National
Calif. federal court rules against DOMA
Anti-gay law declared unconstitutional in Golinski case
A federal district court in California has declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in a case involving a lesbian federal employee seeking benefits for her spouse.
In a decision made public on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled against DOMA in the case of Golinski v. United States on the basis that the anti-gay law “unconstitutionally discriminates against married same-sex couples.”
“In this matter, the Court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by,Ā without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse,” White writes.
As part of the decision, White issuedĀ a “permanent injunction” preventing the U.S. government from interfering with the enrollment ofĀ Golinskiās wife in theĀ Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
Tara Borelli, staff attorney in Lambda Legal’s Western Regional Office in Los Angeles, praised the court for its decision.
“The court agreed with us that sexual orientation discrimination by the government should receive heightened scrutiny under the constitution,” Borelli said. “It then concluded that DOMA could not meet that standard, and that there was not even a rational justification to deny Karen Golinski the same spousal health care benefits that her heterosexual co-workers receive.”
Lambda, along with Morrison & Foerster LLP,Ā filed the case in 2008 on behalf of Karen Golinski, who was denied spousal health benefits by her employer, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.Ā Golinski has been partners with Amy Cunninghis for more than 20 years, and the two were legally married in 2008 under California law before Proposition 8 took away marriage rights for gay couples in the state.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski ruled that it violates the Ninth Circuit’s non-discrimination policies to deny Golinski the same benefits for her spouse that the spouses of straight court employees have. But the Office of Personnel Management maintained it couldn’t grant Golinski spousal benefits because of DOMA.
The case evolved into a lawsuit over DOMA. After the Obama administration declared DOMA unconstitutional in February 2011, the Justice Department filed a brief in the Golinksi case against the anti-gay law. In April, Lambda filed an amended complaint in the caseĀ directly challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.
But the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group also filed briefs in the case in defense of DOMA. The group took up defense of the law in the administration’s stead at the direction of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) after voting on a party-line basis to defend the statute.
In a statement, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who also represents San Francisco and Golinski in Congress, called the ruling “a victory for the liberty, civil rights, and equality of LGBT Americans and, indeed, all Americans.”
“By declaring the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, we can right a wrong of our past; we can move closer to ending a fundamental unfairness in our nation; and we can look forward to the day when we discard this discriminatory law in the dustbin of history,” Pelosi said. “With this decision, our country has taken a step forward for marriage equality ā a step toward a time when all of Americaās families enjoy the blessings of equal protection under the law.”
Pelosi also took a dig at the BLAG for taking up defense of DOMA in the administration’s stead, saying the majority of Democrats don’t want to defend DOMA in court.
āIn rejecting the arguments of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, the courtās ruling also reaffirmed a core belief of the majority of House Democrats: that the House is not united in this case; that the BLAG lawyers do not speak for Congress; and that BLAGās intervention remains a waste of taxpayer resources,” Pelosi said. “The court made it clear that there is no legitimate federal interest in denying married gay and lesbian couples the legal security, rights, and responsibilities guaranteed to all married couples under state law.”
A Boehner didn’t immediately respond to a request to comment on the ruling or whether BLAG would appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit within the 60 day deadline.
Tom Warnke, a Lambda spokesperson, said his organization expects BLAG to appeal the case. As for timing for when Golinski would be able to receive benefits, he said his organization hopes “to know more about the question regarding access toĀ benefits soon.”
The ruling is the first court decision made on DOMA since the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend the law in court. A White House spokesperson didn’t respond to a request to comment on the ruling. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.
But White, who was appointed to the bench in 2002 by former President George W. Bush, isn’t the first judge to rule against DOMA. In July 2010,Ā Judge Joseph Tauro of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts ruled in the cases of Gill v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management andĀ Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services that DOMA is unconstitutional. Those cases are currently on appeal before the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals.
In a statement, Golinksi thanked the court for ruling in her favor and against the Defense of Marriage Act.
“I am profoundly grateful for the thought and consideration that Judge White gave to my case,” Golinski said. “His decision acknowledges that DOMA violates the Constitution and that my marriage to Amy is equal to those marriages of my heterosexual colleagues. This decision is a huge step toward equality.”
Doug NeJaime, who’s gay and a law professor at Loyola Law School, said the decision is “very comprehensive” because it examinesĀ of the governmental interests of DOMA underĀ bothĀ a heightened scrutinyĀ andĀ a lower rational basis standard of review.
“This is a smart course for the district court to take in looking down the road to potential Ninth Circuit review, especially in light of the rational-basis holding that the Ninth Circuit panel issued in [the Prop 8 case],” NeJaime said. “The heightened scrutiny portion of the decision, though, clearly evidences the impact of the Obama administrationās position on DOMA, in which Attorney General Holder set out the arguments for heightened scrutiny for sexual-orientation-based classifications.”
Federal Government
Trump ‘culture war’ complicates HUD’s distribution of $3.6B in housing grants
Senate Dems call for new agreements

The disbursement of more than $3.6 billion in federal grants to housing providers has been paused for weeks while the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development seeks to condition receipt of the funding on compliance with President Donald Trump’s executive actions targeting DEI and transgender and immigrant communities.
March 4 was the statutory deadline for the agency to distribute the funds, which come through the Continuum of Care Program in support of local governments and nonprofit organizations working to promote “a community-wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness.”
On March 13, a group of Senate Democrats led by U.S. Sens. Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Tina Smith (Minn.) wrote to HUD Secretary Scott Turner urging him to move quickly on distributing the grants and warning of the consequences that recipients are now facing and the harm they will encounter in the future if delays persist.
“To keep the lights on, providers are now being forced to draw on lines of credit at significant cost and risk to their organizations,” the senators said. “These projects enable homeless service providers to help veterans, families with children, youth, seniors, and vulnerable individuals access permanent and temporary housing, crisis counseling, and other supportive services.ā
HUD subsequently disseminated grant agreements ā and Schiff published an example on his office’s website ā that included, among other provisions, language stipulating that the awardee (1) “shall not use grant funds to promote ‘gender ideology,’ as defined in E.O. 14168, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” (2) certifies that it does not operate any programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws, and (3) agrees not to use “that funding in a manner that by design or effect facilitates the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration or abets so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.”
On March 14, the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals stayed a nationwide injunction enjoining three parts of Trump’s executive order on DEI, and the following day, HUD rescinded the CoC contracts and said to expect new agreements within a week as the agency was “working to revise its CoC grant agreements to be consistent with Federal law and compliant with applicable court orders.”
Schiff then led a second letter to Turner on March 19 with the Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and U.S. Sens. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mazie Hirono (D- Hawaii), and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.).
“We urge the department to immediately issue new CoC grant agreements consistent with longstanding practiceā free of the aforementioned conditionsā to ensure all individuals experiencing homelessness receive protection and support, regardless of gender identity, location, or other characteristics,” they said, requesting a response by March 31.
“The initial FY2024 grant agreements issued to CoC funding recipients contained new requirements that are deeply problematic, and likely unlawful, requirements,” the senators argued. “These mandates, such as barring shelters from serving transgender people, prohibiting DEI initiatives, and certifying that they do not support ‘sanctuary’ policies protecting noncitizens, conflict with federal civil rights, fair housing, and immigration laws, raising serious legal and constitutional concerns.”
The lawmakers noted “the harm caused by these delayed and unfulfilled CoC grant agreements will fall disproportionately on our most vulnerable populations, including women, families with children, youth, veterans, survivors of domestic and intimate partner violence, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ individuals.” They added, “Women experiencing homelessness ā many of whom are fleeing domestic abuse ā already face significant barriers to safety and stability, and restricting access to critical housing services will only further endanger their lives and well-being.”
Citing research that nearly one in three transgender Americans has experiences homelessness in their lives, Schiff and his colleagues stressed that “Transgender and nonbinary people in the U.S. face significant barriers to securing safe housing, with many experiencing homelessness and high rates of mistreatment and violence in shelters.”
With respect to the language in the agreements about “sanctuary” policies, the senators wrote “The organizations receiving CoC funds exist to provide critical, non-discriminatory aid to those in need, regardless of their immigration status. These organizations do not set or enforce immigration policy ā they simply fulfill their legal duty to provide life-saving and life-changing care.”
Later on March 19, HUD began issuing new contracts that did not contain the provision concerning DEI but did include the same language about “gender ideology” and “sanctuary” policies.
U.S. Federal Courts
Court halts removal of two transgender service members
Case challenging anti-trans military ban proceeds in D.C.

A federal court in New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order on Monday that will halt the separation of two transgender service members from the U.S. military while their case in D.C. challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s ban moves forward.
The order by Judge Christine O’Hearn pauses proceedings against Staff Sgt. Nicholas Bear Bade and Master Sgt. Logan Ireland, who “have been pulled from key deployments and placed on administrative absence against their will because of the ban,” according to a joint press release Monday by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD Law, which are representing the service members together with other litigants in Ireland v. Hegseth and in the case underway in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Talbott v. Trump.
“That court granted a preliminary injunction March 18 barring the Department of Defense from implementing the ban, finding that it discriminates based on sex and transgender status; that it is ‘soaked in animus;’ and that, due to the governmentās failure to present any evidence supporting the ban, it is ‘highly unlikely’ to survive any level of judicial review,” the groups noted in their press release.
Ireland spoke with the Washington Blade in January along with other trans service members and former service members who shared their experiences with the military and their feelings on the new administration’s efforts to bar trans people from the U.S. armed forces.
State Department
Report: State Department to remove LGBTQ information from annual human rights report
Spokesperson declines to ‘preview’ information ‘at this time’

The State Department has not commented a report that indicates it plans to remove LGBTQ-specific information from their annual human rights report.
Politico on March 19 reported the Trump-Vance administration “is slashing the State Department’s annual human rights report ā cutting sections about the rights of women, the disabled, the LGBTQ+ community, and more.” The Politico article notes it obtained “documents” and spoke with “a current and a former State Department official who were familiar with the plan.”
“We are not previewing the human rights report at this time,” a State Department spokesperson told the Washington Blade on March 21.
Congress requires the State Department to release a human rights report each year.
The 2023 report specifically noted Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act that contains a death penalty provision for “aggravated homosexuality.” The 2022 report highlighted, among other things, anti-LGBTQ crackdowns in Afghanistan, Russia, and Hungary and so-called conversion therapy.
President Donald Trump since he took office has signed a number of executive orders that have specifically targeted the LGBTQ and intersex community. These include the āDefending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Governmentā directive that, among other things,Ā bans the State Department from issuing passports with āXā gender markers.
The State Department has eliminated references to transgender travelers from its travel advisories. Germany, Denmark, and Finland have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who are planning to visit the U.S.
A directive that Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued bans embassies and other U.S. diplomatic institutions from flying the Pride flag. (Former President Joe Biden in March 2024 signed a government spending bill with a provision that banned Pride flags from flying over U.S. embassies.)
The U.S. has withdrawn from the U.N. LGBTI Core Group, a group of U.N. member states that have pledged to support LGBTQ and intersex rights, and the Organization of American States’ LGBTI Core Group. The Trump-Vance administration’s decision to suspend most U.S. foreign aid spending has been a “catastrophe” for the global LGBTQ and intersex rights movement.