National
Supreme Court asked to lift stay on ‘Don’t Ask’ injunction
Plaintiffs call appellate court’s order an ‘abuse of discretion’
Plaintiffs in litigation challenging “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a stay issued by an appellate court allowing continued enforcement of the military’s gay ban.
Lawyers representing Log Cabin Republicans, which filed the lawsuit against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 2004, requested that the high court vacate a stay issued by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The application argues continued enforcement of the law would harm gay, lesbian and bisexual service members.
“Unless the court of appealsā stay is vacated, the respondents will be free to continue to investigate and discharge American servicemembers for no reason other than their homosexuality, in violation of their due process and First Amendment rights,” the application states.
The application was sent to U.S. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who’s the circuit justice for the Ninth Circuit. The Log Cabin litigation is pending before the appellate court in that circuit.
In a statement, Dan Woods, partner at White & Case LLP, which is representing Log Cabin, emphasized that the stay is “arbitrary” and said the Supreme Court should vacate the order immediately.
“We continue to look forward to the day when all Americans can serve in our military without regard to their sexual orientation,” Woods said.
R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, criticized the U.S. Justice Department for requesting the stay with the Ninth Circuit and said the action drove his organization to pursue the matter with the high court.
“It is unfortunate the Obama Justice Department has forced the Log Cabin Republicans to go to the Supreme Court,” Cooper said.
Late last month, the Ninth Circuit decided to stay an injunction preventing the enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” issued by U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips after he ruling striking down the law. The application filed by Log Cabin on Friday maintains that the decision to stay the injunction was an “abuse of discretion.”
Among other things, the application states that the stay order ignored controlling precedent, sidestepped the requirement that respondents show a likelihood of success and “gave no consideration whatsoever” to the injury that would befall applicants because of the stay.
“Any alleged harms to the government are entirely bureaucratic, procedural, and transitory in nature, and are sharply outweighed by the substantial constitutional injury that servicemembers will sustain from a stay of the district courtās judgment,” the application states.
Log Cabin lawyers argue that at a minimum, the Supreme Court should halt discharges of gay service members currently serving in the U.S. military as the Ninth Circuit hears the litigation. Such an order would be similar to what U.S. Appellate Judge William Fletcher, who serves on the Ninth Circuit, thought was appropriate in his dissenting opinion on the stay.
In a Q&A attached to his statement, Woods said how long the application review would take is up to the court and that justices may give the U.S. government an opportunity to respond.
Additionally, Woods said it’s up to Kennedy to determine whether the entire Supreme Court will be involved in the decision on vacating the order. Woods said Kennedy may decide for himself of refer the application to the entire Supreme Court.
If the high court vacates the stay, Woods said “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is dead for the time that the Ninth Circuit considers the lawsuit. But if the high court upholds the Ninth Circuit’s decision, Woods said plaintiffs would next move in the appellate court to expedite the litigation.
Download the application to vacate here.
UPDATE: Kennedy has directed the U.S. government to reply to Log Cabin’s request to vacate the stay by Wednesday at 5 pm, according to sources familiar with the lawsuit.
State Department
Senate confirms Marco Rubio as next secretary of state
Fla. Republican will succeed Antony Blinken
The U.S. Senate on Monday confirmed U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to become the next secretary of state.
The vote took place hours after President Donald Trump’s inauguration. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Monday advanced Rubio’s nomination before senators approved it by a 99-0 vote margin.
The promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad was a cornerstone of the Biden-Harris administration’s foreign policy.
Rubio in 2022 defended Floridaās āDonāt Say Gayā law that Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed. The Florida Republican that year also voted against the Respect for Marriage Act that passed with bipartisan support.
Rubio during his Jan. 15 confirmation hearing did not speak about LGBTQ rights.
Federal Government
GLAAD catalogues LGBTQ-inclusive pages on White House and federal agency websites
Trump-Vance administration to take office Monday
GLAAD has identified and catalogued LGBTQ-inclusive content or references to HIV that appear on WhiteHouse.gov and the websites for several federal government agencies, anticipating that these pages might be deleted, archived, or otherwise changed shortly after the incoming administration takes over on Monday.
The organization found a total of 54 links on WhiteHouse.gov and provided the Washington Blade with a non-exhaustive list of the “major pages” on websites for the Departments of Defense (12), Justice (three), State (12), Education (15), Health and Human Services (10), and Labor (14), along with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (10).
The White House web pages compiled by GLAAD range from the transcript of a seven-minute speech delivered by President Joe Biden to mark the opening of the Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center to a readout of a roundtable with leaders in the LGBTQ and gun violence prevention movements and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy’s 338-page FY2024 budget summary, which contains at least a dozen references to LGBTQ-focused health equity initiatives and programs administered by agencies like the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Just days after Trump took office in his first term, news outlets reported that LGBTQ related content had disappeared from WhiteHouse.gov and websites for multiple federal agencies.
Chad Griffin, who was then president of the Human Rights Campaign, accused the Trump-Pence administration of “systematically scrubbing the progress made for LGBTQ people from official websites,” raising specific objection to the State Department’s removal of an official apology for the Lavender Scare by the outgoing secretary, John Kerry, in January 2017.
Acknowledging the harm caused by the department’s dismissal of at least 1,000 employees for suspected homosexuality during the 1950s and 60s “set the right tone for the State Department, he said, adding, āIt is outrageous that the new administration would attempt to erase from the record this historic apology for witch hunts that destroyed the lives of innocent Americans.”
In response to an inquiry from NBC News into why LGBTQ content was removed and whether the pages would return, a spokesperson said “As per standard practice, the secretary’s remarks have been archived.” However, NBC noted that “a search of the State Department’s website reveals not much else has changed.”
U.S. Federal Courts
Appeals court hears case challenging Florida’s trans healthcare ban
District court judge concluded the law was discriminatory, unconstitutional
Parties in Doe v. Ladapo, a case challenging Florida’s ban on healthcare for transgender youth and restrictions on the medical interventions available to trans adults, presented oral arguments on Wednesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta.
The case was appealed by defendants representing the Sunshine State following a decision in June 2024 by Judge Robert Hinkle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, who found “the law and rules unconstitutional and unenforceable on equal protection grounds,” according to a press release from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is involved in the litigation on behalf of the plaintiffs.
The district court additionally found the Florida healthcare ban unconstitutional on the grounds that it was “motivated by purposeful discrimination against transgender people,” though the ban and restrictions will remain in effect pending a decision by the appellate court.
Joining NCLR in the lawsuit are attorneys from GLAD Law, the Human Rights Campaign, Southern Legal Counsel, and the law firms Lowenstein Sandler and Jenner and Block.
“As a mother who simply wants to protect and love my child for who she is, I pray that the Eleventh Circuit will affirm the district courtās thoughtful and powerful order, restoring access to critical healthcare for all transgender Floridians,” plaintiff Jane Doe said. “No one should have to go through what my family has experienced.ā
“As a transgender adult just trying to live my life and care for my family, it is so demeaning that the state of Florida thinks itās their place to dictate my healthcare decisions,” said plaintiff Lucien Hamel.
“Members of the legislature have referred to the high quality healthcare I have received, which has allowed me to live authentically as myself, as āmutilationā and āan abominationā and have called the providers of this care āevil,ā” Hamel added. “We hope the appellate court sees these rules and laws for what truly are: cruel.ā
āTransgender adults donāt need state officials looking over their shoulders, and families of transgender youth donāt need the government dictating how to raise their children,ā said Shannon Minter, legal director of NCLR. āThe district court heard the evidence and found that these restrictions are based on bias, not science. The court of appeals should affirm that judgment.ā
Noting Hinkle’s conclusion that the ban and restrictions were “motivated by animus, not science or evidence,” Simone Chris, who leads Southern Legal Counsel’s Transgender Rights Initiative, said, āThe state has loudly and proudly enacted bans on transgender people accessing healthcare, using bathrooms, transgender teachers using their pronouns and titles, and a slough of other actions making it nearly impossible for transgender individuals to live in this state.”
Lowenstein Sandler Partner Thomas Redburn said, āThe defendants have offered nothing on appeal that could serve as a valid basis for overturning that finding” by the district court.
āNot only does this dangerous law take away parentsā freedom to make responsible medical decisions for their child, it inserts the government into private health care matters that should be between adults and their providers,” said Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law.
-
Congress4 days ago
Sarah McBride named House Democratic deputy whip for policy
-
Movies5 days ago
Kidman ā and chemistry ā drive provocative āBabygirlā
-
U.S. Federal Courts5 days ago
Appeals court hears case challenging Florida’s trans healthcare ban
-
Politics14 hours ago
Trump previews anti-trans executive orders in inaugural address