into court and undermine it,” she said.
Asked whether she believes a president should wait for the Supreme Court to strike down a law before he or she can stop enforcing it, Bloch said, “Yes, that’s right.”
“People really shouldn’t be surprised at this course because … clearly this is the way the system has worked and I think should work,” she said.
(Obama photo by Michael Key)
Pennsylvania
Pa. House passes bill to codify marriage equality in state law
Governor supports gay state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta’s measure
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that would codify marriage equality in state law.
House Bill 1800 passed by a 127-72 vote margin. Twenty-six Republicans voted for the measure.
The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate will now consider the bill that state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia), who is the first openly gay person of color elected to the state’s General Assembly, introduced. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro supports the measure.
“Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love,” said Shapiro on Wednesday. “Today, the House has stepped up to protect that right.”
BREAKING: The Pennsylvania House just passed @RepKenyatta's bill to codify marriage equality into law in PA — and they did it with broad bipartisan support.
— Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) March 25, 2026
Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love. Today, the House has stepped up to protect that…
Florida
DeSantis signs emergency bill that restores Fla. ADAP funding
Temporary funds to last through June 30
After the Florida Department of Health made huge cuts to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program in January, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has signed emergency legislation restoring HIV access to more than 12,000 Floridians.
Two months ago, as the Washington Blade reported, the Sunshine State cut the vast majority of those in ADAP by shifting the income levels required for eligibility — without following standard procedure when changing government policy outside of legislative or executive action.
The bill, signed by DeSantis on Tuesday, passed both chambers of the Florida Legislature unanimously and appropriates $30.9 million in emergency bridge funding through June 30, 2026. It restores Florida’s ADAP income eligibility to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level — the level it was prior to the January cuts. The legislation also requires the FDOH to submit detailed monthly financial reports to legislative leadership beginning April 1.
Under the old policy, eligibility would have been limited to those making no more than 130 percent of the federal poverty level, or $20,345 per year.
“For 10 weeks, 12,000 Floridians living with HIV did not know if they could fill their next prescription. Today, they can,” Esteban Wood, director of advocacy and legislative affairs at AIDS Healthcare Foundation, said in a statement.
The detailed reports now required to be sent to legislative leadership must include all federal revenues and expenditures, including manufacturer rebates; enrollment figures by county and insurance status; prescription utilization by drug class; and any projected funding shortfalls. This is the first time the Legislature has required this level of financial transparency from the program.
DeSantis signed the legislation one day after a Leon County Circuit Court judge denied AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s request for an injunction to block the significant changes the DeSantis administration is making to the program, which it claims faces a $120 million shortfall for calendar year 2026.
AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a national organization focused on protecting and expanding HIV healthcare access and prevention methods, filed a lawsuit over the change in eligibility, arguing the Florida Department of Health did not follow the laid out path for formally changing policy and was acting outside established procedures.
Typically, altering eligibility for a statewide program requires either legislative action or adherence to a multistep rule-making process, including: publishing a Notice of Proposed Rule; providing a statement of estimated regulatory costs; allowing public comment; holding hearings if requested; responding to challenges; and formally adopting the rule. According to AIDS Healthcare Foundation, none of these steps occurred.
The long-term structure of ADAP will be determined by the 2026–2027 fiscal year state budget, something that lawmakers have until June 30 to finish.
Federal Government
Markwayne Mullin confirmed as next DHS secretary
Okla. senator to succeed Kristi Noem
The U.S. Senate confirmed Markwayne Mullin as the next secretary of Homeland Security on Monday, as the agency continues to grapple with what lawmakers have described as a “never-ending” funding standoff, with Democrats attempting to withhold funding from one of the nation’s largest and most costly agencies.
Mullin — a Republican senator from Oklahoma, former mixed martial arts fighter, and plumbing business owner — was confirmed in a 54–45 vote. Two Democrats — U.S. Sens. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) — sided with Republicans in supporting his confirmation.
The new agency head is expected to follow the policy direction set by President Donald Trump, emphasizing stricter immigration enforcement. This includes proposals to support immigration agents at polling sites and to cut funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.”
Mullin replaces Kristi Noem, who was fired earlier this month following a widely scrutinized 2-day congressional hearing on Capitol Hill.
During the hearing, Noem faced intense questioning over her response to several crises, including the fatal shooting of two American citizens in Minneapolis by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, a $220 million border security advertising campaign that featured her on horseback near Mount Rushmore amid one of the largest federal workforce reductions in U.S. history, and the federal response to major natural disasters such as the July 2025 Texas floods and Hurricane Helene in 2024.
Noem had previously drawn criticism for a series of policy decisions in South Dakota that broadly focused on restricting the rights of LGBTQ individuals. In 2023, she signed House Bill 1080, banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. She also signed legislation and executive orders restricting trans athletes’ participation in women’s sports, as well as the state’s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” which critics argued enabled discrimination against LGBTQ individuals. Additionally, the state canceled contracts related to LGBTQ support services — including suicide prevention and health care navigation programs‚ and later agreed to a $300,000 settlement with trans advocacy group, The Transformation Project.
Despite her removal from DHS, Noem will remain in the Trump-Vance administration as a special envoy for the “Shield of the Americas,” an initiative aimed at promoting U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere, including efforts to counter cartel networks, reduce Chinese influence, and manage migration.
The new head of DHS has served in Congress since 2013, in both houses of the federal legislature. While in the Senate and a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Mullin has been a vocal critic of policies aimed at expanding LGBTQ inclusion. He led a group of lawmakers in urging the Administration for Community Living to reverse a rule requiring states to prioritize Older Americans Act services based on sexual orientation and gender identity, arguing the policy 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 also among the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results despite no evidence of widespread fraud, and was present in the U.S. House of Representatives chamber on Jan. 6.
Pa. House passes bill to codify marriage equality in state law
A surtax would end this war quickly
DeSantis signs emergency bill that restores Fla. ADAP funding
Menaka Guruswamy celebrated as India’s first openly LGBTQ MP
Trans-led HIV clinic in Portsmouth struggles amid funding cuts
‘How We Survived’ panel set for March 25
Calendar: March 21-26
PHOTOS: Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary
‘Inherit the Wind’ isn’t about science vs. religion, but the right to think
