National
Court order upholds ban on ‘Don’t Ask’ discharges
But Ninth Circuit allows recruiters to bar open gays from enlisting
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.
The Comings & Goings column is about sharing the professional successes of our community. We want to recognize those landing new jobs, new clients for their business, joining boards of organizations and other achievements. Please share your successes with us at [email protected].
Congratulations to Gil Pontes III on his recent appointment to the Financial Advisory Board for the City of Wilton Manors, Fla. Upon being appointed he said, “I’m honored to join the Financial Advisory Board for the City of Wilton Manors at such an important moment for our community. In my role as Executive Director of the NextGen Chamber of Commerce, I spend much of my time focused on economic growth, fiscal sustainability, and the long-term competitiveness of emerging business leaders. I look forward to bringing that perspective to Wilton Manors — helping ensure responsible stewardship of public resources while supporting a vibrant, inclusive local economy.”
Pontes is a nonprofit executive with years of development, operations, budget, management, and strategic planning experience in 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and political organizations. Pontes is currently executive director of NextGen, Chamber of Commerce. NextGen Chamber’s mission is to “empower emerging business leaders by generating insights, encouraging engagement, and nurturing leadership development to shape the future economy.” Prior to that he served as managing director of The Nora Project, and director of development also at The Nora Project. He has held a number of other positions including Major Gifts Officer, Thundermist Health Center, and has worked in both real estate and banking including as Business Solutions Adviser, Ironwood Financial. For three years he was a Selectman, Town of Berkley, Mass. In that role, he managed HR and general governance for town government. There were 200+ staff and 6,500 constituents. He balanced a $20,000,000 budget annually, established an Economic Development Committee, and hired the first town administrator.
Pontes earned his bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth.
Kansas
ACLU sues Kansas over law invalidating trans residents’ IDs
A new Kansas bill requires transgender residents to have their driver’s licenses reflect their sex assigned at birth, invalidating current licenses.
Transgender people across Kansas received letters in the mail on Wednesday demanding the immediate surrender of their driver’s licenses following passage of one of the harshest transgender bathroom bans in the nation. Now the American Civil Liberties Union is filing a lawsuit to block the ban and protect transgender residents from what advocates describe as “sweeping” and “punitive” consequences.
Independent journalist Erin Reed broke the story Wednesday after lawmakers approved House Substitute for Senate Bill 244. In her reporting, Reed included a photo of the letter sent to transgender Kansans, requiring them to obtain a driver’s license that reflects their sex assigned at birth rather than the gender with which they identify.
According to the reporting, transgender Kansans must surrender their driver’s licenses and that their current credentials — regardless of expiration date — will be considered invalid upon the law’s publication. The move effectively nullifies previously issued identification documents, creating immediate uncertainty for those impacted.
House Substitute for Senate Bill 244 also stipulates that any transgender person caught driving without a valid license could face a class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. That potential penalty adds a criminal dimension to what began as an administrative action. It also compounds the legal risks for transgender Kansans, as the state already requires county jails to house inmates according to sex assigned at birth — a policy that advocates say can place transgender detainees at heightened risk.
Beyond identification issues, SB 244 not only bans transgender people from using restrooms that match their gender identity in government buildings — including libraries, courthouses, state parks, hospitals, and interstate rest stops — with the possibility for criminal penalties, but also allows for what critics have described as a “bathroom bounty hunter” provision. The measure permits anyone who encounters a transgender person in a restroom — including potentially in private businesses — to sue them for large sums of money, dramatically expanding the scope of enforcement beyond government authorities.
The lawsuit challenging SB 244 was filed today in the District Court of Douglas County on behalf of anonymous plaintiffs Daniel Doe and Matthew Moe by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Kansas, and Ballard Spahr LLP. The complaint argues that SB 244 violates the Kansas Constitution’s protections for personal autonomy, privacy, equality under the law, due process, and freedom of speech.
Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a temporary restraining order on behalf of the anonymous plaintiffs, arguing that the order — followed by a temporary injunction — is necessary to prevent the “irreparable harm” that would result from SB 244.
State Rep. Abi Boatman, a Wichita Democrat and the only transgender member of the Kansas Legislature, told the Kansas City Star on Wednesday that “persecution is the point.”
“This legislation is a direct attack on the dignity and humanity of transgender Kansans,” said Monica Bennett, legal director of the ACLU of Kansas. “It undermines our state’s strong constitutional protections against government overreach and persecution.”
“SB 244 is a cruel and craven threat to public safety all in the name of fostering fear, division, and paranoia,” said Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project. “The invalidation of state-issued IDs threatens to out transgender people against their will every time they apply for a job, rent an apartment, or interact with police. Taken as a whole, SB 244 is a transparent attempt to deny transgender people autonomy over their own identities and push them out of public life altogether.”
“SB 244 presents a state-sanctioned attack on transgender people aimed at silencing, dehumanizing, and alienating Kansans whose gender identity does not conform to the state legislature’s preferences,” said Heather St. Clair, a Ballard Spahr litigator working on the case. “Ballard Spahr is committed to standing with the ACLU and the plaintiffs in fighting on behalf of transgender Kansans for a remedy against the injustices presented by SB 244, and is dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights jeopardized by this new law.”
National
After layoffs at Advocate, parent company acquires ‘Them’ from Conde Nast
Top editorial staff let go last week
Former staff members at the Advocate and Out magazines revealed that parent company Equalpride laid off a number of employees late last week.
Those let go included Advocate editor-in-chief Alex Cooper, Pride.com editor-in-chief Rachel Shatto, brand partnerships manager Erin Manley, community editor Marie-Adélina de la Ferriére, and Out magazine staff writers Moises Mendez and Bernardo Sim, according to a report in Hollywood Reporter.
Cooper, who joined the company in 2021, posted to social media that, “Few people have had the privilege of leading this legendary LGBTQ+ news outlet, and I’m deeply honored to have been one of them. To my team: thank you for the last four years. You’ve been the best. For those also affected today, please let me know how I can support you.”
The Advocate’s PR firm when reached by the Blade said it no longer represents the company. Emails to the Advocate went unanswered.
Equalpride on Friday announced it acquired “Them,” a digital LGBTQ outlet founded in 2017 by Conde Nast.
“Equalpride exists to elevate, celebrate and protect LGBTQ+ storytelling at scale,” Equalpride CEO Mark Berryhill said according to Hollywood Reporter. “By combining the strengths of our brands with this respected digital platform, we’re creating a unified ecosystem that delivers even more impact for our audiences, advertisers, and community partners.”
It’s not clear if “Them” staff would take over editorial responsibilities for the Advocate and Out.
Arlington LGBTQ bar Freddie’s celebrates 25th anniversary
Love or fear flying you’ll devour ‘Why Fly’
Out actor Kevin Cahoon on starring role in ‘Chez Joey’
PHOTOS: Pride Reveal
Comings & Goings
Criteria for supporting a candidate in D.C.
Moving doc ‘Come See Me’ is more than Oscar worthy
Transmission DC breathes new life into a storied sound space
Capital Stonewall Democrats elect new leaders
