Connect with us

National

Pelosi presses GOP on DOMA defense contract

Minority leader asks why Democrats excluded from negotiations

Published

on

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

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday stepped up the pressure on Republican leadership to answer questions about cost and transparency over the recently signed contact allowing a private attorney to assist with defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

In an April 20 letter to U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Pelosi says questions remained unanswered about hiring Paul Clement, an attorney with King & Spalding, to help the House general counsel with defending DOMA in court because Democratic lawmakers weren’t informed of negotiations prior to the contract signing.

“Since Democratic members were excluded from all negotiations, I would appreciate your providing the following information concerning the contract’s transparency, cost, the discount and the restrictions placed upon King and Spalding’s vast lobbying practice,” Pelosi writes.

On Tuesday, the House contract with Clement was made public, revealing that House general counsel Kerry Kircher has hired the private attorney to assist with defending DOMA for a total sum that could reach $500,000 and at a blended rate of $520 an hour.

Among Pelosi’s inquiries is whether King & Spalding won the contract after a bidding process or if the selection of the firm was made as a sole source contract. The Democratic leader also asks how the $520 an hour rate for Clement was determined and the total possible sum of $500,000 for his work.

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 response to the letter, Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesperson, said he hopes Pelosi’s concern over DOMA defense costs means she’ll back the speaker’s call to redirect funds from the Justice Department to Congress to pay for the House defense of DOMA.

“The minority leader’s new-found concern for saving taxpayers money is encouraging,” Steel said. “We hope it means we can count on her support for reducing DOJ’s budget to recoup any costs incurred by the House so that taxpayers will bear no added cost for the administration’s refusal to defend the laws of the United States.”

The full text of letter of the letter follows:

April 20, 2011

The Honorable John A. Boehner
Speaker of the House
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:

The release of the contract between the House of Representatives and the law firm of King and Spalding concerning litigation on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) raises many questions.  While the Democratic Members of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) opposed the decision of the Republican Members to authorize involvement in the DOMA lawsuits, that opposition in no way diminished the need for normal oversight of the terms of any contract signed by the Republican Leadership obligating the House of Representatives to pay half a million dollars of taxpayer money for private attorneys.  Yet the Democratic representatives on the BLAG, and the Democratic members of the Committee on House Administration, were provided with no information about the contract prior to or, at the time of, its being signed on April 14th. Since Democratic members were excluded from all negotiations, I would appreciate your providing the following information concerning the contract’s transparency, cost, the discount and the restrictions placed upon King and Spalding’s vast lobbying practice:

TRANSPARENCY

Did the BLAG or any House entity issue a call for bids, or was the selection of King and Spalding made as a sole source contract?  Who specifically made the decision to hire this firm, and what criteria were used?  Why was the Democratic membership of the Committee on House Administration not informed of the ongoing negotiations with King and Spalding and provided an opportunity to participate in order to assure a transparent process to prevent taxpayer dollars from being wasted?

COST

How was the $520 dollar an hour “blended rate” for attorneys negotiated, and how was the $500,000 fee established?  Was there a determination that $500,000 would be sufficient to pay for the complete legal representation in the 12 pending cases, and if so, who made that determination and how?  Is $520 an hour the regular rate normally charged by King and Spalding attorneys?  What are the specific hourly rates that will be charged by each of the King and Spalding attorneys listed in section 5 of the contract?  Is it anticipated that King and Spalding will represent the House in all 12 pending DOMA cases from the trial stage through any and all appeals?

DISCOUNT AND ETHICS

The contract states that other fees may be assessed at 75% of the firm’s regular charges.  What “other fees” are contemplated, and how was the 75% rate established?  Is it the standard practice of King and Spalding to give a 25% discount for non-attorney time to all government agencies or does the discount only pertain to the House Republican leadership?  Did the Ethics Committee review the proposed contract discount to ascertain whether it complied with all House ethics rules governing the provision of gratuities to the House by a commercial entity?  If so, please provide the written opinion of the Ethics Committee.

LOBBYING

Please provide a copy of all written restrictions imposed on King and Spalding’s extensive lobbying practice to ensure that no conflicts of interest arise on behalf of its extensive list of corporate clients while that firm is employed by the House.

Thank you for your timely response to this letter and my letter of April 18th.

Best regards,

NANCY PELOSI
Democratic Leader

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

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

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

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.

Continue Reading

National

Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information

Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources

Published

on

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

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.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections

Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent

Published

on

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Screen capture: YouTube)

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.

Continue Reading

Popular