Connect with us

National

Rejected gay judicial nominee speaks out

Alter says media ‘falsely reported’ anti-Christian views

Published

on

A gay New York attorney whose nomination to the federal bench was rejected by the White House over anti-Christian comments he allegedly made claims that media outlets mischaracterized his views.

In an Oct. 21 letter to the Washington Blade, Daniel Alter said media outlets misrepresented his views on inclusion of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and the practice of wishing shoppers “Merry Christmas” during the holidays.

The Blade this week published those reported statements as they were presented in a 2005 article from Cybercast News Online and a 2004 article in The New Republic.

“Having read the [Blade] article, I am concerned that other readers might come away believing that I am hostile to the seasonal greetings ‘Merry Christmas’ and that I personally object to the Pledge of Allegiance,” Alter writes. “Neither is true.”

In February, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced his recommended nomination of Alter to serve as a judge for the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York.

But informed sources told the Blade the White House rejected the nomination over the statements perceived as anti-Christian.

Alter was previously an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and specialized in First Amendment and terrorism issues. He also served as national director of the civil rights division of the Anti-Defamation League, an organization that works to fight anti-Semitism.

Had the Senate confirmed Alter to the position, he would have become the first openly gay male to serve on the federal bench.

In his letter to the Blade, Alter says the CNS article that quotes his views on “Merry Christmas” took his “words entirely out of context.”

“As National Civil Rights Director for the Anti-Defamation League, it was my job to express ADL’s view that — especially at holiday time — people should appreciate that different faith traditions celebrate differently, and children’s schools and other public institutions should try to acknowledge these diverse customs when they sponsor holiday events,” Alter says. “In short, the message was that holiday time should be a time for warmth and inclusion, not division and exclusion.”

The quote from the 2005 CNS article reads: “Our diversity has made us great and will continue to make us great and [‘Merry Christmas’] undermines both the holiday spirit as well as the message I think Americans should be sending to each other.”

Alter attached to his letter to the Blade a 2005 e-mail he sent to the communications staff at the Anti-Defamation League saying CNS News “falsely reported” his remarks.

“I feel strongly that we should send a correction for the record,” Alter said at the time. “I do not want to go down as someone who is hostile to ‘Merry Christmas.’”

Deborah Lauter, current director of civil rights for the Anti-Defamation League, has told the Blade her organization “should have insisted” the record be corrected at the time.

CNS News didn’t immediately respond to the Blade’s request for comment on the accuracy of the Alter quote.

In the letter to Blade, Alter also takes issue with the way his views of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance were presented in the 2004 article in The New Republic and says his fidelity to the pledge has “never waivered.”

“Not while I recited it on a daily basis in elementary school, not while I served in the United States Department of Justice for almost eight years, and not while I worked at ADL earnestly defending the fundamental right of all who live in this nation to practice their faith freely and enthusiastically, or not to be religious, depending upon their individual conscience,” Alter says.

In his letter, Alter doesn’t explicitly state that he was misquoted in The New Republic article in 2004 or that the piece merited a correction.

Lauter has told the Blade that Alter said he doesn’t recall speaking to The New Republic reporter who quoted him in the article.

The New Republic article quotes Alter as saying that the U.S. Supreme Court case Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow, which challenged inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, was “a good case at the wrong time.” Additionally, the article reports that Alter was “relieved” the Supreme Court decision “left open a window for future challenges.”

The New Republic didn’t immediately respond to the Blade’s request for comment on whether it stands by its reporting from 2004.

Based on the reported statements, the White House and Schumer reportedly determined that Alter wouldn’t be able to reach the 60-vote threshold needed in the Senate to overcome a filibuster of his nomination. It’s unclear when the decision to reject Alter was made.

The rejection disappointed many of his supporters, who urged the White House and Schumer to reconsider the decision and push him through the Senate. Schumer has since recommended the nomination of another openly gay man for the position on the judiciary.

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, addressed the rejection of Alter’s nomination in a statement to the Blade.

“The White House does not comment on Presidential appointments that have not been announced,” Inouye said. “But all potential nominees are considered on the basis of their qualifications.”

Inouye said the president is committed to appointing “highly qualified individuals” for each post and “is proud that his appointments reflect the diversity of the American public.”

“We have already made a record number of openly LGBT appointments — including appointments to the judicial branch — and we are confident that this number will only continue to grow,” Inouye said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

New York

Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced

One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.

NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.

John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.

The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.

Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.

Continue Reading

National

Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information

Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources

Published

on

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.

“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.

 “These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.

It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”

 The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question. 

A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit. 

While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management. 

The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.

 Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.   

“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.

 “Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says. 

Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”

 Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”

Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.

 “As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from  the Washington Blade. 

“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said. 

The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”

It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”

The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society. 

The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections

Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent

Published

on

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Screen capture: YouTube)

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.

While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”

“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.

The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.

Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.

Continue Reading

Popular