National
Federal appeals court declines to reconsider Prop 8 decision
Proposition 8 supporters petitioned a federal appeals court for an en banc review of a February ruling that struck it down
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a request for an en banc rehearing of Perry v. Brown, setting the stage for a Supreme Court showdown. (Photo via Wikimedia)
A federal appeals court in San Francisco announced on Tuesday that it denied a request to reconsider a February ruling that struck down California’s voter-approved ban on marriage for same-sex couples.
Proposition 8 supporters requested that the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allow an 11-judge panel to review a decision made by a three-judge panel that found the Golden State’s ban on nuptials for gays and lesbians unconstitutional.
Now retired U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker in Aug. 2010 found Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Supporters of the voter-approved ban on marriage for gays and lesbians appealed the decision.
“This is a monumental day and our case has now entered its final chapter,” said Chad Griffin, board president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights during a conference call with reporters. “We began the final chapter of the Proposition 8 case today and the end is now in sight.”
Freedom to Marry President Evan Wolfson agreed.
“Today’s decision by the Ninth Circuit to deny a rehearing of Perry vs. Brown brings committed same-sex couples in California one step closer to being able to marry,” he said. “It’s now been three-and-a-half years since the freedom to marry was stripped from loving and committed same-sex couples. It is long past time for this ‘gay exception’ to marriage in California to come to an end.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) described the Ninth Court’s decision as another step towards bringing Prop 8 to “its rightful place in the dustbin of history.”
“By declining to rehear this case, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed a victory for civil rights for the LGBT community and for all Californians,” she added.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision comes less than a week after three judges with the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. President Barack Obama last month announced his support of marriage rights for same-sex couples during a White House interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts.
Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain referenced Obama’s comments that marriage remains in the purview of the states in his dissenting opinion onto which Judges Jay Bybee and Carlos Bea signed. He further noted the president’s assertion during the interview that he would like to see the debate over marriage rights for same-sex couples “continue in a respectful way.”
“Today our court has silenced any such respectful conversation,” wrote O’Scannlain.
Prop 8 supporters announced moments after the Ninth Circuit announced its decision that they will petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Perry v. Brown.
“Marriage is a universal good that has been honored by diverse cultures and faiths for the entire history of Western Civilization,” said Brian Raum, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. “The Protectmarriage.com legal team looks forward to standing before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the people’s right to preserve the fundamental building block of civilization, especially since the dissent accompanying today’s decision strongly supports our arguments. The democratic process and the most important human institution—marriage—shouldn’t be overthrown based on the demands of Hollywood activists.”
National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown echoed Raum.
“We are calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve our democratic rights and overturn this action of judicial arrogance,” he said.
Observers note that the case would go before the justices sometime next year if they agree to hear it.
“The Ninth Circuit has wisely declined to review the Prop 8 case,” West Hollywood (Calif.) Mayor John Duran told the Blade. “If the U.S. Supreme Court also denies review, California will return to a freedom to marry.”
Meanwhile, Maryland voters face a likely referendum on the state’s same-sex marriage law in November. A proposed constitutional amendment in Minnesota would ban nuptials for gays and lesbians. Maine voters will consider a ballot measure in November that would allow same-sex couples to tie the knot in their state.
“While the U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately decide the outcome of this case, we must all continue to walk that path–in this case and other courtrooms, in legislatures, at ballot boxes and at kitchen table–until all LGBT people are fully and equally part of the American community,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant
A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
PHOTOS: Helen Hayes Awards
Laverne Cox, Reneé Rapp, Deacon Maccubbin named WorldPride grand marshals
House passes reconciliation with gender-affirming care funding ban
PHOTOS: D.C. Trans Pride
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Pope Leo XIV: Family based on ‘stable union between a man and a woman’
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
