Living

Boehner: Cut DOJ funds to pay for House DOMA defense

Speaker taps Bush solicitor general to defend law

Published

15 years ago

April 18, 2011

Chris Johnson

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.”

Up Next

McKeon backs legislation to disrupt ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal

Don't Miss

Tough questioning for Gallagher at marriage hearing

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

Real Estate

D.C.’s housing reality: Cautious optimism meets landlord strain

Cost of living remains a major problem

Published

5 days ago

June 7, 2026

Scott Bloom

(Photo by sparky2000/Bigstock)

Washington has long prided itself on stability. Anchored by the federal government and buoyed by a highly educated workforce, the District has historically weathered economic uncertainty better than most cities.

But beneath that stability, cracks have been showing since January 2025.

I was having a conversation with a prospective client the other day and offered him a candid assessment of the District’s economic outlook. Simply put, structural challenges have been shaping the city’s future, a new mayoral election, and more that blends cautious optimism with clear concern about the changes ahead.

For one, the long-term shift toward remote and hybrid work continues to reshape the city in ways many people still underestimate. There has been a change in the rhythm of downtown D.C., reduced daytime foot traffic for local businesses, and created uncertainty for commercial real estate owners and the neighborhoods that depended on those workers every day.

At the same time, the cost of living in the District continues to rise at a pace that many residents are struggling to absorb. Even residents with strong incomes are becoming more cautious about spending and relocation decisions.

Landlords are feeling those pressures as well. Many smaller housing providers are operating in an environment where expenses continue to rise faster than revenue while the regulatory environment has grown increasingly complex. For some rental owners, especially those with older buildings or only a few rental units, the math is making it harder to cover costs, much less generate passive income.

There is also growing concern about the District government’s own financial outlook. Significant budget pressures and spending cuts are being had in a more serious way than many Washingtonians are used to hearing. As uncertainty in federal employment affects local tax revenue and consumer confidence, how will the city fund services, infrastructure, housing programs, and public safety priorities in the years ahead?

At the same time, consumer confidence feels noticeably down than it did even a few years ago. People are taking longer to make decisions, whether that means signing a lease, purchasing a home, renovating a property, or expanding a business. That hesitation creates a slower-moving marketplace where caution often replaces momentum.

Despite all this, Washington has proven remarkably resilient over time. The city continues to attract talented professionals, international investment, universities, healthcare institutions, and industries tied to government, law, technology, and public policy. Neighborhoods continue to evolve, and demand for well-managed rental housing remains strong in the core areas of the city.

Unlike other major cities driven by private industry, federal employment and contracting are two of the main pillars of Washington’s economy. That reliance has long insulated the region from deep recessions. But it also creates vulnerability when federal activity slows.

D.C.’s economy is far more interconnected and interdependent than many people fully appreciate. Between significant federal layoffs, the District’s high unemployment rate, and broader economic uncertainty, there are a number of warning signs that property owners should be paying close attention to. When federal hiring slows or contracts tighten, the impact extends well beyond government workers themselves. It affects restaurants, retail, housing, and countless other sectors tied to the District’s economic activity.

Brookings Institution has documented how job losses in higher-income sectors can disproportionately impact urban economies—precisely because those workers drive local spending.

Research from the Urban Institute supports this view, noting that federal workforce disruptions can quickly ripple through the region’s economy. For landlords and renters alike, those ripples are already being felt. Renters see many more properties on the market which gives them leverage on negotiating discounts in rent or special incentives. Housing providers, already squeezed by the reality of a weak economy and strong regulations face lowering rents and income.

For years, affordability has been one of D.C.’s most persistent challenges. Much of that pressure has been driven by strong job growth and sustained demand for housing at a pace that new housing inventory has struggled to match. That imbalance has steadily pushed rents and home prices higher, leaving many residents financially stretched.

Recent multifamily housing data suggests the market is already beginning to adjust. Developers delivered more than 15,000 apartment units across the Washington metropolitan area over the past year, and several industry reports have noted that elevated supply levels, combined with slower demand growth, have contributed to softer occupancy levels and downward pressure on rents in portions of the region. CoStar, CBRE, and Northmarq have all reported rising vacancy rates across segments of the D.C. multifamily market as newly delivered Class A inventory continues entering the pipeline at a time when hiring growth has moderated and federal workforce uncertainty has increased.

At the same time, several economists and housing analysts have cautioned that the District’s affordability challenges are deeply structural and unlikely to disappear quickly. The Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University has repeatedly identified Washington among the nation’s more cost-burdened metropolitan areas, particularly for renters, while Zillow data continues to show housing costs consuming a substantial percentage of household income for many residents.

From my own perspective as a property manager working directly in the market every day, I believe we are beginning to see the early stages of a market recalibration rather than a collapse. Anecdotally, there appears to be more competition among larger apartment buildings than there was several years ago, particularly in neighborhoods where substantial new inventory has recently delivered. That does not necessarily mean dramatic rent declines are coming, but it does suggest that the imbalance between supply and demand may be moderating somewhat after years of sustained upward pressure on pricing.

Even if prices soften, affordability will remain a long-term challenge.

Regulation and the Realities of Tenant Turnover

The same rental owner I spoke with pointed to regulatory hurdles as a major source of hesitation to continue renting out his property, given past bad experiences with tenants and excessive costs to prepare the rental for a new tenant.

For many small property owners, the cumulative weight of regulation, maintenance costs, and market uncertainty is becoming harder to bear. Clients of mine have described feeling overwhelmed, not just financially, but emotionally. What was once a source of pride has, in some cases, become a source of stress.

We’re seeing more small landlords sell their rental homes, questioning whether it’s worth staying in the market. That’s a significant shift from even five or ten years ago. The National Multifamily Housing Council has noted that regulatory complexity often disproportionately impacts smaller landlords, who lack the resources of larger firms.

Some are choosing to sell. Others are simply trying to hold on. The result is the same – less rental housing for DC residents.

A Shift From Pride to Disillusionment

Perhaps the most striking theme is the emotional shift described by the property owner. For some, owning property in D.C., once a milestone achievement, has become a source of disillusionment. They cited financial losses, regulatory frustration, and a growing sense of political alienation.

There are also broader concerns about:

The decline of small multifamily ownership
Rising foreclosures in certain segments
Increased consolidation by larger institutional landlords

If small landlords continue to exit the market, it changes the entire housing ecosystem. You lose diversity in housing options, and that can have long-term consequences for affordability. It also robs families of having homes large enough to live in.

Politics and Policy: A System at a Standstill?

The political environment has obviously been a key factor shaping the city’s housing future. Following the 2026 elections, a lack of significant leadership change may result in continued policy stagnation.

Without meaningful policy shifts, we’re likely to see more of the same: continued and increasing pressure on landlords and not enough study and focus on policies to increase housing supply by first stopping those property owners fleeing the District’s extreme tenant friendliness. The D.C. City Council remains central to these decisions, with advocacy groups continuing to push for expanded tenant protections. The importance of balance cannot be understated: ensuring protections for renters while maintaining a viable environment for housing providers.

Taken together, these dynamics point to a housing system at a crossroads.

D.C. must find a way to balance:

Tenant protections
Housing affordability
Landlord sustainability
Long-term investment in housing supply

What’s Next?

D.C. isn’t going anywhere. The question is how it adapts. If we can find the right balance, there’s a path forward, but it’s going to take time and thoughtful policy decisions. For landlords, that path will require adaptability and engagement. For renters, it may mean gradual rather than immediate relief. For policymakers, it presents a clear challenge: create a system that works for everyone.

Scott Bloom is owner and senior property manager of Columbia Property Management. Contact him via ColumbiaPM.com.

Real Estate

Introducing Next-Generation Assisted Living & Memory Support.

Now Available in Tysons: Kokua at The Mather

Published

2 weeks ago

May 28, 2026

Autos

A magical Mercedes

S-Class continues to define what luxury really means

Published

3 weeks ago

May 23, 2026

Joe Phillips

Mercedes S-Class

At my stage of life — “somewhere between 40 and death,” as the iconic line goes in the musical “Mame” — I want some pampering. A lot of pampering.

Luckily, for anyone who constantly craves a soothing spa, steam room or sauna, there’s the completely updated Mercedes S-Class. This flagship sedan is now so full of glitz, glamour, and gee-whiz gadgetry, it gives new meaning to the term “auto erotica.”

Does this make the S-Class a “gay” ride? For me, any vehicle that pushes my buttons like this one is a Kinsey 6.

MERCEDES S-CLASS

$122,000 (est.)

MPG: 21 city/31 highway

0 to 60 mph: 4.3 seconds

Trunk space: 19 cu. ft.

PROS: Exceptional comfort. Ultra-quiet cabin. Cutting-edge safety.

CONS: Price climbs fast. Tech learning curve. Sportier competitors.

The S-Class continues to define what luxury really means, with a bolder silhouette, larger grille, and striking, next-gen LED headlights. There’s also an optional illuminated Mercedes star on the hood. Overall, nearly 2,700 parts are new or improved, so more than 50 percent of this vehicle has been updated. An extreme makeover, to be sure.

At the same time, this latest S-Class leans harder into intelligence and electrification than ever before. Under the hood, a range of turbocharged inline-six and V8 engines — paired with mild-hybrid systems — deliver power in a way that seems almost edited for smoothness. Braking is solid and strong, too, but never abrupt. All the engineering is fine-tuned and intentional.

Yes, the top-of-the line S580 version is more expensive, almost $140,000. But it’s also blisteringly fast, zipping from 0 to 60 mph in just 3.9 seconds. That’s as lickety-split swift as a Lamborghini Revuelto supercar, which has a starting MSRP of $610,000 and can easily exceed — yowza! — $800,000.

Colors? There are 150 to choose from for the exterior and 400 for the interior. You can even customize the illuminated door sills, interior stitching and wheel accents.

And the ride quality? Sublime. Adaptive air suspension reads the road constantly, leveling out imperfections before they even register. Rear-axle steering enhances maneuverability, making this full-sized sedan feel surprisingly nimble in tight spaces. On the highway, the S-Class simply glides like a private yacht on the calmest of seas — extremely quiet, composed and completely unbothered.

Whenever you slide inside, the cabin immediately sets the tone. A massive OLED digital display — the same high-def technology used for cinematic viewing and gaming monitors — anchors the dashboard, running the latest MBUX infotainment interface. Highly customizable, this software allows for advanced voice commands that feel natural, not forced. And an augmented-reality navigation system takes your route and overlays it onto live camera feeds. It’s intuitive — mostly, as there is a learning curve for all this cutting-edge gear. Overall, though, such amenities make older setups feel like dial-up internet.

A Burmester surround-sound stereo is available in 3D or 4D, with up to 31 speakers, 1,690 watts and tactile transducers in the seats that vibrate and pulse with the music. Those seats are, of course, extremely comfortable. And the seatbelts? These are now heated.

Let’s not forget the latest cabin air-filtration system, which can remove ultra-fine particles to deliver air quality that rivals medical environments. Clean air, yes, but even this seems like a special treat. It’s like being swaddled in couture, not ready-to-wear.

And lastly, there’s the rear-seat area, which — to be honest — is where the S-Class really shines. Executive packages offer multi-contour reclining seats with rapid heating and ventilating, heated armrests and massage functions. You can opt for a footrest, which ups the glam factor to give you a calf massage. Dual 13.1-inch display screens come with their own remote controls. There’s also a video-conferencing feature, to help transform the rear cabin into a fully connected mobile office. For me, it feels less “back seat” and more “private lounge.”

Even in fiction, high-tech luxury carries weight. Tony Stark helped cement the idea that state-of-the art vehicles can be aspirational, not just practical. The magical S-Class fits right into that narrative — minus the flying suit (for now).