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.”
National
Results from key Tuesday primary races
State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election.
The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump.
In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.
In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.
In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.
The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple.
National
White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting
‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’
The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.
Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.
“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members.
She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing.
Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.
This post will be updated as more details are announced.
Federal Government
Advocates push back on proposed FCC warning labels
New rating system public notice seeking comments issued on April 22
The Federal Communications Commission is considering a new rating system that would require a warning label to appear before any television content that includes LGBTQ characters.
On April 22, the FCC issued a public notice asking Americans to submit comments on whether the TV Oversight Management Board should create new TV ratings to alert viewers to “transgender and gender nonbinary programming” and “the discussion or promotion of gender identity themes.”
This proposed warning would appear before content, similar to warnings that explain a program contains sexual content, drug use, or violence — categories that Congress explicitly included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on the grounds of obscenity and violence that some parents “believe is harmful to their children.”
The public notice says that “recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents.”
It goes on to say that not having a warning for trans and nonbinary people is “undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.”
LGBT Tech is an organization that works to provide LGBTQ representation in mainstream media or entertainment. The group notes 81 percent of trans respondents it surveyed said these representations had a positive impact on them discovering or learning about their identity.
“These numbers reflect a basic truth: for many people, and especially young people, seeing LGBTQ+ lives represented in ordinary media is not harmful. It is formative, affirming, and often lifesaving.”
Since the public notice’s publication, more than 40 organizations have come out against the proposed alert.
GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis issued a statement in May on the proposal, highlighting what she described as a concerted effort by the Trump-Vance administration to other trans and nonbinary people.
“The FCC does not set TV ratings, but under this administration the FCC has repeatedly tried to control what Americans can see on their own televisions. This government overreach is dangerous and a threat to our community and our democracy,” Ellis said.
“LGBTQ+ people and their families deserve to see their lives represented in the media they watch. And media companies must have the freedom to create programming that appeals to their viewers and subscribers without interference from a government pursuing its own anti-LGBTQ+ political agenda.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson pointed out that this is an act of politically motivated policy, not one based on any rhyme or reason.
“LGBTQ+ stories matter and deserve to be told, seen, and heard,” Robinson said. “The Trump administration does not get to use the FCC to try and erase us simply because they want to pretend to live in a world where we don’t exist. This is a brazen form of political interference that will hurt the ability of all people to appreciate, understand, and learn about the world and people around them.”
Brian Dittmeier, director of LGBTQI+ equality at the National Women’s Law Center Action Fund, echoed Robinson’s concerns that this is attempted censorship for the sake of political gain.
“The FCC is cloaking itself in purported concern for parents in an attempt to censor content, intimidate industry, and silence depictions of our trans siblings and neighbors,” Dittmeier wrote. “The FCC is overstepping its authority to undermine the existing ratings system, which is well understood by parents and enjoys broad public support. The FCC’s presumption that it knows better does not reflect parents’ priorities and reeks of government overreach.”
PFLAG National Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Diego Sanchez said this is federal government overreach into censorship — something the First Amendment protects against.
“The FCC has given us yet another example of what ‘small government’ means: small enough to fit in your living room; to interrupt family movie night; small enough to make home feel unsafe,” Sanchez said. “Parents and families with transgender loved ones in particular know too well how big government actions impact their families directly, because they feel those impacts before everyone else.”
This proposed warning follows a slew of other federal actions targeting trans people in America, including Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which mandated that only sex assigned at birth be used on federal government documents regardless of gender identity, as well as broad-based restrictions on gender-affirming care, particularly for trans minors.
Outright International honors Cyndi Lauper at annual NYC gala
Results from key Tuesday primary races
AIDS Healthcare Foundation announces 3 million people globally in its care
10 HIV/AIDS activists arrested on Capitol Hill
JR.’s hosts meet & greet for mayoral candidate Janeese Lewis George
Ghanaian lawmakers approve anti-LGBTQ bill
Time travelers from the AIDS era
Books for a pre-Pride celebration
Barney Frank’s powerful legacy for LGBTQ federal employees
