National
Plaintiffs seek to expedite gay troops’ case against DOMA
Attorneys want earlier deadline, narrower focus

SLDN advocates rally in favor of 'Don't Ask' repeal late in 2010 prior to the vote. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Attorneys representing gay troops in a lawsuit contesting the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act are asking the court to impose an earlier deadline for House Republicans to intervene in the case.
In a motion dated April 11, plaintiffs ask the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts to shorten the deadline to April 20 for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to respond to the case. As it stands, the current deadline for House Republicans to intervene is April 28.
“To help expedite the case and narrow the issues for trial, plaintiffs ask that the court set an April 20, 2012 deadline for potential intervenors to seek intervention in this case,” the motion states.
The lawsuit, McLaughlin v. United States, was filed by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network before the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts in October on behalf of gay troops seeking benefits for their spouses. Chadbourne & Parke LLP is serving as pro-bono counsel in the case.
Plaintiffs say they are seeking an earlier deadline in the case because they want to resolve issues of intervention before a decision is reached in the DOMA cases pending before the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments took place in those cases April 4.
“The plaintiffs hope that this case will move quickly once the First Circuit rules in those cases,” the motion states. “Accordingly, plaintiffs would like the court to set an earlier deadline for any third-parties to intervene, so that any issues concerning whether intervention should be permitted can be addressed and decided prior to the First Circuit’s decision in Massachusetts and Gill.”
David McKean, SLDN’s legal director, said the filing was made to speed up the process.
“This filing today was made in order to help expedite the case and resolve issues surrounding BLAG’s intervention sooner rather than later,” McKean said.
Attorneys representing BLAG didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the request to shorten the deadline.
The Obama administration last year stopped defending DOMA in court, but the House, under the direction of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) took up defense of the law after BLAG voted on a 3-2 party line basis to defend the statute in the administration’s stead. Boehner’s attorneys are expected to intervene in the McLaughlin case as they’ve done with other cases.
Christopher Man, counsel at Chadbourne & Parke LLC, told the Blade on March 10 BLAG was likely to intervene soon in the lawsuit, but that intervention has yet to take place. According to the motion, attorneys for BLAG advised plaintiffs on March 7 that intervention would take place in the “next day or so.”
In a letter dated Feb. 17, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder notified Congress the administration won’t defend other statutes barring spousal benefits from flowing to gay troops, such as Title 38, in addition to DOMA. The letter created the opportunity for Boehner’s attorney to respond to the case.
The parties involved in the case previously agreed to move the deadline from intervention from Feb. 28 to April 28. But that agreement was made before oral arguments took place in the two DOMA cases before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
The McLaughlin case isn’t the only pending litigation against DOMA in which the plaintiffs are gay troops seeking spousal benefits. On Feb. 1, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit in a California federal court on behalf of Tracey Cooper-Harris, a lesbian veteran seeking benefits for her spouse. Boehner’s attorneys intervened last month against plaintiffs in the case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.
In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.
The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.
He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”
Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”
Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.
Federal Government
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”
The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.
“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”
Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”
Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”
“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”
Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.
Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.
The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.
New York
Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade
One of the victims remains in critical condition

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.
According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.
The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.
The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.
In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.
The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.
New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.
“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”