National
Boehner panel directs counsel to defend DOMA
Panel votes 3-2 to defend anti-gay statute
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (Blade photo by Michael Key).
A U.S. House panel on Wednesday voted along party lines to direct general counsel to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court following President Obama’s announcement that his administration would no longer defend the statute against litigation.
In a statement, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which he convened last week after the president’s announcement, had come to the conclusion to direct the House General Counsel to defend DOMA after the Wednesday meeting.
“Today, after consultation with the Bipartisan Leadership Advisory Group, the House General Counsel has been directed to initiate a legal defense of this law,” Boehner said. “This action by the House will ensure that this law’s constitutionality is decided by the courts, rather than by the President unilaterally.”
The five-member Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group consists of the speaker, the majority leader, the majority whip, the minority leader, and minority whip.
Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesperson, said the panel voted 3-2 to direct the House General Counsel to take up defend of DOMA, but had no information on any discussion that took place beforehand.
Boehner as well as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) voted in favor of directing counsel to defend the statute, while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) voted against such action.
Passed by Congress in 1996 and signed into law by then-President Clinton, DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and providing married gay couples with the federal benefits of marriage.
Last month, 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. The move left the decision of whether to continue defense of DOMA in court to Congress.
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 that DOMA is unconstitutional and to call on the court to examine the law with heightened scrutiny.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Blade photo by Michael Key)
In a statement, Pelosi denounced the panel’s decision to take up defense of DOMA in court and called the statute “discriminatory” as well as “unfair and indefensible.”
“Since its proposal and passage, this legislation has raised constitutional questions and has been viewed as a violation of the equal protection clause,” Pelosi said. “The House should not be in the business of defending an unconstitutional statute that is neither rational nor serves any governmental interest. DOMA actually discriminates against American families.”
Pelosi said the defense of DOMA would sap the U.S. government of “hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, if not more” at a time when fiscal resources are limited.
“Pursuing this legal challenge distracts from our core challenges: creating jobs, strengthening the middle class, and responsibly reducing the deficit,” she said. “And that is why I voted against this action today.”
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, also criticized the panel for voting to take action to defend DOMA.
“Apparently, the Republicans’ jobs plan is a full employment project for right-wing lawyers bent on defending discrimination,” Solmonese said. “With today’s vote, Speaker Boehner has made clear that an anti-equality agenda trumps helping American families in tough economic times, including loving and committed couples who are legally married in their states.”
But Casey Pick, programs director for Log Cabin Republicans, said Boehner’s decision to defend DOMA after consulting with the panel is “entirely appropriate.”
“While Log Cabin Republicans firmly believe that DOMA is an unconstitutional intrusion on states’ rights and a violation of individual liberty, we agree with the speaker that the constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts and not by the president unilaterally,” she said.
Pick said “nobody should be surprised that Congress has decided to exercise its legal right, and some would say duty” to defend DOMA given how controversial same-sex marriage is at this time.
“We are confident that this law will ultimately be overturned despite any defense presented by House Counsel, and will continue to work with our allies in Congress to advocate for legislative repeal,” she said. “With that decided, it is critical that Congress not waste anymore time on the president’s efforts to distract Republicans with divisive social issues, and instead return to working on the issues that matter most: jobs and the economy.”
A Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Democrats on the panel pushed back on the decision to intervene on behalf of DOMA before the vote took place.
The aide said Boehner’s statement is misleading becaues it implies the panel held a bipartisan vote in favor of defending DOMA when in fact Pelosi and Hoyer “forcefully argued against the House intervening in these cases.”
According to the aide, Pelosi and Hoyer pressed General Counsel Kerry Kirchner on how much intervening to defend the statute in court would cost the U.S. government.
“General Counsel Kerry Kirchner would only say it would ‘not be inexpensive,'” the aide said. “Mr. Kirchner noted that there are currently at least 10 cases and he does not have the in-house resources to deal with that many cases as he has a staff of five with one lawyer currently on maternity leave.”
The aide said Kirchner told the panel he believed the House intervention in the DOMA case would take a minimum of 18 months because litigation could continue for years before the U.S. Supreme Court hears one of these cases.
“Mr. Kirchner also laid out that the Reagan Administration chose to no longer defend 5 laws in the 1980s,” the aide said. “Clearly, the Republicans were fine with a Republican President choosing not to defend statutes passed by the Congress.”
According to the aide, Pelosi repeatedly pushed back on assertions that the administration was deciding the constitutionality of DOMA by declining to defend the law in court.
“She noted that judicial review was continuing and that a number of groups were filing pro-DOMA briefs in the cases so there was no need for the House to intervene,” the aide said. “And that the administration was still enforcing the law.”
In response, a Republican aide, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, called the Democratic aide’s account of the discussion that took place “silly.”
The GOP aide took issue with the Democratic aide’s assertion that Republicans were fine when President Reagan declined to defend laws in court against litigation.
“Republicans didn’t have the majority in the House during the Reagan administration,” the GOP aide said. “That comparison doesn’t even make sense.”
Additionally, the Republican aide also said decisions haven’t yet been made on the cost and duration of any potential DOMA cases.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.
In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.
The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.
He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”
Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”
Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.
Federal Government
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams
In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”
The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.
“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”
Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”
Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”
“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”
Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.
Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.
The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.
New York
Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade
One of the victims remains in critical condition
On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.
According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.
The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.
The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.
In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.
The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.
New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.
“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”
Maryland’s oldest rural gay bar — and one of the last — is a log cabin in the woods
USAID’s demise: America’s global betrayal of trust with LGBTQ people
Manchester is vibrant tapestry of culture, history, and Pride
Embracing the chaos can be part of the fun
Lesbian feminist becomes South African MP
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
Celebrate the Fourth of July the gay way!
Va. court allows conversion therapy despite law banning it
Doug Spearman takes his chance
