Connect with us

National

Boehner convenes bipartisan panel to defend DOMA

Group can instruct House General Counsel to take legal action

Published

on

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (Blade photo by Michael Key).

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner announced on Friday that he’s convening a meeting ofĀ a bi-partisan group of lawmakersĀ to determine the best way forward for Congress to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

“I will convene a meeting of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group for the purpose of initiating action by the House to defend this law of the United States, which was enacted by a bipartisan vote in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton,” Boehner said in a statement.

The five-member group consists of the House speaker, the majority leader, the majority whip, the minority leader and the minority whip.Ā According to the speaker’s office, the advisory group under House rules can instruct the non-partisan office House General Counsel to take legal action on behalf of the House.

Boehner’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request to comment on when the panel would meet or what possible outcomes of the meeting would be.

Last week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama administration would no longer defend DOMA in court and sent a letter to Congress informing lawmakers of the Justice Department’s decision. TheĀ move left the decision on whether to continue defense DOMA in court to Congress.Ā 

Litigation filed against the statute in the Second Circuit — where there’s no precedent for laws related to sexual orientation — allowed the administration to conclude the DOMA is unconstitutional and to call on the court to examine the lawĀ with heightened scrutiny.

In the statement, Boehner also took a dig at the Obama administration for changing its position on the constitutionality of DOMA when Americans want the government to focus on deficit reduction and job creation.

“It is regrettable that the Obama Administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy,” Boehner said. “The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts — not by the president unilaterally — and this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution.ā€

A White House spokesperson didn’t respond to a request to comment on Boehner’s plans or his statement. Administration officials have said the new lawsuits filed against DOMA in the Second Circuit — Pedersen v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management and Windsor v. United States —Ā forced the president’s hand to re-evaluate the constitutionality of the statute.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said DOMA has long raised consitutional questions — noting her vote against the measure on the House floor in 1996 — and said she opposes the Boehner’s effortĀ “to put the House in the position of defending this indefensible statute.”

“Aside from standing up for a discriminatory law and failing to focus on jobs and the economy, this action places Republicans squarely on the wrong side of history and progress,” Pelosi said.Ā 

Pelosi added Boehner’s decision burdens the staff and monetary resources of the Office of the General Counsel and “will cost the House hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars.”

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of NationalĀ Log Cabin Republicans, said Boehner should remain focused on economic issues facing the country and avoid “the bait” of defending DOMA in court.

“Americans sent Republicans to Congress to address our challenging economy, and thus far, under Speaker Boehner’s leadership our party has kept its eye on the ball, cutting spending and beginning to confront the deficit,” Cooper said.Ā “Now is not the time to fall for the president’s ploy to distract Republicans with divisive social issues like the Defense of Marriage Act.”

Cooper said Log Cabin believes that DOMA is an unconstitutional intrusion on states’ rights and a violation of individual liberty, but alsoĀ agrees with Speaker Boehner that the constitutionality of this statuteĀ should be determined by the courtsĀ andĀ not by the president unilaterally.

“The speaker’s decision to retain counsel through an administrative action ensures that the House floor can keep its focus on spending cuts and not be bogged down with unnecessary distractions,” Cooper said.

Meanwhile, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, chided Boehner for taking on the role of defending DOMA’s constitutionality in court.

ā€œHouse Republican leadership has now shown theyā€™re more interested in scoring cheap political points on the backs of same-sex couples than tackling real problems,ā€ Solmonese said. ā€œAs families across the country continue to struggle, the House Republican leadershipā€™s prescription is to keep families they donā€™t like from accessing needed protections.ā€

Maggie Gallagher, chair of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said her organization will shortly release a statement on Boehner’s decision, but in the interim said she can say she’s “pleased and grateful.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Federal Courts

Court halts removal of two transgender service members

Case challenging anti-trans military ban proceeds in D.C.

Published

on

Laila and Logan Ireland (Photo courtesy of the couple)

A federal court in New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order on Monday that will halt the separation of two transgender service members from the U.S. military while their case in D.C. challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s ban moves forward.

The order by Judge Christine O’Hearn pauses proceedings against Staff Sgt. Nicholas Bear Bade and Master Sgt. Logan Ireland, who “have been pulled from key deployments and placed on administrative absence against their will because of the ban,” according to a joint press release Monday by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD Law, which are representing the service members together with other litigants in Ireland v. Hegseth and in the case underway in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Talbott v. Trump.

“That court granted a preliminary injunction March 18 barring the Department of Defense from implementing the ban, finding that it discriminates based on sex and transgender status; that it is ‘soaked in animus;’ and that, due to the governmentā€™s failure to present any evidence supporting the ban, it is ‘highly unlikely’ to survive any level of judicial review,” the groups noted in their press release.

Ireland spoke with the Washington Blade in January along with other trans service members and former service members who shared their experiences with the military and their feelings on the new administration’s efforts to bar trans people from the U.S. armed forces.

Continue Reading

State Department

Report: State Department to remove LGBTQ information from annual human rights report

Spokesperson declines to ‘preview’ information ‘at this time’

Published

on

(Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)

The State Department has not commented a report that indicates it plans to remove LGBTQ-specific information from their annual human rights report.

Politico on March 19 reported the Trump-Vance administration “is slashing the State Department’s annual human rights report ā€” cutting sections about the rights of women, the disabled, the LGBTQ+ community, and more.” The Politico article notes it obtained “documents” and spoke with “a current and a former State Department official who were familiar with the plan.”

“We are not previewing the human rights report at this time,” a State Department spokesperson told the Washington Blade on March 21.

Congress requires the State Department to release a human rights report each year. 

The 2023 report specifically noted Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act that contains a death penalty provision for “aggravated homosexuality.” The 2022 report highlighted, among other things, anti-LGBTQ crackdowns in Afghanistan, Russia, and Hungary and so-called conversion therapy.

President Donald Trump since he took office has signed a number of executive orders that have specifically targeted the LGBTQ and intersex community. These include the ā€œDefending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Governmentā€ directive that, among other things,Ā bans the State Department from issuing passports with ā€œXā€ gender markers.

The State Department has eliminated references to transgender travelers from its travel advisories. Germany, Denmark, and Finland have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who are planning to visit the U.S.

A directive that Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued bans embassies and other U.S. diplomatic institutions from flying the Pride flag. (Former President Joe Biden in March 2024 signed a government spending bill with a provision that banned Pride flags from flying over U.S. embassies.)

The U.S. has withdrawn from the U.N. LGBTI Core Group, a group of U.N. member states that have pledged to support LGBTQ and intersex rights, and the Organization of American States’ LGBTI Core Group. The Trump-Vance administration’s decision to suspend most U.S. foreign aid spending has been a “catastrophe” for the global LGBTQ and intersex rights movement.

Continue Reading

National

LGBTQ asylum seeker ‘forcibly removed’ from US, sent to El Salvador

Immigrant Defenders Law Center represents Venezuelan national

Published

on

The Salvadoran capital of El Salvador from El BoquerĆ³n Volcano in 2023. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

An immigrant rights group that represents an LGBTQ asylum seeker from Venezuela says the Trump-Vance administration on March 15 “forcibly removed” him from the U.S. and sent him to El Salvador.

Immigrant Defenders Law Center Litigation and Advocacy Director Alvaro M. Huerta during a telephone interview with the Washington Blade on Tuesday said officials with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection alleged his organization’s client was a member of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuela-based gang, because of his tattoos and no other information.

“It’s very flimsy,” said Huerta. “These are the types of tattoos that any artist in New York City or Los Angeles would have. It’s nothing that makes him a gang member.”

The White House on Feb. 20 designated Tren de Aragua an “international terrorist organization.”

President Donald Trump on March 15 invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which the Associated Press notes allows the U.S. to deport “noncitizens without any legal recourse.”

“I proclaim that all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA (Tren de Aragua), are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies,” said Trump in a proclamation that announced his invocation of the 18th century law.

The asylum seeker ā€” who the Immigrant Defenders Law Center has not identified by name because he is “in danger” ā€” is among the hundreds of Venezuelans who the U.S. sent to El Salvador on March 15.

Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia temporarily blocked the deportations. The AP notes the flights were already in the air when Boasberg issued his ruling.

Huerta said U.S. officials on Monday confirmed the asylum seeker is “indeed in El Salvador.” He told the Blade it remains unclear whether the asylum seeker is in the country’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT.

‘We couldn’t find him’

Huerta said the Immigrant Defenders Law Center client fled Venezuela and asked for asylum in the U.S.

The asylum seeker, according to Huerta, passed a “credible fear interview” that determines whether an asylum claim is valid. Huerta said U.S. officials detained the asylum seeker last year when he returned to the country from the Mexican border city of Tijuana.

Huerta told the Blade the asylum seeker was supposed to appear before an immigration judge on March 13.

“We couldn’t find him,” said Huerta.

He noted speculation over whether Trump was about to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, and the Immigrant Defenders Law Center “started getting concerned that maybe he was caught up in this situation.”

“He’s an LGBT individual who is an artist in Venezuela,” said Huerta.

Neither ICE nor CBP have responded to the Blade’s request for comment.

Huerta said it is “hard to say” whether the asylum seeker has any legal recourse.

“He still has an ongoing case in immigration court here,” said Huerta, noting the asylum seeker’s attorney was in court on Monday, and has another hearing in two weeks. “Presumably they should have to allow him to appear, at least virtually, for court because he still has these cases.”

Huerta noted the U.S. since Trump took office has deported hundreds of migrants to Panama; officials in the Central American country have released dozens of them from detention. Migrants sent to the GuantƔnamo Bay naval base in Cuba have returned to detention facilities in the U.S.

“Something where the government, kind of unliterally, can just say that someone is a gang member based on tattoos, without any offer of proof, without having to go to court to say that and then take them externally to what effectively a prison state (El Salvador), it certainly is completely just different than what we’ve seen,” Huerta told the Blade.

Huerta also spoke about the Trump-Vance administration’s overall immigration policy.

“The Trump administration knows exactly what they’re doing when it comes to scapegoating immigrants, scapegoating asylees,” he said. “They have a population that, in many ways, is politically powerless, but in many other ways, is politically powerful because they have other folks standing behind them as well, but they’re an easy punching bag.”

“They can use this specter of we’re just deporting criminals, even though they’re the ones who are saying that they’re criminal, they’re not necessarily proving that,” added Huerta. “They feel like they can really take that fight and run with it, and they’re testing the bounds of what they can get away with inside and outside of the courtroom.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular