National
Gay troops seek reinstatement through ‘Don’t Ask’ lawsuit
Lawsuit challenges constitutionality of gay ban
Mike Almy, a former Air Force officer, is among the plaintiffs seeking reinstatement in the military through a new 'Don't Ask' lawsuit. (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Three service members who are seeking a return to the U.S. armed forces after being discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are the focus of a new lawsuit filed in a California federal court challenging the constitutionality of the military’s gay ban.
The lawsuit was filed Monday at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, among the groups leading the fight to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and Morrison & Foerster LLP, a legal firm based in San Diego, Calif.
The three plaintiffs are gay former service members who were expelled from the U.S. armed forces under the military’s gay ban: Mike Almy, an Air Force communications officer who was discharged in 2006; Anthony Loverde, an Air Force technician who was discharged in 2008; and Jason Knight, a Navy translator who was discharged in 2007.
In a Blade interview, Almy said he’s seeking reinstatement into the Air Force because he loves the armed forces and “spent his whole career serving the military” before being discharged after 13 years.
“I obviously don’t miss ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ but that aspect aside, I greatly love and miss the military and just can’t wait to go back in as an officer and a leader,” he said.
The litigation asks the court to employ the Witt standard established by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as the basis for reinstating the three discharged service members.
The Witt standard came into being in 2008 after the Ninth Circuit ruled in the case of Witt v. Air Force that the U.S. government must show the presence of a gay service member in the armed forces is detrimental to unit cohesion before discharging him or her.
Additionally, the lawsuit asks the California federal court to strike down “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on the grounds that the 1993 law violates gay service members’ freedom of speech and due process rights under the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In this respect, the litigation is similar to another lawsuit currently pending before the Ninth Circuit challenging “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Log Cabin Republicans v. United States.
Now that the litigation has been filed, the U.S. Justice Department has 60 days to respond to the complaint. The Obama administration has previously defended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the courts and is expected to continue defending the statute against this lawsuit.
M. Andrew Woodmansee, a partner at Morrison & Foerster, said a case management conference for the litigation before a district court judge should take place in March. He said he’s not expecting a trial for this lawsuit, but instead, a ruling by summary judgment in summer 2011.
Woodmansee said it’s “virtually impossible” to predict whether the legislation would succeed at the district court level — or even the appellate court or U.S. Supreme Court level — but said he believes the lawsuit has a “very strong” chance of succeeding based on the strong military records of the plaintiffs seeking reinstatement.
“There are a lot of factors to consider, but I think this case is very strong because it’s also very simple in that sense we are looking at three individual service members who want nothing more than to go back and serve their country,” he said.
Repeal advocates have filed the lawsuit as legislation remains pending before the U.S. Senate that would lead to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), as of Monday had 40 co-sponsors, according to the Human Rights Campaign, and is expected to come up for a vote during the lame duck session of Congress.
In a statement, Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN’s executive director, said the lawsuit is part of “an aggressive, far-reaching litigation strategy” that his organization is planning if Congress fails to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this month.
“This dispute can be resolved by Congress or by the courts.” Sarvis said. “With this filing we put Congress on notice that a cadre of service members and our national legal team stand ready to litigate strategically around the country.”
If Congress doesn’t repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sarvis said SLDN plans to file another lawsuit early next year on behalf of young people who want to enter military service, but can’t because of the military’s gay ban, and a lawsuit for discharged service members who want to serve in the National Guard or the reserves.
While repeal advocates pursue both litigation and legislation as avenues to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the Obama administration has emphasized that congressional action and not action from the courts is the preferred way to the end the law. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said a legislative end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would provide adequate training time to implement open service in the U.S. armed forces.
On Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated the point that the legislative route is the preferred way to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in response to a question from the Washington Blade on the new lawsuit.
“One of the two entities — either Congress or the courts — is going to repeal or do away with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Gibbs said. “The best way to do it would be to do it through Congress. The House has passed that legislation, and it is clear that well more than a majority of U.S. senators believe that that’s the case as well.”
Woodmansee said he thinks legislative action should be taken on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but added litigation remains an option should Congress be unable to finish the job.
“Throughout this country’s history, the courts stand ready to act when Congress doesn’t, and that’s what we’ve done here,” Woodmansee said. “We’ve been trying to effect a deal through the legislature, and if they won’t act, then we have no choice … but to go the courts and ask them to do their job, and that is provide a check as the third branch of government.”
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
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.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
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.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
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.
PHOTOS: Helen Hayes Awards
Laverne Cox, Reneé Rapp, Deacon Maccubbin named WorldPride grand marshals
House passes reconciliation with gender-affirming care funding ban
PHOTOS: D.C. Trans Pride
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Pope Leo XIV: Family based on ‘stable union between a man and a woman’
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
