Connect with us

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

Published

on

Law gavel, gay news, Washington Blade

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.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

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

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

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.

Continue Reading

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

Published

on

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon (Screen capture: C-SPAN)

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.

Continue Reading

New York

Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade

One of the victims remains in critical condition

Published

on

The Stonewall National Memorial in New York on June 19, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

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.”

Continue Reading

Popular