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.”
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.
Federal Government
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
Bill described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
Members of Congress, advocates, and people from across the country gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest proposed federal legislation that voting rights activists have deemed “Jim Crow 2.0.”
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections.
President Donald Trump has also pushed for the proposed legislation to include a section that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In addition to changing voter registration requirements, the bill would limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not have — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
A 2021 investigation by the Associated Press found that fewer than 475 people voted illegally or improperly, a tiny fraction of the estimated 160 million Americans who voted in the 2020 election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the event.
“It will kick millions of American citizens off the rolls. And they don’t even require you to be told,” the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate told protesters and reporters outside the Capitol. “If this law passes — and it won’t — you’re gonna show up in November … and they’ll say… sorry, you’re no longer on the voting rolls.”
He, like many other speakers, emphasized the bill in the context of American history, pointing to what he described as its racist roots and its impact on Black and brown Americans.
“I have called this act, over and over again, Jim Crow 2.0 … because they know it’s the truth.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was one of the lawmakers leading opposition to the legislation and spoke at the rally.
“It’s not just voting rights that are on the line — our democracy is on the line,” the California lawmaker said. “It’s not a voter I.D. bill. It’s a bait and switch bill.”
He added historical context, noting the significance of voting rights legislation passed more than 60 years ago. In 1965, Alabama civil rights activists marched to protest barriers to voter registration. Alabama state troopers violently attacked peaceful demonstrators at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, using tear gas, clubs, and whips against more than 500 — mostly Black — protesters.
“61 years ago — not to the day — but this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday and pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said. “61 years later, Donald Trump and this Republican majority wants to take us backwards. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) also spoke, emphasizing that he views the effort as a Republican-led and Trump-backed attempt to restrict voting access, particularly among Black, brown, and predominantly Democratic communities.
“President Trump told Republicans when they were meeting behind closed doors that ‘The SAVE Act will guarantee Republicans win the midterms and ensure they do not lose an election for 50 years,’” Luján said. “The first time I think Donald Trump’s been honest … This voter suppression bill is only that. Taking away vote by mail? I hope my Republican colleagues from states that voted for Donald Trump or where vote by mail is popular have the courage and the backbone to stand up and say no to this nonsense, because their constituents are going to push back.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) also spoke.
“Our Republican colleagues have already cut Medicaid, Medicare, people don’t know how they’re gonna be able to afford energy,” she said, providing context for the broader political moment. “We’re in the middle of a war that they can’t even get straight while we’re in it and don’t have a way to get out of it. And we are now faced with defending our democracy?”
She then showed the crowd something that she said has been with her throughout her political journey in Washington.
“I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives when I was elected in 2016, and I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as United States senator. And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on Jan. 6 and all I could think to do was pray … This document allowed my great great great grandfather, who had been enslaved in Georgia, to have the right to vote. We took this and turned it into a scarf. It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction code from 1867. This is my proof of what we’ve been through. This is also our inspiration.”
“I got to travel between the Edmund Pettus Bridge two times. And even as I thought about this moment, I recognized that while we wish we weren’t in it, while we don’t know why we’re in it, I do know we were made for it … So I came today to tell you that, um, just like the leader said, that he calls it Jim Crow 2.0. I call it Jim Crow 2.NO.”
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., also spoke, highlighting the impact of the bill’s proposed provisions affecting trans people.
“This bill is not about saving America. This bill is about stealing an election. This bill is about suppressing voters,” Robinson said. “This bill not only tries to disenfranchise voters that deserve their right to vote, it also tries to criminalize trans kids and their families … It tries to criminalize doctors providing medically necessary care for our trans youth.”
The SAVE Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but has not yet been considered in the U.S. Senate.
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
D.C. goes gaga for Gaga
Gay priest credited with boosting church support for LGBTQ Catholics
‘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
