National
Coakley joins calls for Supreme Court to review DOMA
Mass. att’y gen’l is fourth to ask high court to take up litigation

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is asking the Supreme Court to review DOMA (File photo by Fogster via Wikimedia)
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley joined on Tuesday the chorus of individuals calling on the Supreme Court to review the Defense of Marriage Act by filing a legal brief asking justices to take up the lawsuit that she filed against the anti-gay law.
The 27-page brief, filed in the consolidated case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services, comes on the heels of a decision from the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals overturning Section of 3 DOMA in response to the litigation.
The brief states Massachusetts agrees with the appellate ruling and “normally would oppose further review in order to ensure that judgment takes effect as soon as possible,” but notes DOMA, which prohibit federal recognition of same-sex marriage, is of national importance and the high court in any event is likely to take up its review.
“On that assumption, the Commonwealth believes that the Court should conduct that review in the context of a case that presents the full range of constitutional challenges to DOMA, including challenges under the Tenth Amendment and Spending Clause that are best presented by a State,” the brief states. “The Commonwealth accordingly agrees that the Court should grant review in this case and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.”
Coakley’s brief responds to the appeal that filed House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) attorneys filed before the Supreme Court in response to the First Circuit decision. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), under the direction of Boehner, took up defense of DOMA following a party-line vote after the Obama administration last year stopped defending the law in court.
BLAG has already presented the question to justices on whether DOMA violates the equal protection clause under the U.S. Constitution, but Coakley presents two new questions: (1) Whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment, and (2) Whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Spending Clause under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
Coakley, who filed her lawsuit in 2009, has been contending DOMA is unconstitutional because it interferes a state’s right to regulate marriage under the Tenth Amendment. Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2003.
Additionally, she contends DOMA exceeds Congress’ authority under the Spending Clause because the law impacts joint state-federal programs, such as Medicaid and operation of veterans’ cemeteries.
In a statement accompanying the brief, Coakley emphasizes that DOMA “is a discriminatory and unconstitutional law” because it unfairly impacts married same-sex couples and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
“It is our firm conviction that in order to truly achieve marriage equality all couples must enjoy the same rights and protections under both state and federal law,” Coakley said. “If the Supreme Court chooses to examine this case, we will look forward to once again making clear that DOMA and its pervasive discrimination is unconstitutional and should be ended.”
Despite Coakley’s call for the Supreme Court to take up review on DOMA on the basis that it violates state’s rights, the First Circuit rejected her arguments while ruling that DOMA was unconstitutional for other reasons. Judges had ruled the consequences of DOMA on Massachusetts “do not violate the Tenth Amendment or Spending Clause” while acknowledging “Congress’ effort to put a thumb on the scales and influence a state’s decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws does bear on how the justifications are assessed.”
The brief now means four parties — both for and against DOMA — have asked the Supreme Court to review DOMA. Late last month, BLAG filed in appeal in response to the Supreme Court. A week later, the Justice Department, which stopped defending in court last year, also asked the Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of DOMA by taking up the Massachusetts case and Golinksi v. United States.
The American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of New York widow Edith Windsor, last week asked the high court to take up the case she filed against DOMA, Windsor v. United States.
All parties involved in the case have 30 days to respond to Coakley’s petition, but response to the filings from BLAG and the Justice Department are due on August 2. The Supreme Court won’t be able to decide whether to hear the case until justices return from summer recess and the start their conference on September 24.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which filed the Gill case that has been consolidated with the Massachusetts lawsuit, declined to comment on the Coakley filing.
NOTE: This article has been updated to the reflect Coakley’s filing is the fourth petition for the Supreme Court to review DOMA.
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.”
-
U.S. Supreme Court2 days ago
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
-
Out & About2 days ago
Celebrate the Fourth of July the gay way!
-
Maryland5 days ago
Silver Spring holds annual Pride In The Plaza
-
Opinions5 days ago
Supreme Court decision on opt outs for LGBTQ books in classrooms will likely accelerate censorship