National
GOP att’y strongly defends DOMA in N.Y. widow’s lawsuit
Second Circuit hears arguments in Windsor case in NYC
Edith ‘Edie’ Windsor testifies in her Federal Court case against DOMA. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
NEW YORK CITY — The House Republican attorney defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court took particular issue on Thursday with an octogenarian lesbian’s case against by the law by suggesting the timing and location of her marriage makes challenge invalid.
Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general under the Bush administration, claimed before a federal appeals court that Edith Windsor doesn’t have a case because she married in Canada and her spouse, Thea Spyer, died in 2009 — two years before New York legalized same-sex marriage.
“The critical question isn’t 2012, the critical question is 2009,” Clement said.
Clement added that the issue of whether the marriage is sufficient for a challenge against DOMA should be brought to certification before the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court in New York.
James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project, told the Blade after the oral arguments that Clement was “grasping at straws” when making these claims.
“There’s clear law in New York that New York in 2004 recognized the marriages of same-sex marriage performed in Canada and in other states that allowed same-sex couples to marry,” Esseks said.
Esseks acknowledged that the high court in New York hasn’t affirmed those marriages, but said that three lower courts have recognized those marriages as legitimate as well as the governor and attorney general.
“There’s just no debate about it; It’s quite clear,” Esseks said. “I think we heard from the court today — it’s difficult to make any predictions — but based on what I heard from the court, I don’t think that that’s how the court’s going to decide this question. They’re not going to duck the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage by saying we’re not sure whether she’s actually married or not.”
Edith Windsor (right) speaks with the ACLU’s James Esseks to reporters following oral arguments in the Second Circuit (Washington Blade photo by Chris Johnson)
A three-judge panel on the appellate court heard from three attorneys during oral arguments in the case, known as Windsor v. United States. The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Windsor, who was forced to pay $363,000 in estate taxes upon the death of her spouse because of Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
The panel consisted of Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush; Judge Chester Straub, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton; and Judge Christopher Droney, who was appointed by President Obama.
It’s the second time a federal appellate court has considered the constitutionality of DOMA. In April, the U.S. First Circuit of Appeals heard oral arguments in the consolidated case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services. On May 31, the appeals issued a decision against DOMA as result of that consideration.
Lawyers presented before the Second Circuit starkly different views on the the Defense of Marriage Act on Thursday before judges reviewing Windsor’s challenge to the anti-gay law, which was passed by Congress in 1996.
In addition to questioning whether Windsor has standing, Clement, who’s DOMA in court on behalf of the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, drew upon the cases of Baker v. Nelson, a 1972 Minnesota case seeking the legalization of same-sex marriage that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear for lack of substantive federal question.
Clement acknowledged the case is 40 years old and times may have changed since then, but added, “The only thing that hasn’t changed is this court’s obligation to follow Supreme Court precedent.”
Plaintiffs in the case had another view. Roberta Kaplan, partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, argued against DOMA on behalf of Windsor, saying the law be struck down because states can already decide on their own what decisions to make about who can marry within their borders.
“The problem supposedly solved by uniformity is a problem that our federalist principles have already dealt with,” Kaplan said.
Kaplan added the case against DOMA isn’t about any federal right to marry because even with the law in place, gay couples haven’t been discouraged from marrying across the country, nor have they been discouraged from adopting.
Acting U.S. Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery, who’s gay, assisted in the litigation against by presenting arguments on behalf of the Obama administration, saying the court should strike down because of the long history of discrimination against LGBT people — including the criminalization of homosexuality and being barred from military service.
“Sexual orientation is a fundamental part of person’s identity that says nothing about a person’s ability to contribute to society,” Delery said.
Questions from judges hit on several topics, although the questioning from didn’t reveal much in terms of what how they’d rule in the case. Many inquiries were posed about the extent to which gays and lesbians enjoy political power within the U.S. government. Opponents of DOMA have argued the anti-gay law is unconstitutional because gays and lesbians lack political power, but BLAG contends the LGBT community has significant influence.
Asked by Jacobs about whether the test of political power is whether gays and lesbians have any power at all or whether power is diminished, Clement replied, “I think it’s the former, and I don’t think it’s not a overwhelmingly difficult test. … It’s a matter of whether you get the attention of lawmakers.”
Clement pointed to a friend-of-the-court brief signed by 145 House Democrats filed in the case on behalf of plaintiffs as evidence that the LGBT community has influence over the political process as he asserted the LGBT community should look to the legislative process to repeal DOMA, saying “This is an issue that could be left to the Democratic process.”
But Kaplan said the 30 marriage amendments that passed in state throughout the country are evidence that gay and lesbians are politically powerless, even though she emphasized these amendments have no bearing on the case at hand against DOMA.
The degree of scrutiny under which laws related to sexual orientation should face before the courts also came up the during the hearing. Judges asked whether they should overturn DOMA on the basis that such laws should be subjected to strict scrutiny, or more intermediate level of heightened scrutiny or be examined under a rational basis review. The level of scrutiny they apply could have implications on court cases related to sexual orientation.
In the event the court decided to rule against DOMA, Clement said the court asked the court not to apply heightened scrutiny, noting it would be the first appellate court to do so because the First Circuit Court of Appeals when struck down DOMA in May under rational basis review.
Kaplan said she was arguing for the higher level of review called strict scrutiny as opposed to the more intermediate heightened scrutiny because “being gay or lesbian is closer to being African-American than being a woman.” Laws related to gender have been subjected to heightened scrutiny, but laws related to race have been subjected to strict scrutiny.
But Delery didn’t articulate the same view, saying he was arguing against DOMA on the basis that it violated heightened scrutiny. While he acknowledged arguments could be made that DOMA fails rational basis, he wouldn’t commit to saying that should be struck down under that standard.
Another question for Delery, which came from Droney, was why the Justice Department had appealed the Windsor to the Second Circuit even though his side won at the district court level when U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones ruled against the law. Delery provided a explanation, prompting Droney to quip that the Justice Department must have a predilection for seeking appellate court rulings in all cases, eliciting laughter from those in attendance at the hearing.
Yet another question was raised by Jacobs on whether withholding benefits from gay couples with the intention of saving money for the federal government is a good enough constitutional reason to keep DOMA in place. Kaplan denied this assertion and said saving money isn’t sufficient rationale unless it’s coupled with another justification.
But Clement pounced on these remarks in the rebuttal allotted to him at the end of the oral arguments, saying preserving federal coffers are absolutely a good reason to preserve DOMA and Congress was “preserving the scope of the benefits programs the way they’ve always been.”
Clement also during his rebuttal asserted that Congress has acted in other areas besides gay and lesbian with regard to marriage. He noted lawmakers have acted to protect against fraud, and, going back to the 19th Century, require states to prohibit polygamy so territories like Utah could enter into the union.
Following the oral arguments, Windsor appeared outside the court building to speak with reporters. Windsor, who recently turned 83, said, “I look forward to the day when the federal government will recognize the marriages of all Americans, and I am hopeful that this day will come during my lifetime.”
Windsor further invoked the memory her deceased spouse — with whom she shared a life for 40 years — saying she believes she’s was present in the court in spirit and “would have been so proud to see how far we’ve come.”
Now that oral arguments are done, judges will confer to determine the steps they’ll take in the case and the process that will lead to them making a decision. There’s no set time for when they have to make a ruling; it could be a matter of days, months or a year.
The ACLU’s Esseks said he wasn’t in a position to predict in what way judges would rule as a result of what was said during the oral arguments.
“Lawyers never want to predict the outcomes,” Esseks said. “There are some arguments that you come out of and you’re like I’m willing to take a guess here. This argument didn’t give me clear sense one way or the other. I wouldn’t be surprised about a win and I wouldn’t be shocked about a loss either.”
Windsor’s attorneys and the Justice Department have asked the Supreme Court to take up the Windsor case for consideration. If the Supreme Court accepts the request, the high court would take up jurisdiction of the lawsuit and the Second Circuit proceedings would be halted.
Federal Government
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Spending package would restrict Pride flags on federal buildings, trans healthcare, LGBTQ envoys
As Congress finalizes its funding for fiscal year 2027, Republicans are attempting to include five anti-LGBTQ riders in the National Security and Department of State Appropriations Act.
A rider is an unrelated provision tacked onto a bill that must pass — in this instance, the bill provides funding for national security policy and for the State Department.
The riders range from restricting Pride flags in federal buildings to banning transgender healthcare, but all aim to limit the visibility and rights of LGBTQ Americans.
The five riders are:
Section 7067(a) prohibits Pride flags from being flown over federal buildings.
Section 7067(c) restricts the United States’ ability to appoint special envoys, representatives, or coordinators unless expressly authorized by Congress. These roles have historically been used to promote U.S. interests in international forums — including advancing human and LGBTQ and intersex rights and other policy priorities. The change would halt what the Congressional Equality Caucus describes as providing “critical expertise to U.S. foreign policy and leadership abroad.”
Section 7067(d) reinforces multiple anti-equality executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, effectively requiring that foreign assistance funded by the United States comply with those orders. This includes rescinding federal contractor nondiscrimination protections, including for LGBTQ people.
Section 7067(e) prohibits funding for any organization that provides or promotes medically necessary healthcare for trans people or “promotes transgenderism” — effectively banning funds for organizations that recognize trans people exist. This is despite the practice of gender-affirming care being supported by nearly every major medical association.
Section 7067(g) reinforces two global gag rules put forward by the Trump-Vance administration. One is the Trans Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that acknowledge the existence of trans people or advocate for nondiscrimination protections for them, among other activities. The second is the DEI Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that engage in efforts to address the ongoing effects of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry outside the United States.
The global gag rule has its roots in anti-abortion policy introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, when the 40th president barred foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance from providing information, referrals, or services for legal abortion, or from advocating for access to abortion services in their own countries. Planned Parenthood notes that the policy also affects programs beyond abortion, including efforts to expand access to contraception, prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, combat malaria, and improve maternal and child health.
If organizations funded by the State Department engage in these activities, they could lose funding.
This anti-LGBTQ push aligns with broader actions from the Trump-Vance administration since the start of Trump’s second term, which have focused on restricting human rights — particularly those of trans Americans.
The House Appropriations Committee is responsible for drafting the appropriations legislation. U.S. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) serves as chair, with U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) as ranking member. The committee includes 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
For FY27 appropriations, Congress is supposed to pass and have the president sign the funding bills by Sept. 30, 2026.
Noticias en Español
The university that refuses to let go
Joanna Cifredo is a trans woman participating in University of Puerto Rico strike
Over the past days, I have been walking with a question that refuses to leave me. Not the kind of question you answer from a desk or from a distance, but one that grows out of what you witness in real time, at the gates, in the faces of those who remain there without knowing how any of this will end. What is truly happening inside the University of Puerto Rico, and why have so many students decided to risk everything at a moment when they can least afford to lose anything.
I write as someone who lives just steps away from the Río Piedras campus. These days, the silence has replaced the constant movement that once defined this space. The absence is felt in every corner where students used to pass at all hours. Since arriving in Puerto Rico three years ago, I have come to know firsthand stories that rarely make it into reports or official statements. One of the reasons I chose to stay was precisely this, to serve the university community, to help create a space where students could find something as basic as a safe meal at night and, in some way, ease burdens that are often carried in silence.
I have listened, asked questions, and tried to understand without imposing answers. What I have found is not a collective outburst or a generational whim. What exists is a fracture, a deep break between those making decisions and those living with their consequences every single day.
There has been an effort to reduce this strike to an issue of order, scheduling, or academic disruption. Conversations revolve around missed classes, delayed semesters, and students supposedly unaware of the consequences of their actions. What is rarely addressed are the conditions that lead an entire student body to pause its own future to sustain a protest that offers no guarantees.
Because that is the reality. These are students who fully understand what they are risking, and yet they remain. When someone reaches that point, the least they deserve is not judgment, but to be heard.
From the outside, there have also been attempts to discredit what is happening. Familiar narratives are repeated, legitimacy is questioned, and doubt is cast over intentions. It is easier to do that than to acknowledge that this did not begin at the gates, but long before, in decisions made without building trust.
And something must be said clearly. This is not limited to the gates of Río Piedras. What we are witnessing extends across every unit of the University of Puerto Rico system. Mayagüez, Ponce, Arecibo, Bayamón, Cayey, Humacao, Carolina, Aguadilla, Utuado, and the Medical Sciences Campus. This is not an isolated reaction. It is a movement that runs through the entire institution. Río Piedras may be more visible, but it is not alone. What is happening there reflects a broader unrest felt across the system.
Within that context, one demand has grown increasingly present, the call for the resignation of University of Puerto Rico President Zayira Jordán Conde. This is not the voice of a small group. It reflects a deeper level of mistrust that has spread across multiple campuses.
The Puerto Rican Association of University Professors has also made it clear that this is not solely a student issue. There is real concern among faculty, and a shared recognition of the conditions currently shaping the university. When students and professors arrive at the same conclusion, the problem can no longer be minimized.
Meanwhile, the administration continues to speak in the language of dialogue. But dialogue is not a word, it is a practice. And when trust has been broken, it cannot be restored through statements alone, but through decisions that prove a willingness to truly listen.
In the midst of all of this, there are voices that cannot be ignored. Voices grounded not in theory, but in lived experience. One of them is Joanna Cifredo, a student at the Mayagüez campus, a young Puerto Rican trans woman, and someone widely recognized for her advocacy.
I spoke with her in recent days. What follows is her voice, exactly as it is.
How would you describe what is happening inside the University of Puerto Rico right now, beyond what people see from the outside?
Estamos viviendo momentos muy difíciles, en el sentido de que hay mucha incertidumbre y una presión constante por parte de la administración para reabrir el recinto, pero, entre todo el caos e inestabilidad provocado por las decisiones de esta administración, también hemos vivido momentos muy poderosos. Esta lucha ha sacado lo mejor de nuestra comunidad.
Lo vimos en las asambleas y plenos, donde 1,500, 1,700, hasta 1,800 estudiantes llegaron —bajo lluvia, bajo advertencias de inundaciones— y aun así se quedaron, participaron y votaron a favor de una manifestación indefinida hasta que se atiendan nuestros reclamos.
He conocido a tantas personas en los diferentes portones, estudiantes graduados, aletas, estudiantes de intercambio, estudiantes de todo tipo de concentraciones y se unieron para apoyar el movimiento estudiantil. Estudiantes que vienen a los portones después del trabajo o antes de trabajar. Estudiantes que vienen a dejar agua y suministros entre turnos de trabajo. Viejitos que vienen a los portones con desayuno, almuerzo o cena.
Más allá de lo que se ve desde afuera, lo que estamos viviendo es una mezcla de tensión y resistencia, pero también de comunidad, solidaridad y compromiso colectivo.
Much of what is discussed remains at the level of headlines or social media. From your direct experience, what specific decisions or actions from the administration have led to this level of mobilization?
Desde el inicio, la designación de la Dra. Zayira Jordán Conde careció de respaldo dentro de la comunidad universitaria. No contaba con experiencia administrativa en la UPR ni con un conocimiento básico de nuestros procesos, cultura y reglamentos. Por eso, en asamblea, el estudiantado votó para solicitarle a la Junta de Gobierno que no considerara su candidatura, y múltiples organizaciones docentes hicieron lo mismo. Existía un consenso amplio de que no tenía la experiencia necesaria para liderar una institución como la nuestra.
A pesar de ese rechazo claro, la Junta de Gobierno decidió ignorar los reclamos de la comunidad universitaria e imponer su nombramiento.
Una vez en el cargo, su estilo de gobernanza ha sido poco transparente y poco colaborativo. Sin embargo, el detonante principal de la movilización en el Recinto Universitario de Mayagüez fue su decisión de destituir, de manera unilateral y en medio del semestre, a cinco rectores, incluyendo al nuestro, el Dr. Agustín Rullán Toro, para reemplazarlo por un rector interino, el Dr. Miguel Muñoz Muñoz.
Esta acción, tomada de forma abrupta, provocó de inmediato un clima de caos e inestabilidad dentro de la institución. Y deja una pregunta inevitable: ¿no anticipó el impacto de esa decisión, lo que evidenciaría una falta de experiencia? ¿O lo anticipó y aun así decidió proceder? No está claro cuál de las dos es más preocupante.
Además, esta decisión tuvo consecuencias concretas para el estudiantado, incluyendo el retiro de becas educativas para nuevos integrantes del RUM por parte de la Fundación Ceiba, que calificó la movida como “sorprendente” y “preocupante”. Decisiones impulsivas como la que tomó la presidenta ponen en peligro la estabilidad de nuestra institución y la acreditación de la universidad.
As a trans woman within this movement, how does your identity intersect with what is happening, and why does this also shape the future of people like you?
Soy una de varias chicas trans que formamos parte activa de este movimiento estudiantil.
For those outside the UPR who believe this does not affect them, what are the real consequences of this crisis?
La Universidad de Puerto Rico se fundó para servir al pueblo.
It is impossible to overstate the role the University of Puerto Rico and its students have played in shaping the social, cultural, and economic life of this country. Its impact extends into science, medicine, and every profession that has sustained Puerto Rico over time. No other educational institution has contributed more.
After listening to her, one thing becomes undeniable. This is not just another protest, but a generation refusing to let go of what little remains within its reach. And when a generation reaches that point, the issue is no longer the strike, the issue becomes the country itself.
National
Advocacy groups issue US travel advisory ahead of World Cup
Renee Good’s death in Minneapolis among incidents cited
More than 100 organizations have issued a travel advisory for the U.S. ahead of the 2026 World Cup.
The World Cup will take place in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico from June 11-July 19.
“In light of the deteriorating human rights situation in the United States and in the absence of meaningful action and concrete guarantees from FIFA, host cities, or the U.S. government, the undersigned organizations are issuing this travel advisory for fans, players, journalists, and other visitors traveling to and within the United States for the June 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. World Cup games will be played in 11 different cities across the United States, which, like many localities, have already been the target of the Trump administration’s violent and abusive immigration crackdown,” reads the advisory that the Council for Global Equality and other groups that include the American Civil Liberties Union issued on April 23. “The impacts of these policies vary by locality.”
“While the Trump administration’s rising authoritarianism and increasing violence pose serious risks to all, those from immigrant communities, racial and ethnic minority groups, and LGBTQ+ individuals have been and continue to be disproportionately targeted and affected by the administration’s policies and, as such, are most vulnerable to serious harm when traveling to and/or within the United States,” it adds. “This travel advisory calls on fans, players, journalists, and other visitors to exercise caution.”
The advisory specifically mentions Renee Good.
A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed her in Minneapolis. Good, 37, left behind her wife and three children.
The full advisory can be read here.
Tennessee’s trans data bill a frightening omen
The queer appeal of ‘The Devil Wears Prada’
Lesbifriends Travel to host queer night out
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Calendar: May 1-7
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
Rep. Sarah McBride reflects on first year in Congress amid political backlash
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
-
Federal Government5 days agoHouse Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
-
European Union3 days ago
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
-
Delaware4 days ago
Rep. Sarah McBride reflects on first year in Congress amid political backlash
-
News5 days ago
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
