National
DOJ asks Supreme Court to hear two additional DOMA cases
Obama administration has now asked for consideration of four such cases
U.S. Supreme Court (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday filed legal briefs with the Supreme Court asking justices to take up two additional cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act upon their return from summer recess.
The Obama administration asked the high court to hear Windsor v. United States, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, which was filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. Both cases are currently pending before the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
News of the Justice Department filing the two separate legal briefs was first reported by Reuters. Read the petition in the Pedersen brief here and the petition in the Windsor brief here.
The Justice Department asks the Supreme Court to take up the cases as sort of a backup plan in case justices decline to hear two other DOMA cases they have been asked to review: the consolidated case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services and Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management.
“The Court should hold this petition pending its consideration and disposition of the petitions in Massachusetts and Golinski,” the Pedersen petition states. “Should the Court grant review in either of those cases, it need not grant review in this case. If the Court concludes that neither Massachusetts nor Golinski provides an appropriate vehicle for resolving the question presented, it should grant this petition to ensure a timely and definitive ruling on Section 3’s constitutionality.”
The Justice Department maintains the order in which the Supreme Court should consider the cases is Massachusetts and Golinski, then Pedersen, then the Windsor case. According to the Justice Department, the question of whether the Supreme Court can take up the latter two cases rests on whether plaintiffs “have appellate standing to seek certiorari before judgment.” But the Justice Department says justices must resolve the additional question in the Windsor case of whether New York law recognized the Canadian marriage of the plaintiff, New York lesbian Edith Windsor, at the time of her spouse’s death.
Among the petition’s signers are U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli and Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery, who’s gay and has been litigating against DOMA on behalf of the Obama administration in court.
Both petitions call on the Supreme Court to answer a question that was previously asked by other parties calling on the Supreme Court to review the anti-gay law: Does Section 3 of DOMA violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their state?
The request from the Justice Department follows earlier requests from the Supreme Court to consider these cases from ACLU and GLAD in the wake of district court rulings in favor of plaintiffs against DOMA in the lawsuits. U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones ruled against DOMA in the Windsor case in June. U.S. District Judge Vanessa Bryant ruled against the anti-gay law in the Pedersen case in July. Following those rulings, ACLU and GLAD both asked the Supreme Court to take their respective cases in lieu of waiting for the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals to make a decision.
The Justice Department had previously called on the Supreme Court to take up the consolidated Massachusetts case and the Golinski case. The filings on Tuesday mean the Justice Department now has matched all other requests from groups calling on the Supreme Court to take up different DOMA cases.
Mary Bonauto, the lead counsel for the GLAD in the DOMA cases, said the filings by the Justice Department are “procedural” because petitions requesting that the Supreme Court take up these cases were already awaiting justices.
“So now, DOJ is simply adding it’s voice, saying, ‘Yes, these cases — if some reason you don’t take up some other case — these cases are also appropriate for deciding the issue of DOMA’s constitutionality,” Bonauto said. “It is really is procedural as opposed to substantive, simply trying to essentially provide a menu of cases to the Supreme Court from which to choose.”
In February 2011, the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend DOMA against legal challenges in court and that laws related to sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny. Previously, the Justice Department had only Golinski to draw upon because courts in the Massachusetts case ruled DOMA was unconstitutional using a rational basis standard. But after the court ruling in the Pedersen case, the Justice Department had another vehicle to express its viewpoint that heightened scrutiny should apply to laws related to sexual orientation.
“Essentially, they opened up this sample because they want a case that applies heightened scrutiny because that fits with their position and Pedersen is the only other case,” Bonauto said. “Pedersen actually does an extremely thorough job of addressing the factors at enormous length. I mean, it’s over 50 pages in the opinion. In the end, the court doesn’t apply heightened scrutiny because it doesn’t need to, but it sets forth a case for heightened scrutiny.”
The ACLU declined to comment on the Justice Department filings.
Now that the Justice Department has sent these petitions, other parties in the cases have until October 12 to respond. The Supreme Court may make its decision on whether to hear the DOMA cases in the week of September 24, but the cases may be held until a later time.
The House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Council, under the leadership of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), has taken up defense of DOMA in the administration’s stead. Legal counsel representing BLAG didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
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
