National
Anti-gay Bush official sentenced to jail
Bloch guilty in criminal contempt of Congress case
Bloch
A Bush administration official who came under criticism for refusing to enforce anti-discrimination policies protecting gay federal workers was sentenced on March 30 to one month in jail on a charge of criminal contempt of Congress.
Scott J. Bloch, who served as head of the U.S. Office of Special Council from 2004 to 2008, is appealing the sentence, which was handed down in Washington by U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson. Robinson also sentenced him to one year of unsupervised probation and 200 hours of community service.
She agreed to put a stay on the sentence while Bloch’s attorney, William Sullivan, files an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Sullivan said the appeal is based on Bloch’s contention that he did not know the offense of contempt of Congress, to which he pleaded guilty in April 2010, carries a required minimum sentence of 30 days in jail.
The appeal seeks to overturn Robinson’s denial last month of a motion by Bloch to withdraw his guilty plea.
Robinson said she interpreted the statute to include a required jail term of at least one month for those convicted of or who plead guilty to criminal contempt of Congress. She noted that at the time Bloch pleaded guilty, he explicitly acknowledged — in response to her questions in the courtroom — that a prosecutors’ plea bargain agreement he accepted did not prevent her from sentencing him to a prison term of up to six months.
Sullivan strongly disputes her interpretation of the statute, saying in court papers that two other judges have sentenced people convicted under the contempt of Congress statute to probation without any jail time. Robinson said those cases were irrelevant because the statute gives her discretion to sentence Bloch to up to six months in jail.
Bloch’s sentencing last week marked yet another twist in a seven-year saga that began in 2004, upon his appointment by President George W. Bush as head of an office charged with protecting federal employees from discriminatory personnel practices. The independent Office of Special Counsel, which Bloch headed, is also charged with protecting federal employees who become whistleblowers by disclosing corruption or gross incompetence within federal government agencies.
Immediately upon taking office, Bloch announced that he disagreed with a longstanding interpretation of a U.S. civil service law believed to protect federal workers from job-related discrimination based solely on their sexual orientation. Saying he interpreted the statute to limit its coverage of gays to matters involving “homosexual acts,” Bloch said gay or lesbian federal employees could no longer be protected against improper personnel practices based on their sexual orientation.
His position on gay federal workers triggered an immediate outcry from LGBT advocacy organizations and their allies in Congress. A spokesperson for Bush surprised some political observers when he said it remained the policy of the White House and the administration that gay or lesbian federal workers were, in fact, protected against sexual orientation discrimination.
LGBT rights groups, while expressing appreciation for the Bush administration statement, pointed out that Bloch appeared to be ignoring the statement by continuing to operate the Office of Special Counsel as if gay and lesbian federal employees were not protected.
In addition to criticism over his position on gay federal workers, Block came under attack over allegations that he improperly sought to purge employees in his office who disagreed with him, including at least two gay employees. The latter allegations led to a congressional investigation into Bloch and the Office of Special Counsel.
Allegations that eventually led to his being charged with contempt of Congress began in 2006, when investigators raised questions about whether Bloch arranged for a computer services company called Geeks on Call to “scrub” files from his office computer as well as from the computers of two of his political appointees at the Office of Special Counsel.
Bloch was under investigation at the time by the inspector general of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management that he allegedly improperly retaliated against former Office of Special Counsel employees.
In May 2008, the FBI raided Bloch’s office and home, confiscating computers and various files. In October 2008 the White House requested and received his resignation.
The case docket for the U.S. District Court, which is now handling Bloch’s criminal case, shows that his sentencing date was postponed several times since he pleaded guilty nearly a year ago. The main cause of the postponements has been his attorney’s dispute with the judge over whether the contempt of Congress statute carries a mandatory jail term of at least 30 days.
In an unusual development, federal prosecutors joined defense attorney Sullivan in arguing in court filings that they did not agree with Robinson’s interpretation that the statute carries a required jail term. Assistant U.S. Attorney Glenn Leon, the lead prosecutor in the case, argued in court papers that the government believes the statute gives judges discretion to sentence someone to probation without a prison term.
“Both parties entered into the plea agreement believing that 2 U.S.C. 192 [the contempt of Congress statute] was a probation-eligible offense,” Leon said in a court brief. “In light of the Court’s ruling to the contrary, the government believes that fairness requires it to not oppose the defendant’s motion to withdraw, because otherwise the plea agreement would not reflect what the parties negotiated and agreed to in good faith.”
Some critics, including gay blogger John Aravosis of AmericaBlog, questioned whether the Obama administration was siding with Bloch to prevent a legal precedent that could result in the jailing of Obama administration officials who might get into trouble with the law in the future.
During a court hearing last week, Robinson agreed to consider another request by Sullivan that she allow Bloch to serve his one-month jail sentence in home confinement if the sentence is upheld on appeal.
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.
Adams Morgan queer bar broken into and vandalized
‘Things Like This’ embraces formula and plus-size visibility
Calendar: May 23-29
Comings & Goings
New doc chronicles gay hero’s journey from rape to forgiveness
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
