National
Carney on DOMA: ‘The administration had no choice’
Says legal issues required the administration to stop defending law
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (Blade photo by Michael Key)
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Wednesday emphasized the Obama administration “had no choice” in deciding to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court because of legal issues surrounding new litigation against the statute.
Under questioning from the Washington Blade, Carney noted the new DOMA lawsuits — Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management and Windsor v. United States — are unique because there’s no legal precedent for handling laws relating to sexual orientation in the Second Circuit, where the cases are pending.
“The administration had no choice,” Carney said. “It was under a court-imposed deadline to make this decision. This case in the Second Circuit was unique in that it lacked the precedent upon which to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in the way that this administration defended it in previous cases, and therefore, required this decision on its constitutionality, and we had to act because of the deadline.”
The Obama administration had until March 11 to respond in court to the Pedersen case, filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and the Windsor case, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. Both lawsuits were initiated in November.
Carney maintained the president’s position on DOMA “has been consistent” and said he’s “long opposed it as unnecessary and unfair.” Full repeal of DOMA was among Obama’s campaign promises in 2008.
Still, Carney maintained the U.S. government will remain a party to the DOMA cases to allow them to proceed and help facilitate efforts from Congress to defend the statute if lawmakers desire to do so.
“The administration will do everything it can to assist Congress if it so wishes to do that,” Carney said. “We recognize and respect that there are other points of view and other opinions about this.”
Carney also emphasized the Obama administration would continue enforcement of DOMA. Asked whether there could be any outcome at the district or appellate level that would prompt the president to discontinue enforcement of the statute, Carney replied, “You’re asking me to speculate. I would also note that the president is obligated to enforce the law.”
Asked by the Associated Press whether this decision is related to the president’s position on same-sex marriage, Carney said Obama’s position on marriage rights for gay couples is “distinct from the legal decision.” Obama has said he’s “wrestling” with the idea of same-sex marriage and suggested his position could evolve, but hasn’t yet endorsed marriage equality.
“I would refer you just to his fairly recent statements on that,” Carney said. “He’s grappling with the issue, but he, again, I want to make the distinction between his personal views, which he has discussed, and the legal issue, the legal decision that was made today.”
Carney also responded to a statement from the U.S. House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) office criticizing the decision. In a statement to the Blade, Boehner spokesperson Michael Steel wrote, “While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.”
In response, Carney said the president is indeed focused on economic growth and job creation even as he makes the new decision on defending DOMA.
“We are also absolutely focused and committed on these key issues of economic growth and job creation, and we are now anticipating that this will move to the courts and the courts will decide,” Carney said. “And meanwhile, we will continue to focus on job creation and economic growth and ‘Winning the Future.'”
Carney deferred to the Justice Department in response to a question on whether the decision applies to all present and future cases or if the administration won’t defend DOMA in only the four currently pending cases — the new litigation in the Second Circuit and Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services, which are pending before the First Circuit.
“My understanding is that because of the decision about the constitutionality of DOMA, and the position that the administration has taken, we will no longer defend DOMA going forward,” Carney said.
A partial transcript of Carney’s remarks on the DOMA announcement follows:
Associated Press: Could you walk us through on how the president’s position on the Defense of Marriage Act has evolved and how he came to the decision over at the Justice Department to no longer defend its constitutionality?
Jay Carney: Yes. The president’s position on the Defense of Marriage Act has been consistent. He has long opposed it as unnecessary and unfair.
Separate from that, or distinct from that, is the decision that was announced today, which was brought on by a court imposed deadline by the Second Circuit that required a decision by the administration about whether or not this case should require heightened scrutiny, heightened constitutional review, because this unlike the other cases in other circuits, there was no precedent, no foundation on which the administration could defend the Defense of Marriage Act in this case.
Therefore, it had to basically make a positive assertion about its constitutionality. The attorney general recommended that higher level of scrutiny be applied, and under that higher level of scrutiny, deemed or recommended it be viewed as unconstitutional.
The president reviewed that recommendation and concurred. Therefore, again because of the court-imposed deadline and the necessity that this decision be made, our announcement was made.
AP: But, in making that decision, is the president saying that he believes that marriage does not necessarily have to be between one man and one woman — that that cannot be constitutionally imposed?
Carney: The president’s personal view on same-sex marriage I think you all have heard him discuss as recently as the press conference at the end of last year. That is distinct from this legal decision and he — again, the attorney general and the president — were under a court-imposed deadline to make a decision in this case, and they did.
And the president — let me make a couple of points about it — the decision is that we will — the administration will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in the Second Circuit. Furthermore, the president directed the attorney general not to defend — because of the decision that it is not constitutional — defend the Defense of Marriage Act in any other circuit in any other case.
Let me also make clear, however, that the administration that the United States government will still be a party to those cases in order to allow those cases to proceed, so that the courts can make a final determination about its constitutionality and also so that other interested parties are able to take up the defense of the Defense of Marriage Act if they so wish, in particular, Congress or members of Congress who want to proceed and defend the law in these cases. The administration will do everything it can to assist Congress if it so wishes to do that. We recognize and respect that there are other points of view and other opinions about this.
It is also important to note that the enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act continues. The president is constitutionally bound to enforce the laws and enforcement of the DOMA will continue.
AP: This raises questions given the president has said his own personal position is evolving. Can you tell us where his position on gay marriage stands at this point?
Carney: I would refer you just to his fairly recent statements on that. He’s grappling with the issue, but he, again, I want to make the distinction between his personal views, which he has discussed, and the legal issue, the legal decision that was made today.
Let me move on.
…
Washington Blade: Jay, I got a few questions for you on the DOMA decision. Just — what kind of reaction are you expecting from Congress as a result of this decision and what is the administration doing to prepare for that?
Carney: Tell me again, I’m sorry, what kind of reaction?
Blade: — are you expecting from Congress. Any sort of backlash from Congress — what are doing to prepare for that?
Carney: I don’t want to speculate about how members of Congress might react. We have, I believe, and if you haven’t seen these, you should, the attorney general has both put out a statement and there’s a notification or a letter to Congress that explains the course of action that’s being taken, but beyond that I don’t — I wouldn’t want to speculate.
Blade: I got a statement from Speaker Boehner’s office on this issue. This is from their press office: “While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.” What’s your response to that?
Carney: Well, I would say simply as I said in the beginning. The administration had no choice. It was under a court-imposed deadline to make this decision. This case in the Second Circuit was unique in that it lacked the precedent upon which to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in the way that this administration defended it in previous cases, and therefore, required this decision on its constitutionality, and we had to act because of the deadline.
We are also absolutely focused and committed on these key issues of economic growth and job creation, and we are now anticipating that this will move to the courts and the courts will decide. And meanwhile, we will continue to focus on job creation and economic growth and “Winning the Future.”
Blade: Just to be clear, just to be clear — will this decision — does it just apply to the four pending lawsuits on DOMA or does it apply to any and every lawsuit for DOMA in the future?
Carney: I would refer you — I’m not a lawyer — but I would refer you to the Justice Department. My understanding is that because of the decision about the constitutionality of DOMA, and the position that the administration has taken, we will no longer defend DOMA going forward. We will, however, continue to enforce it and we will continue to be participants in the cases to allow those cases to continue and be resolved, and so that Congress or members of Congress can pursue the defense if they so desire.
Blade: One last question. One last question. Is there any outcome at the district or appellate level that would persuade the Obama administration to volunteer discontinuing enforcement of DOMA throughout the nation?
Carney: You’re asking me to speculate. I would also note that the president is obligated to enforce the law.
National
HRC report: LGBTQ students face ‘far greater challenges’ in non-supportive states
Survey finds anti-LGBTQ school harassment, bullying highest in 17 states
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the educational arm of the national LGBTQ advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign, has released a report showing LGBTQ public school students are more likely to face bullying, harassment, and “other barriers” in states that have less overall supportive LGBTQ laws and policies.
The report is based on the HRC Foundation’s National Educator Survey of School Climate and Bullying, which was released on Sept. 17.
“The report finds that harassment, bullying, and other barriers to LGBTQ+ inclusion are more prevalent in states with limiting policies, where educators report widespread restrictions on LGBTQ+ resources, visible expressions of support, and assistance for transgender students,” a statement released by HRC says.
“As just one example,” the statement adds, “while 59 percent of educators in states with limiting policies report restrictions on supporting their transgender students, just 6 percent to 8 percent of educators in states with supportive policies report the same, underscoring the impact of these policies on school climate, student well-being, and the stakes of the upcoming midterm elections for LGBTQ+ youth and inclusive classrooms.”
The report says the survey consisted of responses by 826 educators in 42 states who worked as teachers, principals, counselors, administrators, and others who worked in support services. All worked at schools with students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, most being public schools and a smaller number being charter schools, the report says.
It says the survey was conducted between April 15 and May 21, 2026, and included a survey questionnaire with about 55 questions covering a wide range of LGBTQ related school issues.
According to the report, its classification of LGBTQ supportive and non-LGBTQ supportive states is based on a detailed analysis of the LGBTQ related laws and policies of all 50 states, D.C., and U.S. territories conducted by the Movement Advancement Project, or MAP, which describes itself as an “independent, nonprofit thinktank.”
The report includes a chart consisting of 51 boxes representing the 50 states and D.C., with 32 plus D.C. colored as blue and said to have overall LGBTQ supportive policies. The 17 boxes colored in red are said to have overall non-LGBTQ supportive policies and laws, Each of the boxes has the initial of a state or D.C. printed inside it.
In addition to D.C., the chart shows Maryland, Virginia, New York, California, and Massachusetts as among the supportive states. Florida, Texas, West Virginia, and Ohio are among the states shown to be non-LGBTQ supportive.
The HRC statement includes these “key” findings from the survey:
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 59 percent of educators report restrictions on supporting transgender students, compared to just 6-8 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive policies, nearly 50 percent of educators reported restrictions on LGBTQ+ books or resources, compared to just 7 percent of educators in states with supportive policies.
- Roughly 32 percent of educators in states with restrictive policies reported anti-LGBTQ+ harassment was a moderate or serious problem, compared with 11 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 29 percent of educators were very worried about anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, compared to 15 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 36 percent of educators witnessed anti-LGBTQ+ student bullying, compared to 27 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 75 percent of educators reported no restrictions on LGBTQ+-supportive displays, highlighting a substantially more supportive school environment than in states with restrictive policies.
- Educators in states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies also reported significant harassment of students based on appearance (57 percent), race or ethnicity (43 percent), sexual orientation (42 percent), and gender identity or expression (39 percent). (No direct comparison figure from supportive-policy states is provided in the data above.)
“Every young person deserves to feel safe and supportive at school, but this report makes clear that for too many LGBTQ+ students, especially transgender youth, are being failed by policies designed to exclude them,” said HRC President Kelley Robinson in the HRC statement.
“We know that when students feel seen, supported, and affirmed, they are more likely to thrive, but when schools become places of exclusion or hostility, young people pay the price through lower engagement, missed opportunities to learn, and poorer mental and physical health,” Robinson said.
The HRC statement notes that the survey findings come at a time when a growing number of states have passed laws targeting LGBTQ students and the school officials and teachers who support them. It says that for the first time, the survey found that “educators themselves are also experiencing anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, highlighting the growing impact of these policies on school staff as well as students.”
The full survey findings and report can be accessed here:
U.S. Supreme Court
Trump asks Supreme Court to allow restrictions on gender-affirming care in prisons
SCOTUS could further restrict rights of trans inmates
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow its policy limiting gender-affirming treatment for federal inmates to take effect while a legal challenge plays out in court.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the government to continue providing gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy, which had become policy nearly a decade ago for inmates who were transitioning.
The Trump administration argues in its application that its policy restricting transgender rights was properly adopted and that the judge overstepped, posing nationwide “security and prison-administrative concerns.”
If allowed, the policy would halt surgeries, hormones and social accommodations such as wigs while allowing mental health therapy to continue as the legality of the policy reversal is litigated.
The government also argues in the application that the Bureau of Prisons had “determined that sex-trait-modification surgeries, hormone interventions in general, and social accommodations could no longer be justified as treatment for gender dysphoria.”
American Civil Liberties Union attorneys for the inmates said the policy is “a direct threat to the well-being of transgender people in federal custody and an open violation of their fundamental rights,” and said withholding necessary gender-affirming healthcare constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
The Blade has covered the ongoing developments surrounding changes to Federal Bureau of Prisons transgender inmate policy that went into effect earlier in Trump’s term. The changes primarily focus on rolling back Biden-era protections for trans inmates.
Earlier this year, the Blade published a joint letter from multiple senators in response to the rollback of the policy. Multiple senators — including Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii) — sent a letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche and Federal Bureau of Prisons Director William Marshall III calling for them to reverse the policy change, saying it endangers inmates’ health and safety.
The senators described how the policy shift, along with President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” is forcing policy changes they argued are rooted more in political rhetoric than in medical research or evidence-based correctional practices.
Federal Bureau of Prisons responded to the Blade’s request for comment in May, declining to reconsider its transgender inmate policy.
The Blade reached out to the Federal Bureau of Prisons once again over the application to the Supreme Court, but did not hear back before publication.
Federal Government
Education Department rolls back protections for LGBTQ students under Title IX
The DoE policy rescinds Biden-era protections
The Department of Education rolled back a Biden-era Title IX interpretation on Monday that secured sex-based discrimination protections for students on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Title IX was established in 1972 as landmark civil rights law. It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon spoke about the revision of the policy, claiming the decision would explicitly help “women and girls.”
“Thanks to today’s action, the published Title IX regulations faithfully reflect court orders and congressional intent — reducing confusion for parents, students, and educational institutions. We will continue to relentlessly champion equal opportunity for all Americans and hold accountable any school or college that violates the rights, privacy, or athletic opportunities of our women and girls,” McMahon said via press release.
Prior to her work under the Trump-Vance administration, McMahon was a World Wrestling Federation/World Wrestling Entertainment executive before resigning to pursue a career in politics. She was appointed to the Connecticut State Board of Education by then-Gov. Jodi Rell in January 2009, but resigned from her role shortly afterward to run what ultimately became two failed campaigns for Connecticut’s U.S. Senate seat in 2010 and 2012.
A “fact sheet” provided by the Department of Education also called the inclusive sexual assault and gender identity protections expanded under the Biden-Harris unlawful, saying, “This change is necessary to provide clarity in the Code of Federal Regulations so that institutions, administrations, students, and families can see the rules that are actually in force and to help eliminate public confusion about the Biden administration’s unlawful attempt to stretch Title IX’s legal protections to cover ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity.’”
This is not the first time this policy has faced judicial hurdles. While Biden was still in office, the plan was struck down in multiple courts in Republican states.
Opponents of the move say it will harm transgender athletes and weaken protections for sexual assault victims.
“Sexual harassment and assault continue to be pervasive in schools and, to the fullest extent possible, we should be working to enforce the laws that protect student survivors of sexual violence. Yet, Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the Trump administration have decided to ignore what survivors need, instead weaponizing Title IX to attack trans students,” said Shiwali Patel, senior director of education justice at the National Women’s Law Center.
This is a return to a first Trump term policy after Biden issued an executive order to attempt to curb discrimination for all — especially those with different sexual orientations and gender identities — that had been given a pass during Trump’s first term. Much of Title IX’s policy has a narrow vision of what sex protections look like that often and enthusiastically leave gender-diverse and non-heterosexual people out.
In March 2021, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14021, “Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free From Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity,” to attempt to undo some of the flagrantly anti-LGBTQ policy the Trump-Pence administration had set forth relating to Title IX protections for LGBTQ students and sexual assault survivors.
The secretary focused this “win” for the administration as one more step toward restricting transgender students from competing in women’s sports, but the 2020 rule, completed under former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, didn’t explicitly ban trans students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity. It did limit the types of sexual harassment and assault complaints that schools had to investigate and required live hearings so male students could respond to accusations.
McMahon didn’t discuss those aspects in her statement or in requests for comment. The 2020 rule drew praise from conservatives and intense opposition from advocates who said it downplayed sexual abuse and left victims unprotected.
In a statement, U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), who chairs the House Education Committee, said, “Returning to the 2020 regulations restores longstanding protections for women and girls that the Biden-Harris administration attempted to dismantle and realigns Title IX policy with court precedents.”
LGBTQ activists have called this decision a direct attack on LGBTQ safety — particularly for trans students who continue to face a barrage of legislative, executive, and judicial attacks in recent years from the Trump-Vance administration.
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy group in the world, released a statement following the DoE’s announcement.
“Title IX is, quite simply, about protecting students and ensuring that they are safe from abuse, harassment, and discrimination while they pursue their education. But Donald Trump and his cronies aren’t interested in any of that,” Robinson said. “Donald Trump’s Department of Education has completely lost sight of that mission. Instead of enforcing protections for students, they’re rescinding them. They don’t care if sexual harassment and assault go unaddressed. And they’re happy to strip funding away from school districts and states that are actually trying to keep students safe.
“We know who will be hurt: women, girls, and others who are vulnerable to sexual harassment, assault and abuse — including LGBTQ+ students. The fact that they’re dropping this rule into place abruptly, without a comment period, denying families, educators, loved ones, and the students themselves a say in how they should be treated, shows how little they care about the safety of our students.
“This is a monstrous injustice, and it drives home how essential it is that we take action at the polls this November to start bringing some accountability to an administration that has turned its back on the very students Title IX was written to protect,” she added.
The Washington Blade reached out to the DoE for comment and questions on whether Title IX protections still included LGBTQ students, and received this email response from Education Spokesman Sabin Sidney:
“Your questions indicate you are clearly missing the entire point of this Final Rule. The Biden Administration illegally rewrote Title IX to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identification’ in the definition of sex-based discrimination. The Trump Administration is rescinding this rule—only after every federal court that heard legal challenges rejected it as unlawful.
“Since January 2025, the Department has been enforcing Title IX consistent with the President’s Executive Order grounded in biological truth that there are only two sexes. The Trump Administration is restoring the original promise of Title IX and providing clarity to students, parents, and educational institutions. We will vigorously defend equal opportunity consistent with the law’s intended purpose.”
Vote now! Best Of LGBTQ DC readers’ choice awards
Meet the LGBTQ candidates running for U.S. House, Senate
Ana Brnabić becomes world’s first openly lesbian head of state
529 openly LGBTQ candidates running in Brazilian election
