Connect with us

Living

Boehner: Cut DOJ funds to pay for House DOMA defense

Speaker taps Bush solicitor general to defend law

Published

on

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

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Monday called for redirection of funds from the Justice Department to Congress to pay for defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court as he made public his decision to hire a U.S. solicitor general from the Bush administration to defend the anti-gay statute.

In a letter dated April 18 to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Boehner calls for cutting funds from the Justice Department to provide money to the House general counsel to pay for congressional costs to defend in court DOMA, the 1996 anti-gay law that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

On the same day, Boehner’s office announced that Paul Clement, who served as U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, would assist the House general counsel in taking up defense of DOMA against litigation. Clement is now a partner at the D.C.-based office for the firm King & Spalding, where he manages the national appellate practice.

Boehner made the announcements on the deadline day for the House to decide whether or not to intervene in one case challenging DOMA, Windsor v. United States, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and is pending before the U.S. District Court of Southern District of New York. The House general counsel filed a notice of its intent to intervene on Monday.

In his letter to Pelosi, Boehner writes that funds should be redirected from the Obama administration to Congress to pay for expenses that the speaker says would have been more rightfully incurred by the Justice Department.

“Obviously, DOJ’s decision results in DOJ no longer needing the funds it would have otherwise expended defending the constitutionality of DOMA,” Boehner writes. “It is my intent that those funds be diverted to the House for reimbursement of any costs incurred by and associated with the House, and not DOJ, defending DOMA.”

On Feb. 23, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder notified Congress that President Obama determined DOMA was unconstitutional and that the Justice Department would no longer defend the anti-gay law against litigation in court. Following a 3-2 party-line vote in March by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Council, Boehner directed the House general counsel to take up defense of DOMA in place of the administration.

In his letter, Boehner writes that the Justice Department would be in a better position to defend DOMA — both in terms of resource allocation and in expertise of personnel — but adds the administration’s decision to drop defense of the anti-gay law leaves Congress no other option but to face “that additional burden and cost.

“I would also point out that the cost associated with DOJ’s decision is exacerbated by the timing of this decision,” Boehner writes. “Most of these cases are in the middle of lower court litigation and not ripe for Supreme Court review. Had the Attorney General waited until the cases were ripe for certiorari to the Supreme Court, the costs associated with the House defense would have been exponentially lower.”

Obama dropped defense of DOMA in court after litigation against the statute was filed in the U.S. Second Circuit. Since no legal precedent for laws related to sexual orientation exists within this circuit, Obama had the opportunity to examine DOMA with heightened scrutiny, which led to his determination that the anti-gay law was unconstitutional.

Boehner’s letter was in response to a March 11 letter that Pelosi sent to the speaker asking him if he had an estimate for House defense of DOMA and a plan to provide congressional oversight of these expenses. Earlier this month during a news conference, Boehner told the Washington Blade he doesn’t have an estimate on the cost for House defense of DOMA.

In his letter, Boehner asks Pelosi, a sponsor of legislation to repeal DOMA, to join him in backing the redirection of funds from the Justice Department to Congress to defend the anti-gay statute in court.

“I would welcome your joining me in support of redirecting those resources from the DOJ to the House that would otherwise have been necessary expenses on the Attorney General to defend this federal statute,” Boehner writes.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

In another letter dated April 18 responding to Boehner, Pelosi writes that the speaker didn’t answer the central question in her initial missive on the total estimated cost for House defense of DOMA.

“Unfortunately, your letter did not respond to the central question in my March 11th letter: the cost to taxpayers of hiring outside legal counsel,” Pelosi writes. “Again, I am requesting that you disclose the cost of hiring outside counsel for the 12 cases where DOMA is being challenged.”

Pelosi also maintains that House defense of DOMA against litigation isn’t required and disputes an assertion from Boehner that administration’s decision amounts to the president unilaterally determining the constitutionality of the anti-gay law.

“As you know, only the courts can determine the constitutionality of a statute passed by the Congress,” Pelosi writes.

Finally, Pelosi takes issue with Boehner’s decision to hire Clement as an attorney in the case and says Democrats weren’t informed about the decision beforehand.

“According to reports, a contract engaging Paul D. Clement to serve as the outside counsel reportedly was forwarded to the Committee on House Administration, although not to the Democratic members or staff of the Committee,” Pelosi writes. “I would like to know when the contract with Mr. Clement was signed, and why a copy was not provided to Democrats on the Committee.”

One LGBT advocate lambasted Boehner for declaring that Congress should defund part of the Justice Department so that House can take up defense of DOMA.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said Boehner’s decision amounts to a betrayal of House Republicans promise to work to improve the economy if elected to a majority in Congress.

“The House Republican Leadership continues to show that they’re more interested in scoring cheap political points on the backs of same-sex couples than tackling real problems,” Solmonese said. “As Americans across the country continue to struggle, Speaker Boehner’s prescription has been to keep families he doesn’t like from accessing needed protections. To add insult to injury, he’s now signed on to a right-wing plan to cut funding for the Department of Justice.”

Boehner cannot unilaterally redirect congressionally allocated funds from the Justice Department to the House for the purposes of defending DOMA. Both the House and the Senate would have to approve the fund redistribution legislatively through the appropriations process — and such a measure would need Obama’s signature for enactment.

During a news conference Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in response to a question from ABC News’ Ann Compton on Boehner’s call to redirect from funds the Justice Department that the administration would work with Congress on the issue.

“I’m not aware of that [letter],” Carney said. “I don’t any comment specifically on funding. I do know that the day that announced that this year. I spoke about it, but we obviously will work with Congress, if Congress so chooses to move forward.”

Pressed further by Compton, Carney deferred comment to the Justice Department. Both the White House and the Justice Department declined to comment further on the development in response to a request by the Blade.

The total amount of funds that Congress could redirect from the Justice Department to the House general counsel as a result of the Obama administration’s decision to no longer defend DOMA in court remains in questions. In testimony March 1 before the House Appropriations Committee, Holder said the funds that the Justice Department would save by not defending DOMA would be insignificant.

“I’m not sure we save any money, frankly.” Holder said. “The people who would be defending the statute, were we to do that, are career employees of the Department of Justice, who will not be spending their time doing that; they will be spending their time doing other things. I’m not sure that I see any savings as a result of the decision that I announced with the president.”

Paul Clement (photo courtesy King & Spalding)

Boehner taps Paul Clement to defend DOMA

In addition to railing against Boehner’s call to defund part of the Justice Department to defend DOMA, LGBT advocates criticized Boehner for hiring Clement as outside counsel to defend the anti-gay law in court as well as the attorney for taking up the speaker’s cause.

According to his bio on King & Spalding’s website, Clement served as the 43rd U.S. solicitor general 2005 to 2008 and argued more than 50 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In private practice, Clement has focused on appellate matters, constitutional litigation and strategic counseling.

In September 2009, the Washingtonian reported that Clement was making $5 million at the law firm — while the average salary for other attorneys at the firm made $1.235 million in 2008. D.C. managing partner J. Sedwick Sollers reportedly wouldn’t comment on Clement’s salary.

Clement didn’t respond on short notice to the Blade’s request to comment on why he was interested in defending DOMA or what his legal fees would cost the U.S. government.

Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesperson, confirmed that the speaker had hired Clement to take on defense of DOMA, but didn’t have information the fees for taking him on retainer.

“The costs will be determined by Mr. Clement’s legal strategy,” Steel said. “Earlier today, the Speaker sent a letter to Rep. Pelosi, the Democratic Leader in the House, urging her to work with us to redirect the necessary funds from the Department of Justice — since they have declined to defend the law.”

LGBT advocates had harsh words for both Clement and King & Spalding for facilitating defense of DOMA in court. Solmonese rebuked the firm’s for allowing Clement to defend the ant-gay law as part of his private practice.

“The firm of King & Spalding has brought a shameful stain on its reputation in arguing for discrimination against loving, married couples,” Solmonese said.  “No amount taxpayer money they rake in will mitigate this blemish on the King & Spalding name.”

According to HRC, media reports have indicated that Clement’s hourly fees could top $1,000, which could his role in defending DOMA pricey for the U.S. government if the litigation, as expected, takes years to reach the Supreme Court.

James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and AIDS project, said Boehner’s decision to take on a private attorney to defend DOMA is notable at a time when deficit reduction is a top priority among U.S. leaders.

“It’s striking that Congress has decided at a time of budget cuts that this where they want to spend their money,” Esseks said. “They want to spend taxpayer dollars to try to defend a law that clearly is unconstitutional instead of trying of getting rid of the law, which they can easily do.”

Esseks said he doesn’t have an estimate for how much retaining Clement would cost the U.S government, but — noting his job history and his position at a prestigious law firm — said Clement’s legal fees would be probably be “pretty high.”

But Gary Buseck, legal director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which has two pending cases challenging DOMA — Gill v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management and Pedersen v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management — had more mild words for Clement.

“Paul Clement is obviously a well-respected attorney,” Buseck said. “We’re happy the House has chosen its counsel so that the DOMA litigation can once again go forward.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Real Estate

Unconventional homes becoming more popular

HGTV show shines spotlight on alternatives to cookie cutter

Published

on

Shipping container homes have gained popularity in recent years. (Photo by Suchat Siriboot/Bigstock)

While stuck in the house surrounded by snow and ice, I developed a new guilty pleasure: watching “Ugliest House in America” on HGTV. For several hours a day, I looked at other people’s unfortunate houses. Some were victims of multiple additions, some took on the worst décor of the ‘70s, and one was even built in the shape of a boat.

In today’s world, the idea of what a house should look like has shifted dramatically. Gone are the days of cookie-cutter suburban homes with white picket fences. Instead, a new wave of architects, designers, and homeowners are pushing the boundaries of traditional housing to create unconventional and innovative spaces that challenge our perceptions of what a home can be.

One of the most popular forms of alternative housing is the tiny house. These pint-sized dwellings are typically fewer than 500 square feet and often are set on trailers to allow for mobility. Vans and buses can also be reconfigured as tiny homes for the vagabonds among us.

These small wonders offer an affordable and sustainable living option for those wishing to downsize and minimize their environmental footprint. With clever storage solutions, multipurpose furniture, and innovative design features, tiny homes have become a creative and functional housing solution for many, although my dogs draw the line at climbing Jacob’s Ladder-type steps.

Another unusual type of housing gaining popularity is the shipping container home. Made from repurposed shipping containers, these homes offer a cost-effective and environmentally friendly way to create modern and sleek living spaces. With their industrial aesthetic and modular design, shipping container homes are a versatile option for those contemplating building a unique and often multi-level home.

For those looking to connect with nature, treehouses are a whimsical and eccentric housing option. Nestled high up in the trees, these homes offer a sense of seclusion and tranquility that is hard to find in traditional housing. With their distinctive architecture and stunning views, treehouses can be a magical retreat for those seeking a closer connection to the natural world.

For a truly off-the-grid living experience, consider an Earthship home. These self-sustaining homes use recycled construction materials and rely on renewable energy sources like solar power and rainwater harvesting. With their passive solar design and natural ventilation systems, Earthship homes are a model of environmentally friendly living.

For those with a taste for the bizarre, consider a converted silo home. These cylindrical structures provide an atypical canvas for architects and designers to create modern and minimalist living spaces. With curved walls and soaring ceilings, silo homes offer a one-of-a-kind living experience that is sure to leave an impression.

Barn homes have gained popularity in recent years. These dwellings take the rustic charm of a traditional barn and transform it into a modern and stylish living space. With their open, flexible floor plans, lofty ceilings, and exposed wooden beams, barn homes offer a blend of traditional and contemporary design elements that create a warm and inviting atmosphere, while being tailored to the needs and preferences of the homeowner.

In addition to their unique character, barn homes also offer a sense of history and charm that is hard to find in traditional housing. Many of them have a rich and storied past, with some dating back decades or even centuries.

If you relish life on the high seas (or at a marina on the bay), consider a floating home. These aquatic abodes differ from houseboats in that they remain on the dock rather than traverse the waterways. While most popular on the West Coast (remember “Sleepless in Seattle”?), you sometimes see them in Florida, with a few rentals available in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor and infrequent sales at our own D.C. Wharf. Along with the sense of community found in marinas, floating homes offer a peaceful retreat from the hustle and bustle of city life.

From tiny homes on wheels to treehouses in the sky or homes that float, these distinctive dwellings offer a fresh perspective on how we live and modify traditional thoughts on what a house should be. Sadly, most of these homes rely on appropriate zoning for building and placement, which can limit their use in urban or suburban areas. 

Nonetheless, whether you’re looking for a sustainable and eco-friendly living option or a whimsical retreat, there is sure to be an unconventional housing option that speaks to your sense of adventure and creativity. So, why settle for a run-of-the-mill ranch or a typical townhouse when you can live in a unique and intriguing space that reflects your personality and lifestyle?


Valerie M. Blake is a licensed Associate Broker in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia with RLAH @properties. Call or text her at 202-246-8602, email her at [email protected] or follow her on Facebook at TheRealst8ofAffairs.

Continue Reading

Real Estate

Convert rent check into an automatic investment, Marjorie!

Basic math shows benefits of owning vs. renting

Published

on

Knowledgeable lenders can discuss useful down payment assistance programs to help a buyer ‘find the money.’ (

Suppose people go out for dinner and everyone is talking about how they are investing their money. Some are having fun with a few new apps they downloaded – where one can round up purchases and then bundle that money into a weekly or monthly investment that grows over time, which is a smart thing to do. The more automatic one can make the investments, the less is required to “think about it” and the more it just happens. It becomes a habit and a habit becomes a reward over time.  

Another habit one can get into is just making that rent check an investment. One must live somewhere, correct? And in many larger U.S. cities like New York, Chicago, D.C., Los Angeles, Miami, Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, Nashville, Austin, or even most mid-market cities, rents can creep up towards $2,000 a month (or more) with ease.  

Well, do the math. At $2,000 per month over one year, that’s $24,000. If someone stays in that apartment (with no rent increases) for even three years, that amount triples to $72,000.  According to Rentcafe.com, the average rent in the United States at the end of 2025 was around $1,700 a month. Even that amount of rent can total between $60,000 and $80,000 over 3-4 years.  

What if that money was going into an investment each month? Now, yes, the argument is that most mortgage payments, in the early years, are more toward the interest than the principal.  However, at least a portion of each payment is going toward the principal.  

What about closing costs and then selling costs? If a home is owned for three years, and then one pays out of pocket to close on that home (usually around 2-3% of the sales price), does owning it for even three years make it worth it? It could be argued that owning that home for only three years is not enough time to recoup the costs of mostly paying the interest plus paying the closing costs.

Let’s look at some math:

A $300,000 condo – at 3% is $9,000 for closing costs.

One can also put as little as 3 or 3.5% down on a home – so that is also around $9,000. 

If a buyer uses D.C. Opens Doors or a similar program – a down payment can be provided and paid back later when the property is sold so that takes care of some of the upfront costs. Knowledgeable lenders can often discuss other useful down payment assistance programs to help a buyer “find the money.”  

Another useful tactic many agents use is to ask for a credit from the seller. If a property has sat on the market for weeks, the seller may be willing to give a closing cost credit. That amount can vary. New construction sellers may also offer these closing cost credits as well.  

And that, Marjorie, just so you will know, and your children will someday know, is THE NIGHT THE RENT CHECK WENT INTO AN INVESTMENT ACCOUNT ON GEORGIA AVENUE!


Joseph Hudson is a referral agent with Metro Referrals. Reach him at 703-587-0597 or [email protected].

Continue Reading

Autos

Hot rod heaven: Chevy Corvette, Dodge Charger

Two muscle cars strut their stuff

Published

on

Chevrolet Corvette

Some vehicles age quietly — but not muscle cars. 

For 2026, the Chevrolet Corvette tightens its focus, fixes one glaring flaw (the previously dowdy interior) and flaunts a futuristic design. The Dodge Charger, on the other hand, is loud and proud, daring you to ignore its presence at your peril. 

CHEVROLET CORVETTE

$73,000-$92,000

MPG: 16 city/25 highway

0 to 60 mph: 2.8 seconds

Cargo space: 13 cu. ft.

PROS: Awesome acceleration. Race-car feel. Snazzy cabin. 

CONS: No manual transmission. No rear seat. Tight storage. 

Finally, the Chevrolet Corvette feels as good inside as it looks flying past you on the freeway. That’s thanks to the classy, completely redesigned cabin. Gone is the old, polarizing wall of buttons in favor of a sleeker, three-screen cockpit. There’s a large digital gauge cluster, a wide infotainment screen angled toward the driver, and a marvy new auxiliary display. Everything is modern and a bit glitzy — but in a good way.  

Fit and finish are higher quality than before, and the controls are more intuitive. Chevy’s Performance App is now standard across trims, offering real-time data for drivers who enjoy metrics as much as momentum. And the new interior color schemes, including slick asymmetrical options, let you express yourself without screaming for attention—confidence, not obnoxious bluster. 

As for handling, the steering is quick and sure, body control is exceptional, and acceleration is blazingly fast. A mid-engine layout also delivers sublime balance. 

Three trim options, including the V8-powered Stingray, the E-Ray (also with a V8 but paired with electric all-wheel drive), and the Z06 and ZR1 variants for racing devotees. 

(Note to self: For a truly mind-blowing experience, there’s the new 1,250-horsepower ZR1X all-electric supercar that goes from 0 to 60 mph in less that 2 seconds and is priced starting at $208,000.)

Yes, the ride in any of these Corvettes can be firm. And visibility is, well, rather compromised. But this supercar is a total Dom, not a timid sub. Think Alexander Skarsgard in “Pillion,” and you get the picture. 

DODGE CHARGER

$52,000-$65,000

MPG: 16 city/26 highway

0 to 60 mph: 3.9 seconds

Cargo capacity: 22.75 cu. ft.

PROS: Choice of gas or EV power. Modern tech. Spacious cabin. 

CONS: No V8 engine (yet). Soft steering. Less-than-lithe cornering.

Everything old is new again for the Dodge Charger. The automaker initially was phasing out gas-powered models in a shift to electric vehicles but then quickly pivoted back to include gas engines after yo-yo regulatory changes this year from, well, the yo-yos in the White House. 

Powerful twin-turbo engines in the R/T and Scat Pack trims produce up to 550 horsepower. These models come standard with all-wheel drive but can be switched to rear-wheel drive for classic muscle-car antics when the mood strikes you.

At the same time, Dodge still offers the electric Charger Daytona, delivering up to 670 horsepower and ferocious straight-line acceleration. 

The Charger’s aggressive design, massive digital displays and practical hatchback layout carry over, reinforcing its ability to be both a performance diva and everyday companion. With the larger-than-expected storage space, I appreciated being able to fit a boatload of groceries in the trunk during a Costco run. 

New wheel designs, paint choices and trim variations help you visually distinguish between gas and electric Chargers. But no matter the model, each one feels decisive and deliberate on the road. Commuting in stop-and-go traffic during rush hour is fine, but this street machine excels at high-speed cruising on the freeway. 

The turbo six-cylinder engine delivers muscular torque with less drama than the old V8s, but still with plenty of urgency. The electric Daytona version is a different kind of thrill, with its instant, silent thrust that feels like it could almost launch you to the moon. 

Steering is stable but not exactly crisp, and the Charger’s weight makes it less lithe—and lively—than other muscle cars, especially when navigating tight corners. 

But that’s just fine with me. Like Bea Arthur as Dorothy in “The Golden Girls,” this no-nonsense muscle car is proud to be big, bold and brassy. 

Continue Reading

Popular