Connect with us

National

Court order upholds ban on ‘Don’t Ask’ discharges

But Ninth Circuit allows recruiters to bar open gays from enlisting

Published

on

A federal appellate court issued an order late Friday prohibiting the U.S. government from discharging additional service members under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” while allowing recruiters to continue to bar openly gay people from enlisting in the armed forces.

The order from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals partially reinstates a stay on an injunction barring the enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The injunction was reissued by the appellate court last week after it was first issued by a U.S. district court last year.

“[T]he stay entered November 1, 2010, is reinstated temporarily in all respects except one,” the order states. “The district court’s judgment shall continue in effect insofar as it enjoins appellants from investigating, penalizing, or discharging anyone from the military pursuant to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.”

The decision comes from a three-judge panel within the Ninth Circuit made up of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and Circuit Judges Kim Wardlow and Richard Paez.

An injunction barring the Pentagon from discharging service members under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” means prohibiting open gays from enlisting in the armed forces is the only part of the law remaining in effect.

The Ninth Circuit partially reinstated the stay upon request from the Obama administration, which on Thursday requested an emergency stay on the injunction that was issued in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States.

The injunction was first put in place last year by U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips last year after she determined that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was unconstitutional, but only lasted for eight days before the Ninth Circuit placed a stay on the order upon request from the U.S. government. The order from the appellate court last week reversed this decision.

Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokesperson, said the Defense Department is “studying the appellate court’s order” with the Justice Department and “will continue to provide guidance to the field as appropriate.”

“The temporary transition that Congress and the President established as a prerequisite to the repeal of [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] has been underway for several months and we are nearing presenting certification for decision to the president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the next few weeks,” she added.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to comment.

In a brief filed prior to order coming down from the Ninth Circuit, Log Cabin Republicans asserts the court should keep the injunction in place because U.S. government cannot justify the continued expulsion of service members under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“The parties, and thousands of gay and lesbian servicemembers now serving honorably but in silence, would be left whipsawed, wondering from day to day what the current state of their constitutional rights might be,” the filing states.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United and sole named veteran plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the Ninth Circuit “did the right thing” in rejecting the U.S. government’s request to reinstate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in full.

“The situation with finally ending this outdated and discriminatory federal policy has become absolutely ridiculous,” Nicholson said. “This law is unconstitutional on its face, it is virtually dead in practice, and no one should be trying to resuscitate it at this point. The executive branch has been exceptionally unreasonable in the amount of time it has now let the legislative certification process drag out. It is simply not right to put the men and women of our armed forces through this circus any longer.”

Under the repeal law signed in December, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will be off the books when 60 days pass after the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify the U.S. military is ready for open service. Troops have been participating in training since February to prepare for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but certification has yet to take place.

The Ninth Circuit says its placing a partial stay on the injunction it previously issued last week because of new information that the U.S. government presented this week in its request for an emergency stay.

The court says it was previously not informed that only one service member had been discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” since the passage of repeal legislation.” Nor did it know that the service chiefs had provided written advice to Pentagon leadership on the status of repeal or that certification is expected to happen “in a matter of weeks, by the end of July or early in August.”

“Appellants acknowledge that they did not previously inform the court of the full extent of the implementation of the Repeal Act,” the court writes.

Additionally, the court directs the U.S. government to provide no later than 5 pm Pacific Time on Monday a supplement brief on why it didn’t present this information in an earlier filing dated May 20.

Plaintiffs have a deadline of Thursday to file an opposition to the U.S. government’s motion for reconsideration on the injunction. The U.S. government has deadline of Friday to respond to that brief.

Expulsions under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” have been virtually nonexistent since the Pentagon instituted new guidance in October raising the discharge authority to the military service secretaries “in coordination” with the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness and the Pentagon general counsel.

According to the request for an emergency stay issued this week, the Defense Department has only finalized the separation of one service member since the new guidance was put in place.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

RFK Jr.’s HHS report pushes therapy, not medical interventions, for trans youth

‘Discredited junk science’ — GLAAD

Published

on

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A 409-page report released Thursday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services challenges the ethics of medical interventions for youth experiencing gender dysphoria, the treatments that are often collectively called gender-affirming care, instead advocating for psychotherapy alone.

The document comes in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order barring the federal government from supporting gender transitions for anyone younger than 19.

“Our duty is to protect our nation’s children — not expose them to unproven and irreversible medical interventions,” National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya said in a statement. “We must follow the gold standard of science, not activist agendas.”

While the report does not constitute clinical guidance, its findings nevertheless conflict with not just the recommendations of LGBTQ advocacy groups but also those issued by organizations with relevant expertise in science and medicine.

The American Medical Association, for instance, notes that “empirical evidence has demonstrated that trans and non-binary gender identities are normal variations of human identity and expression.”

Gender-affirming care for transgender youth under standards widely used in the U.S. includes supportive talk therapy along with — in some but not all cases — puberty blockers or hormone treatment.

“The suggestion that someone’s authentic self and who they are can be ‘changed’ is discredited junk science,” GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said in a statement. “This so-called guidance is grossly misleading and in direct contrast to the recommendation of every leading health authority in the world. This report amounts to nothing more than forcing the same discredited idea of conversion therapy that ripped families apart and harmed gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people for decades.”

GLAAD further notes that the “government has not released the names of those involved in consulting or authoring this report.”

Janelle Perez, executive director of LPAC, said, “For decades, every major medical association–including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics–have affirmed that medical care is the only safe and effective treatment for transgender youth experiencing gender dysphoria.

“This report is simply promoting conversion therapy by a different name – and the American people know better. We know that conversion therapy isn’t actually therapy – it isolates and harms kids, scapegoats parents, and divides families through blame and rejection. These tactics have been used against gay kids for decades, and now the same people want to use them against transgender youth and their families.

“The end result here will be a devastating denial of essential health care for transgender youth, replaced by a dangerous practice that every major U.S. medical and mental health association agree promotes anxiety, depression, and increased risk of suicidal thoughts and attempts.

“Like being gay or lesbian, being transgender is not a choice, and no amount of pressure can force someone to change who they are. We also know that 98% of people who receive transition-related health care continue to receive that health care throughout their lifetime. Trans health care is health care.”

“Today’s report seeks to erase decades of research and learning, replacing it with propaganda. The claims in today’s report would rip health care away from kids and take decision-making out of the hands of parents,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of NCLR. “It promotes the same kind of conversion therapy long used to shame LGBTQ+ people into hating themselves for being unable to change something they can’t change.”

“Like being gay or lesbian, being transgender is not a choice—it’s rooted in biology and genetics,” Minter said. “No amount or talk or pressure will change that.” 

Human Rights Campaign Chief of Staff Jay Brown released a statement: “Trans people are who we are. We’re born this way. And we deserve to live our best lives and have a fair shot and equal opportunity at living a good life.

“This report misrepresents the science that has led all mainstream American medical and mental health professionals to declare healthcare for transgender youth to be best practice and instead follows a script predetermined not by experts but by Sec. Kennedy and anti-equality politicians.”




Continue Reading

The White House

Trump nominates Mike Waltz to become next UN ambassador

Former Fla. congressman had been national security advisor

Published

on

U.N. headquarters in New York (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

President Donald Trump on Thursday announced he will nominate Mike Waltz to become the next U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

Waltz, a former Florida congressman, had been the national security advisor.

Trump announced the nomination amid reports that Waltz and his deputy, Alex Wong, were going to leave the administration after Waltz in March added a journalist to a Signal chat in which he, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and other officials discussed plans to attack Houthi rebels in Yemen.

“I am pleased to announce that I will be nominating Mike Waltz to be the next United States ambassador to the United Nations,” said Trump in a Truth Social post that announced Waltz’s nomination. “From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our nation’s Interests first. I know he will do the same in his new role.”

Trump said Secretary of State Marco Rubio will serve as interim national security advisor, “while continuing his strong leadership at the State Department.”

“Together, we will continue to fight tirelessly to make America, and the world, safe again,” said Trump.

Trump shortly after his election nominated U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) to become the next U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Trump in March withdrew her nomination in order to ensure Republicans maintained their narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Second federal lawsuit filed against White House passport policy

Two of seven plaintiffs live in Md.

Published

on

Lambda Legal on April 25 filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people who are challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s passport policy.

The lawsuit, which Lambda Legal filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore, alleges the policy that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers “has caused and is causing grave and immediate harm to transgender people like plaintiffs, in violation of their constitutional rights to equal protection.”

Two of the seven plaintiffs — Jill Tran and Peter Poe — live in Maryland. The State Department, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the federal government are defendants.

“The discriminatory passport policy exposes transgender U.S. citizens to harassment, abuse, and discrimination, in some cases endangering them abroad or preventing them from traveling, by forcing them to use identification documents that share private information against their wishes,” said Lambda Legal in a press release.

Zander Schlacter, a New York-based textile artist and designer, is the lead plaintiff.

The lawsuit notes he legally changed his name and gender in New York.

Schlacter less than a week before President Donald Trump’s inauguration “sent an expedited application to update his legal name on his passport, using form DS-5504.”

Trump once he took office signed an executive order that banned the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers. The lawsuit notes Schlacter received his new passport in February.

“The passport has his correct legal name, but now has an incorrect sex marker of ‘F’ or ‘female,'” notes the lawsuit. “Mr. Schlacter also received a letter from the State Department notifying him that ‘the date of birth, place of birth, name, or sex was corrected on your passport application,’ with ‘sex’ circled in red. The stated reason was ‘to correct your information to show your biological sex at birth.'”

“I, like many transgender people, experience fear of harassment or violence when moving through public spaces, especially where a photo ID is required,” said Schlacter in the press release that announced the lawsuit. “My safety is further at risk because of my inaccurate passport. I am unwilling to subject myself and my family to the threat of harassment and discrimination at the hands of border officials or anyone who views my passport.”

Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.

Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an “X” gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.

Lambda Legal represented Zzyym.

The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022.

Trump signed his executive order shortly after he took office in January. Germany, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands are among the countries that have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who plan to visit the U.S.

A federal judge in Boston earlier this month issued a preliminary injunction against the executive order.  The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven trans and nonbinary people.

Continue Reading
Advertisement World Pride Guide
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular