National
High stakes in marriage cases awaiting Supreme Court
Legal experts weigh in on what to expect next week
The U.S. Supreme Court could decide as soon as next week whether it’ll hear cases related to DOMA and Proposition 8. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
All eyes will be on the U.S. Supreme Court next week when it could announce whether it will take up high-profile LGBT-related cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 — and the results of those decisions could have an immediate impact on the marriage rights of same-sex couples.
On Monday, justices are scheduled to hold their first conference to decide cases they will consider when they reconvene in October following their summer recess. Among the cases docketed for this meeting is federal litigation challenging Prop 8, now known as Hollingsworth v. Perry, and one of the cases challenging Section 3 of DOMA, Windsor v. United States.
Justices can decide to take up a case, decline to hear it or put off the decision on considering the lawsuit for a future conference. It takes a vote of four justices to grant a writ of certiorari (to take up a case) but the decision will be put off if any one justice wants more time to decide.
The decision on the Prop 8 case is of particular note because if the court decides against taking up the case and lets stand an appeals court decision against the same-sex marriage ban, gay couples would once again have the right to marry in the nation’s most populous state immediately following a mandate from the U.S. Ninth Circuit of Appeals.
But if the Supreme Court decides to take up the case, the ban would remain in effect until the justices make their own ruling in the lawsuit. It’s possible the court could make a decision saying lower courts erred in overturning Prop 8. For the same-sex marriage ban to come to an end at that point, another lawsuit coming up from the district courts or repeal of Prop 8 at the ballot would be necessary.
Jennifer Pizer, legal director for the Williams Institute, said while she thinks the court is likely to take up cases related to DOMA, it’s a “much harder guess” whether justices will decide to hear the Prop 8 litigation.
“There might well be four justices that disagree with what the Ninth Circuit held, but I think it would be challenging for them probably — as it is for everybody else who’s watching the court — to wonder where a fifth vote might go,” Pizer said. “So I think it’s even odds that the court will not review in Perry.”
Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, said in the event that the Supreme Court decides not to hear the Prop 8 case, gay couples should wait for the mandate from the Ninth Circuit before marrying in California.
“My advice to people is plan a nice wedding as opposed to running that day to go get married because there’s always some risk for couples that get married and 10 years split up, one might say, ‘You didn’t really get legally married because the injunction wasn’t in place yet and Prop 8 was still the law and they shouldn’t have married us,'” Davidson said. “Although I think that argument would lose, people don’t need to take on potentially having to fight about that later. If they just wait until the mandate, there won’t be any question.”
There could be an advantage for the LGBT community if the Supreme Court takes up the lawsuit because it could produce a ruling that would affect not only California, but all states with same-sex marriage bans throughout the country. Still, this level of examination bring a new scope of review to the Prop 8 lawsuit because the Ninth Circuit was limited in the way it restricted its reasoning to California.
Pizer said the Supreme Court could rule with a larger scope when considering the constitutionality of Prop 8, but such an evaluation would be unlikely given the limited nature of the Ninth Circuit ruling.
“I think it’s extremely unlikely that there would be a ruling either calling in question all the marriage restrictions of all the states that have them, or on the flip-side, holding that marriage absolutely as a matter of federal law must be restricted just to different-sex couples,” Pizer said. “The things that could be done on the more extreme ends of something favorable or unfavorable to same-sex couples is not so likely.”
The situation is slightly different for the DOMA lawsuits because the Windsor case is the only one that has been fully briefed and docketed for the Sept. 24 conference. The court may not issue a decision on reviewing DOMA until the full range of lawsuits challenging the anti-gay law have been scheduled for consideration.
More DOMA-related cases haven’t yet been set for consideration even though the high court has been asked to consider them. They’re the consolidated case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services, the only lawsuit in which an appeals court has ruled against DOMA, as well as Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management.
Davidson said the Supreme Court could also wait to make a decision on whether to hear the Prop 8 lawsuit until making a decision on whether to hear the DOMA cases.
“Different issues in the cases, but they might say, ‘Well, let’s think about all these at the same time to think about whether we should grant review in both kinds of cases or one, and which order,” Davidson said.
As with the Prop 8 case, if the Supreme Court decided against hearing the DOMA cases, it would have significant immediate impact. The federal government would recognize the same-sex marriages of states within the jurisdiction of the First Circuit and other challenges against DOMA would continue up the pipeline.
But the court is widely expected to decide to take up the constitutionality of DOMA because unlike Prop 8, the issue is related to federal law and the U.S. Justice Department has interceded — first in July and again this month — to ask the court to take up each of the four cases pending before the court related to the law. And a ruling from the Supreme Court would almost certainly have a nationwide scope that would enable federal recognition of same-sex marriages throughout the country as opposed to a ruling that would affect only one state.
There’s another benefit to the LGBT community if the Supreme Court were to take up the cases: the application of higher standard of review for cases related to sexual orientation. The Golinski and Pedersen cases are unique among the other DOMA lawsuits because they are the only ones in which lower courts have ruled against DOMA on the basis that they don’t meet the standards of heightened scrutiny, or the assumption they’re unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court were to consider these cases along with other DOMA cases, it could set precedent for applying heightened scrutiny to other laws in the future.
A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the anti-gay side would be significantly burdensome for supporters of same-sex marriage. That would mean opponents of the law would have to fight through the legislative process to lift the ban — a daunting task especially if Republicans were to retain control of the House.
Justices also have an opportunity in taking up the DOMA cases to assert whether the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which took up defense of DOMA after the Obama administration declined to defend the law, has standing to defend it. Some lower courts have hinted BLAG may lack standing to defend DOMA because it’s a committee within the House that hasn’t been approved by a floor vote in either chamber of Congress.
Doug NeJaime, who’s gay and a law professor at Loyola Law School, said the role of BLAG and where the committee derives its authority presents an interesting question to the Supreme Court.
“It would be interesting to see whether the justices actually ask those threshold questions about what the status and standing of BLAG actually is,” NeJaime said. “Because both sides want a substantive determination, I think that’s partly why we haven’t seen it become a huge issue, but it is an interesting question.”
It’s unclear what the schedule will be like for the cases if the Supreme Court decides to take them up. Briefings would ensue in the months that follow and oral arguments may take place in the spring for the court to make a ruling before it adjourns in June. For the DOMA lawsuit, the Supreme Court may take up the cases, but decline to take action until more appellate courts have made decisions on the pending litigation.
Pizer said the Supreme Court may seek to hear arguments on the Prop 8 cases at the same time because they’re both related to marriage.
“The DOMA cases are quite distinct from Perry, but at the same time, they concern marriage for same-sex couples, and certainly some of the arguments made in all these cases resemble, so it wouldn’t be that surprising for the justices to decide to consider a number of them at the same time,” Pizer said.
Legal experts also say the votes of each of the justices in granting a writ of certiorari shouldn’t be an indication of how they’ll ultimately rule in each of the cases.
NeJaime said observers “can’t read too much into” the certiorari votes because justices may decide to take up the cases either because they want to uphold or strike down the laws at hand.
“I think there are clearly going to be justices, for instance, on the DOMA cases that want to take it to overturn, and will overturn DOMA, and, I think, there are justices that want to take it and would uphold DOMA, so I think it’s hard to tell, although I think the DOMA cases are the stronger cases for the LGBT side,” NeJaime said.
Other LGBT cases pending before the Supreme Court are scheduled for September conference, but they aren’t as high-profile as the marriage cases. Justices will consider whether to take up the case of Diaz v. Brewer, in which Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has appealed an injunction placed by a district court prohibiting her from enforcing a law taking away domestic partner benefits from Arizona state employees. Another pending case is National Organization for Marriage v. McKee, in which the anti-gay organization is challenging Maine disclosure laws requiring it to reveal donors regarding its involvement in the 2009 marriage ballot initiative in the state.
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.
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
Gerry Connolly dies at 75 after battle with esophageal cancer
WorldPride begins — let’s hope it ends well
LGBTQ leaders celebrate Frank Kameny’s 100th birthday at Supreme Court
Pope Leo XIV: Family based on ‘stable union between a man and a woman’
WorldPride events round-up
Lucky Pollo stretches its wings at 14th and U
Tips for buying a house in Rehoboth Beach
