Connect with us

National

Boehner denies DOMA contract violates law

Dodges question on whether cost to defend DOMA will exceed $500K

Published

on

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

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) asserted on Thursday that a contract executed to hire a private attorney to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court complies with the law — despite earlier reporting that the agreement may be in violation of rules regarding government contracts.

During a news conference, Boehner denied the agreement was in violation of any House rules when asked by the Washington Blade if he’s confident the contract doesn’t violate a law mandating that government-allocated funds be approved through the congressional appropriations process before they’re obligated for any purpose.

“This hiring was approved by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group,” Boehner said. “I’m confident that it complies with all of the rules of the House.”

Boehner didn’t answer a subsequent question on whether he could assure taxpayers that the cost of hiring attorney Paul Clement won’t exceed the $500,000 initial top sum cap that was agreed to in the contract.

In April, House General Counsel Kerry Kircher, under direction from Boehner, executed a contract with Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general, to assist with defense of DOMA in court for an initial total sum cap that could reach $500,000 and a blended rate of $520 an hour. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group had previously voted 3-2 on a party-line basis to take up defense of DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, after the Obama administration announced in February it would no longer defend the anti-gay law in court.

The contract was executed with Clement through his partnership with the law firm Bancroft LLC. Clement had earlier been contracted to defend DOMA in court through his employment at King & Spalding, but the firm dropped the agreement to defend DOMA, citing an inadequate vetting process prior to taking up defense of the statute. Clement resigned from his position at King & Spalding and went to Bancroft, where he pledged to continue litigating on behalf of the law.

But many lawmakers have questioned the source of the funds for hiring Clement because they weren’t appropriated before his contract was executed and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group has no budget to allocate funds for this purpose.

Last month during a House Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) asked Kircher and Dan Strodel, the House’s chief administrative officer, about the source of the funds for hiring Clement. Kircher replied they they wouldn’t come out of the Office of General Counsel’s budget and Strodel said he didn’t know from where the money would come.

According to The Huffington Post, Honda believes that the contract could be violating the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits “involving the government in any obligation to pay money before funds have been appropriated for that purpose.” Violating the law with prior knowledge could lead to a fine or imprisonment.

In a statement provided to the Blade, Honda criticized Boehner for his response during the news conference and said continued defense of DOMA in court shouldn’t happen when the economy is the priority for Americans.

“Speaker Boehner just doesn’t get it,” Honda said. “The American people want Congress to focus on creating jobs and finding a way to preserve Medicare for future generations, not paying a high-priced private law firm $520 per hour to defend a constitutionally flawed and discriminatory law.”

Following the publication of The Huffington Post report, Democrats on the Committee on House Administration raised the question of whether the contract violated the Anti-Deficiency Act in a May 18 letter to Boehner. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had also raised concerns about the contract in April 18 and April 20 letters to the House speaker.

Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, said Pelosi has yet to receive a response from the letters she sent on April 18 or April 20, nor have Democrats on the Committee on House Administration received a response to their inquiries.

“It is long overdue for Mr. Boehner to answer the questions raised by Leader Pelosi and Members of the Committee on House Administration,” Hammill said. “Mr. Boehner has put taxpayers on the hook for his legal boondoggle to defend an indefensible statute. Apparently, the Republican mantra of spending cuts does not apply to their rightwing ideological agenda.”

Hammill noted the decision to defend DOMA in court was approved by the Republicans on the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group with strong objections voiced by Pelosi and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). Additionally, Hammill said the contact wasn’t shared with Democrats on the Committee on House Administration before it was signed.

Michael Cole-Schwartz, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said Boehner’s response during the news conference is insufficient in the wake of questions that House Democrats raised following the execution of the contract.

“As the speaker remains adamant about defending discrimination with taxpayer dollars, members of Congress have rightly questioned the contract and procedure that brought in outside counsel,” Cole-Schwartz said. “This non-answer from Speaker Boehner isn’t even close to adequate especially given that it’s a member of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, Minority Leader Pelosi, who has been demanding answers to these exact questions.”

The exchange between the Blade and Boehner follows:

Washington Blade: Mister Speaker, two questions on your decision to hire Paul Clement to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. First, are you confident that this contract isn’t in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act? The amount of money to pay Clement seems to have been agreed upon first without being appropriated by Congress. Second, the contract hires Clement for initial total sum cap of $500,000. Can you assure the U.S. taxpayer that the cost of hiring Clement won’t exceed that amount?

Boehner: This hiring was approved by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. I’m confident that it complies with all of the rules of the House.

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