News
Supreme Court refuses NOM’s challenge to Maine donor laws
Anti-gay group launches website for donors to declare contributions
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it won’t hear a case challenging NOM’s disclosure laws (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied another request from an anti-gay group challenging financial disclosure laws in Maine that require the organization to reveal who donated to the 2009 marriage ballot initiative campaign.
Justices announced on Monday they wouldn’t hear the case, filed by the National Organization for Marriage, on an order listing hundreds of lawsuits they have declined to hear over the course of the 2013 term.
The court’s decision not to hear the case, known as National Organization for Marriage v. McKee, was made during the September 24 conference, the first meeting of justices for this term, but wasn’t announced until Monday. Last week, the court announced six cases it had decided to consider during the conference.
NOM had filed the lawsuit against state disclosure laws in Maine after the organization in 2009 helped the anti-gay side in a referendum over recently the signed same-sex marriage law, which state voters ultimately rejected by 53 percent.
Among other things, NOM argued the same donor disclosure laws shouldn’t be applied to both political candidates and ballot questions and asserted the $100 reporting threshold in Maine is so low it doesn’t constitutionally further the state’s information interest. But the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals in January affirmed a district court ruling upholding the disclosure laws, which NOM later appealed to the Supreme Court.
Fred Sainz, vice president of communications at the Human Rights Campaign, took the opportunity of the decision to knock the anti-gay group.
“NOM has shown an unwillingness to play by the rules and this is yet another legal set-back,” Sainz added. “This is proof that their penchant for secrecy has run them afoul of the law.”
NOM won’t be required to reveal its donors immediately, but the decision means Maine can continue to pursue its investigation of the organization’s activities related to the 2009 ballot measure.
Phyllis Gardiner, a Maine assistant attorney general and counsel to the state’s Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, said the state is “pleased” the First Circuit’s ruling will be upheld, but acknowledged the investigation continues.
“The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices has an ongoing investigation, and there’s pending state court litigation as well that has not yet been fully resolved,” Gardiner said. “So, the constitutionality of the statute was upheld by the First Circuit, and now it’s a matter of the commission completing its work and making its determination.”
Gardiner added she doesn’t know the exact timing for when the ethics commission will finish its investigation.
But NOM wasn’t happy with the decision. John Eastman, NOM’s chair, said in a statement his organization is “disappointed” with the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case, but “will be reviewing” the state’s requests, which the organization says is different now than in 2009.
“In their briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, the state appeared to have substantially narrowed the type of information they were requesting from NOM,” Eastman said. “Had the state taken the position they took recently back in 2009, this litigation might well have been avoided. We will be reviewing the requests for information that the state has made in light if the narrow interpretation the State has now provided to its own statute.”
Darrin Hurwitz, HRC’s assistant general counsel, responded to NOM’s statement by saying the organization should have complied with Maine laws like other organizations did in the first place.
“This litigation could have been avoided in 2009 if NOM had chosen to abide by the law then and disclose donors to their Maine efforts as every other organization that participated in Question 1 did,” Hurwitz said. “It’s easy to say that you’ll respond to the state’s requests after you’ve lost a 3-year court battle and have no other options.”
Gardiner also took issue with the idea that Maine changed what it wanted from NOM since 2009.
“I think that may be based on a misunderstanding,” Gardiner said. “The commission’s interpretation of Maine’s statute — what it requires — has not narrowed or changed during the course of this litigation.”
On the same day as the court announced it wouldn’t hear the lawsuit, Brian Brown, NOM’s president, announced a new website, KeeptheRepublicandMarriage.com, on which donors can publicly declare they’ve contributed money to the organization.
“Even though donors to NOM are not subject to public disclosure, a number of our donors wanted to show that they would not be bullied and were not afraid to publicly proclaim their support for NOM as a way of encouraging others to publicly stand up to support marriage,” Brown said in a statement. “These key donors were inspired by the courage of Dan Cathy, CEO of Chick Fil A, who resolutely told Americans that he unabashedly believed in God’s design for marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
The website already has 26 people listed, but no information other than an individual’s name is given. The top name listed is Sean Fieler, who presumably is the same Sean Fieler who’s chair of the American Principles Project, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage and abortion rights. That group didn’t immediately respond to a request to comment.
Under the headings of the announcement that it won’t take the NOM case, the order from the court states, “The motion of respondents for leave to file a brief in opposition under seal with redacted copies for the public record is granted.”
Hurwitz said this note is procedural and pertains to the respondent brief filed by Maine’s attorney general in the case. The document has lines relating to NOM’s fundraising that are redacted and the court is granting the state’s request to keep them sealed.
It’s not the first time the Supreme Court has declined to hear one of NOM’s challenges to Maine’s financial disclosure laws. In February, the Supreme Court announced it wouldn’t hear a different challenge to Maine’s laws also called National Organization for Marriage v. McKee. But, unlike the later lawsuit, the NOM’s argument in the earlier case was political action committee requirements in state were unconstitutionally broad and vague.
The news on the NOM case comes as many anticipate a decision from the court on whether it take up pending challenges to California’s Proposition 8, known as Hollingsworth v. Perry, and one of the cases against the Defense of Marriage Act, Windsor v. United States. Both were docketed for the September 24, but the order on Monday reveals that no announcements have been made on those high-profile cases.
The Supreme Court has also yet to make a decision on whether it’ll hear the case of Diaz v. Brewer. The request was filed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), who was appealing an injunction placed by a district court prohibiting her from enforcing a law taking away domestic partner benefits from Arizona state employees.
NOTE: This article has been updated from its initial version to include NOM’s response to the decision as well as comments from Phyllis Gardiner.
European Union
European Parliament resolution backs ‘full recognition of trans women as women’
Non-binding document outlines UN Commission on the Status of Women priorities
The European Parliament on Feb. 12 adopted a transgender-inclusive resolution ahead of next month’s U.N. Commission on the Status of Women meeting.
The resolution, which details the European Union’s priorities ahead of the meeting, specifically calls for “the full recognition of trans women as women.”
“Their inclusion is essential for the effectiveness of any gender-equality and anti-violence policies; call for recognition of and equal access for trans women to protection and support services,” reads the resolution that Erin in the Morning details.
The resolution, which is non-binding, passed by a 340-141 vote margin. Sixty-eight MPs abstained.
The commission will meet in New York from March 10-21.
A sweeping executive order that President Donald Trump signed shortly after he took office for a second time on Jan. 20, 2025, said the federal government’s “official policy” is “there are only two genders, male and female.” The Trump-Vance administration has withdrawn the U.S. from the U.N. LGBTI Core Group, a group of U.N. member states that have pledged to support LGBTQ and intersex rights, and dozens of other U.N. entities.
District of Columbia
Deon Jones speaks about D.C. Department of Corrections bias lawsuit settlement
Gay former corrections officer says harassment, discrimination began in 1993
Deon Jones says he is pleased with the outcome of his anti-gay bias lawsuit against the D.C. Department of Corrections that ended after five years on Feb. 5 with the D.C. government paying him $500,000 in a settlement payment.
The lawsuit, filed on his behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union of D.C. and the law international law firm WilmerHale, charged that Jones, a Department of Corrections sergeant, had been subjected to years of discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment because of his identity as a gay man in clear violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act.
A statement released by the ACLU at the time the settlement was announced says Jones, “faced years of verbal abuse and harassment, from co-workers and incarcerated people alike, including anti-gay slurs, threats, and degrading treatment.”
The statement adds, “The prolonged mistreatment took a severe toll on Jones’s mental health, and he experienced depression, post-traumatic-stress disorder, and 15 anxiety attacks in 2021 alone.:
Jones said the harassment and mistreatment he encountered began in 1993, one year after he first began work at the Department of Corrections and continued for more than 25 years under six D.C. mayors, including current Mayor Muriel Bowser, who he says did not respond to his repeated pleas for help.
Each of those mayors, including Bowser, have been outspoken supporters of the LGBTQ community, but Jones says they did not intervene to change what he calls the homophobic “culture” at the Department of Corrections.
The Department of Corrections, through the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, which represents city agencies against lawsuits, and the mayor’s office, have so far declined to comment on the lawsuit and the half million-dollar settlement the city offered to Jones, who accepted it.
Among other things, the settlement agreement states that Jones would be required to resign from his job at the Department of Corrections. It also declares that “neither the parties’ agreement nor the District government’s offer to settle the case shall in any way be construed as an admission by the District that it or any of its current or former employees, acted wrongfully with respect to plaintiff or any other person, or that plaintiff has any rights.”
Scott Michelman, the D.C. ACLU’s legal director said that type of disclaimer is typical for parties that agree to settle a lawsuit like this. He said the city’s action to pay Jones a half million-dollar settlement “speaks louder than words.”
With that as a backdrop, Jones reflected on the settlement and what he says was his tumultuous 30-year career as an employee at the D.C. Department of Corrections in a Feb. 9 interview with the Washington Blade.
He and Michelman pointed out that Jones was placed on paid administrative leave in April 2022, one year after his lawsuit was filed. Among his upcoming plans, Jones told the Blade, is to publish a podcast that, among other things, will highlight the hardship he faced at the Department of Corrections and advocate for LGBTQ rights.
BLADE: What are your thoughts on this lawsuit settlement which appears very much in your favor?
JONES: That’s great. I’m happy. I’m glad to resign. It’s been a long time coming. It was the worst time it’s ever been. And I have advocated for the community for many, many years. And not only standing up for my rights but for the rights for others in the LGBTQ community.
And I’m just tired now. And my podcast will start soon. And I will continue to advocate for the community.
BLADE: Can you tell a little about that and when it will begin?
JONES: Once in April, once everything is closed my podcast will be starting. And that’s Deon’s Chronicle and Reveal. Yes, my own podcast.
BLADE: Since we have reported your attorney saying you have been on administrative leave since March of 2022, some in the community might be interested in what you have been doing since that time. Did you get another job or were you just waiting for this case to be resolved?
JONES: I was waiting for this to be resolved. I couldn’t work. That would violate policy and procedures of the D.C. government. So, I could not get another job or anything else.
BLADE: You have said under administrative leave you were still getting paid. You were still able to live off of that?
JONES: Yes, I was able to. Yes, sir. I used to do a lot of overtime. As a zone lieutenant for many years, I have supervised over 250 officers. I’ve also supervised over 25,000 inmates in my 30 years.
BLADE: How many years have you been working for the Department of Corrections?
JONES: It’s 30 years all together. I started down at the Lorton facility. Six facilities — I’ve worked for past directors, deputy directors, internal affairs. I’ve done it all.
BLADE: Do you have any plans now other than doing the podcast?
JONES: Well, to just do my podcast and also to write my book and my memoir inside of the house of pain, the house of shame — what I’ve been through. When I start my podcast off it will be stories — Part 1 through Part 4. And I will go back to the Lorton days all the way up to now. When it first started was sexual harassment and discrimination back down at Lorton. And I mean this has just been the worst time around.
BLADE: So, did you first start your work at the Lorton Prison?
JONES: Yes, I was at the central facility, which was the program institution.
MICHELMAN: Just for context. You may remember this, but the Lorton facility was where D.C. incarcerated people were held. So, that was part of the D.C. Department of Corrections.
BLADE: Yes, and that was located in Lorton, Va., is that right?
JONES: Right.
BLADE: Didn’t that close and is the main incarceration facility is now in D.C. itself?
JONES: Yes. And that closed in 2001.
BLADE: I see. And is the main D.C. jail now at a site near the RFK Stadium site?
JONES: Yes, sir. And next-door is the correctional treatment facility as well.
BLADE: So, are you saying the harassment and other mistreatment against you began back when you were working at the Lorton facility?
JONES: At the Lorton central facility. And they used to flash me too. When I say flash me like the residents, the inmates were flashing. And they [the employees] were flashing.
BLADE: What do you mean by flashing?
JONES: They take their penis out and everything else. I mean the sexual harassment was terrible. And I came out then down there. And I continued to advocate for myself and to advocate for other people who I was told were being picked on as well.
BLADE: As best you can recall, where and what year did that happen?
JONES: That was back in 1993 in April of 1993.
BLADE: The mayor’s office has declined to comment on the settlement and payment the city is giving you. Yet they have always said they have a strong policy of nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people in D.C. government agencies. But do you think that was not carried out at the Department of Corrections?
JONES: That’s a blatant reason why — I had 13 anxiety attacks. It was so blatant. Can you imagine? On the airwaves or the walkie-talkies — everybody had a walkie talkie — the captains and the majors and everything. And you transmit it to the command center or something like that. When you finish someone gets on the air and calls you a sissy or a fag.
They received so many complaints, and I also sent the mayor so many emails and begging for help. And they ignored it. They didn’t address any complaints at all. So, that’s bull.
BLADE: But now after you filed your lawsuit and you received this settlement do you think there will be changes there to protect the rights of other LGBTQ employees?
JONES: I hope so, because I have been defending community rights. For many years I have been advocating for different things and different services. And I’ve seen the treatment. There are a lot of mistreatments towards the community over there. And I have taken a stance for a lot of people in the community and protecting their constitutional rights as well as mine.
BLADE: What advice might you have for what the Department of Corrections should do to correct the situation that led to your lawsuit?
JONES: Well, what my advice for the department is they need to go back over their training. And they need to enforce rules against any acts of discrimination, retaliation, or sexual harassment. They need to enforce that. They’re not enforcing that at all. They’re not doing it at all. And this time it was worse than ever, then I’ve ever seen it. That you would get on the walkie talkie and someone would call you a fag or a sissy or whatever else or do evil things and everything. They are not enforcing what they are preaching. They are not enforcing that.
BLADE: Is there any kind of concluding comment you may want to make?
JONES: Well, I hope that this litigation will be a wakeup call for the department. And also, that it will give someone else the motivation to stand up for their rights. I was blessed to have the ACLU and WilmerHale to protect my constitutional rights. So, I am just really happy. So, I’m hoping that others will stand up for their rights. Because a lot of people in the community that worked there, they were actually afraid. And I had some people who actually quit because of the pressure.
Baltimore
‘Heated Rivalry’ fandom exposes LGBTQ divide in Baltimore
Hit show raises questions about identity, cultural representation
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | “Heated Rivalry,” the surprise gay hockey romance that has captivated global audiences and become a cultural phenomenon, has inspired sold-out parties celebrating the characters from the steamy series, including in Baltimore.
For some, love of the show has exposed the loss of a once-vibrant gay nightlife in Charm City and splintered its LGBTQ community. It also brings up layered questions about identity, cultural representation, and the limits of identity politics.
In Baltimore, the majority of the parties also appear to be missing a key ingredient that has been a part of the show’s success: gay men at the helm. Last month, women hosted a dance party at Ottobar, a straight establishment.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
European Parliament resolution backs ‘full recognition of trans women as women’
Deon Jones speaks about D.C. Department of Corrections bias lawsuit settlement
Home is where the heart is
‘Heated Rivalry’ fandom exposes LGBTQ divide in Baltimore
Magic is happening for Round House’s out stage manager
McPike wins special election for Va. House of Delegates
Top Democrats re-introduce trans bill of rights
Shooter who killed 7 people inside Canada school was transgender
Just when you think Trump can’t sink any lower, he does
