National
Will Obama drop gov’t defense of ‘Don’t Ask?’
Court orders administration to announce its intent within 10 days
A federal appellate court on Monday directed the Obama administration to announce within 10 days whether or not it will continue to defend “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in court in the wake of its decision to no longer litigate on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act.
In an order dated July 11, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals states that the Justice Department must announce if it will continue to defend “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” or, as was the case with DOMA, allow Congress to intervene to take up defense of the military’s gay ban.
“The Government is hereby ordered to advise the court whether it intends to submit a report to Congress … outlining its decision to refrain from defending [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’],” the order states. “The Government is further ordered, if such a report is to be submitted, to advise whether it will do so within such time as to enable Congress to take action to intervene in timely fashion in this proceeding.”
The order states that this notification must be submitted within 10 days and take the form of letters to the court no longer than 10 pages or 2,800 words in length. A Justice Department spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to the Washington Blade’s request for comment on the issue.
The executive branch of the U.S. government has the authority to refrain from defending laws in court it believes are unconstitutional, but must notify Congress to provide that body the opportunity to take up defense of such laws.
That’s the situation that played out with DOMA. On Feb. 23, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder notified Congress the Justice Department would no longer defend DOMA because the Obama administration determined the anti-gay law was unconstitutional. Following a party-line vote from the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) directed House general counsel to defend the anti-gay law and hired private attorney and former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement to assist in the defense.
Holder says in the letter the administration came to the conclusion that DOMA was unconstitutional because all laws related to sexual orientation — not just DOMA — should be subject to heightened scrutiny under the law. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would fall under this category.
In the wake of this determination for laws related to sexual orientation, the Ninth Circuit directs the government to clarify whether it will continue to defend “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Dan Woods, an attorney with White & Case LLC who’s representing Log Cabin in the lawsuit, said the order in the case is “a really good thing” for opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“It’s a really good thing that they’ve asked the government to decide whether they’re going to defend the constitutionality of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ or not,” Woods said. “They’re trying to have to both ways, and the Ninth Circuit is now forcing them to take an official position on that.”
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, also praised the Ninth Circuit for directing the U.S. government to make its position clear on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is correctly pressing the Department of Justice and Department of Defense on whether or not they intend to defend the constitutionality of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” Sarvis said. “It is our hope they will not continue to do so, and we will soon have finality with certification and repeal.”
In the order, the Ninth Circuit also notes that the U.S. government hasn’t asserted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in its most recent legal briefs defending the statute and observes that the gay ban is active despite the repeal law that was signed last year.
“Therefore, the central issue this court must address on appeal is whether the district court properly held that [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] is unconstitutional,” the order states. “No party to this appeal has indicated an intention to defend the constitutionality of [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] or to argue that the constitutionality holding of the district court should be reversed.”
Under the repeal law signed in December, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” won’t be off the books until 60 days pass after the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs certify the military is ready for open service. Troops have been undertaking training to prepare for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but certification has yet to take place.
In addition to ordering the U.S. government to declare whether it will continue defending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the Ninth Circuit directs both parties in the case — plaintiffs and defendants — to explain why the case shouldn’t be considered moot in the wake of passage of repeal legislation.
Woods said he’s prepared to refile briefs explaining why the litigation should remain ongoing to comply with the court order.
“We’re happy to brief this again and we don’t think the case is going to be moot, we don’t think it should be dismissed because, among other things, there’s still this talk about repealing the repeal [in Congress],” Woods said. “There’s a bill pending to repeal the repeal. That should make it clear that this case shouldn’t be dismissed.”
The order comes after a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday reinstituted an injunction prohibiting the federal government from enforcing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as a result of the case, known as Log Cabin Republicans v. United States. On Friday, the Pentagon issued a moratorium on discharges under the gay ban to comply with this court order.
Observers are still awaiting the decision from the Justice Department on whether it will appeal the decision to reinstate the injunction.
“We don’t know that,” Woods said. “They haven’t decided that yet. We haven’t heard from the government one way or the other whether they’re going to seek some further review of last week’s Ninth Circuit order.”
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.
The White House
Trump travels to Middle East countries with death penalty for homosexuality
President traveled to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates
Homosexuality remains punishable by death in two of the three Middle East countries that President Donald Trump visited last week.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are among the handful of countries in which anyone found guilty of engaging in consensual same-sex sexual relations could face the death penalty.
Trump was in Saudi Arabia from May 13-14. He traveled to Qatar on May 14.
“The law prohibited consensual same-sex sexual conduct between men but did not explicitly prohibit same-sex sexual relations between women,” notes the State Department’s 2023 human rights report, referring specifically to Qatar’s criminalization law. “The law was not systematically enforced. A man convicted of having consensual same-sex sexual relations could receive a sentence of seven years in prison. Under sharia, homosexuality was punishable by death; there were no reports of executions for this reason.”
Trump on May 15 arrived in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.
The State Department’s 2023 human rights report notes the “penalty for individuals who engaged in ‘consensual sodomy with a man'” in the country “was a minimum prison sentence of six months if the individual’s partner or guardian filed a complaint.”
“There were no known reports of arrests or prosecutions for consensual same-sex sexual conduct. LGBTQI+ identity, real or perceived, could be deemed an act against ‘decency or public morality,’ but there were no reports during the year of persons prosecuted under these provisions,” reads the report.
The report notes Emirati law also criminalizes “men who dressed as women or entered a place designated for women while ‘disguised’ as a woman.” Anyone found guilty could face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 dirhams ($2,722.60.)
Trump returned to the U.S. on May 16.
The White House notes Trump during the trip secured more than $2 trillion “in investment agreements with Middle Eastern nations ($200 billion with the United Arab Emirates, $600 billion with Saudi Arabia, and $1.2 trillion with Qatar) for a more safe and prosperous future.”
Former President Joe Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2022.
Saudi Arabia is scheduled to host the 2034 World Cup. The 2022 World Cup took place in Qatar.
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment
More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Delaware considers enshrining same-sex marriage into state Constitution
Returning to Alcatraz: Memory through a queer lens
PHOTOS: Equality Prince William Pride
Chilean lawmakers back report that calls for suspension of program for trans children
Underground queer network challenges Iranian regime
Ashley Biden to speak at Blade’s Summer Kickoff Party in Rehoboth Beach
Pete Buttigieg, eyeing a presidential run, holds Iowa town hall
Global LGBTQ rights crackdown overshadows this year’s IDAHOBiT
Calendar: May 16-22
