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.
Ukraine
Ukrainian Supreme Court recognizes same-sex couple as a family
Zoryan Kis and Tymur Levchuk married in US in 2021
The Ukrainian Supreme Court has recognized a same-sex couple as a family.
The couple — Zoryan Kis and Tymur Levchuk — have lived together since 2013. They legally married in the U.S. in 2021.
The Kyiv Independent notes the couple challenged the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry’s refusal to acknowledge Levchuk as Kis’s family member, therefore denying him spousal rights while Kis was posted at the Ukrainian Embassy in Israel. Kis and Levchuk challenged the decision in court in 2024.
Kyiv’s Desniansky District Court last year in a landmark ruling recognized Kis and Levchuk as a family. Vsi Razom, an anti-LGBTQ organization, appealed the decision.
Insight, the Ukrainian LGBTQ rights group that represented Kis and Levchuk, said the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling on Feb. 25.
“The Supreme Court of Ukraine has upheld the legality of recognizing a same-sex couple as a family based on their factual relationship, despite the absence of legal recognition of same-sex partnerships in Ukrainian legislation,” Insight Chair Olena Shevchenko noted to the Washington Blade on Tuesday. “The court confirmed the decision, establishing the fact that (the) two men had lived together as a family, affirming that such recognition can be based on proven circumstances of their shared life rather than on political decisions or the existence of formal partnership laws.”
Insight in a Facebook post added the Supreme Court ruling sets “a tremendous precedent.”
“No homophobic or conservative organization will be able to use the courts as a tool to persecute or overturn decisions in favor of LGBT+ people under the guise of ‘social morality,’” said Insight. “The state has protected the boundaries of private life.”
The Supreme Court issued its ruling a day after Ukraine marked four years since Russia began its war against the country.
The Ukrainian constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2022 publicly backed civil partnerships for same-sex couples. Shevchenko pointed out Ukrainian law “currently does not provide a mechanism for registering same-sex marriages or partnerships.”
Maryland
Md. Legislative LGBTQ+ Caucus outlines 2026 priorities
Expanded PrEP access among objectives
Maryland’s Legislative LGBTQ+ Caucus outlined legislative priorities for the remainder of the General Assembly’s 2026 term during a press conference on March 5.
State Del. Kris Fair (D-Fredrick County) led the press conference. State Del. Ashanti Martinez (D-Prince George’s County) and other caucus members also spoke.
Caucus members are sponsoring 12 bills and supporting four others.
Martinez is sponsoring House Bill 1114, which would expand PrEP access in Maryland.
“PrEP is 99 percent effective in preventing HIV transmission,” he explained, noting PrEP’s cost often turns away potential users.
The bill aims to extend insurance coverage and expand pharmacists’ ability to prescribe PrEP along with other HIV treatments and testing. Martinez is working with state Sen. Clarence Lam (D-Anne Arundel and Howard Counties) and FreeState Justice on the bill.
The House Health Committee had a hearing last week that included HB1114.
“Ending the HIV epidemic is about expanding access and providing these life-saving tools to all persons in Maryland,” Martinez said.
Several other pieces of legislation were highlighted during the press conferences. They included measures focused on youth and education, birth certificate markers, so-called conversion therapy, and hormone medications.
State Sen. Cheryl Kagan (D-Montgomery County) is cosponsoring Senate Bill 950, which would update and strengthen conversion therapy laws. State Del. Bonnie Cullison (D-Montgomery County) has introduced an identical bill that would extend the statute of limitations on individuals who facilitate conversion therapy.
Kagan explained the bill would allow conversion therapy victims to come to terms with their experience undergoing the widely discredited practice that “creates shame and it silences survivors.”
When questioned, Fair explained the press conference happened late into the legislative session because “we [the caucus] are constantly having to respond in real time to what’s happening in Washington” while drafting and considering pieces of legislation.
The Frederick County Democrat described this session’s bills as the “most ambitious list of priorities to date.” Fair also described the caucus’s goals.
“It’s decency, it’s dignity, and its humanity,” he said.
The White House
Trump will refuse to sign voting bill without anti-trans provisions
Measure described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
President Donald Trump said he will refuse to sign any legislation into law unless Congress passes the “SAVE Act,” pressuring lawmakers to move forward with the controversial voting bill.
In posts on Truth Social and other social media platforms, the 47th president emphasized the importance of Republican lawmakers pushing the legislation through while also using the opportunity to denounce gender-affirming care.
“I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed, AND NOT THE WATERED DOWN VERSION — GO FOR THE GOLD,” Trump posted. “MUST SHOW VOTER I.D. & PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP: NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS EXCEPT FOR MILITARY — ILLNESS, DISABILITY, TRAVEL: NO MEN IN WOMEN’S SPORTS: NO TRANSGENDER MUTILIZATION FOR CHILDREN! DO NOT FAIL!!!”
The proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections. Trump has also called for the legislation to include a ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent.
“This is a huge priority for the president. He added on some priorities to the SAVE America Act in recent days, namely, no transgender transition surgeries for minors. We are not gonna tolerate the mutilation of young children in this country. No men in women’s sports,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said. “The president putting all of these priorities together speaks to how common sense they are.”
The comments mark the first time the White House has publicly confirmed that Trump is pushing to attach anti-trans policies to the SAVE Act.
The bill would also require the removal of undocumented immigrants from existing voter rolls and allow election officials who fail to enforce the proof-of-citizenship requirement to be sued.
It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. Current safeguards include requirements such as providing a Social Security number when registering to vote, cross-checking voter rolls with federal data and, in some states, requiring identification at the polls.
Trump began pushing for the legislation during his State of the Union address last month, where he singled out Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) by name while criticizing the lack of movement on the bill.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has denounced the legislation as “Jim Crow 2.0” and said it has little chance of advancing through the Senate, calling it “dead on arrival.”
In remarks on the Senate floor, Schumer said “the SAVE Act includes such extreme voter registration requirements that, if enacted, could disenfranchise 21 million American citizens.”
Trump has repeatedly used political messaging around trans youth and gender-affirming care as part of broader cultural and policy debates during his presidency — most recently during his State of the Union address, where he cited the case of Sage Blair, a Virginia teenager whose school allegedly encouraged her to transition without her parents’ consent.
LGBTQ advocates — including those familiar with Blair’s story — say the situation was far more complex than described and argue that using a single anecdote to justify sweeping federal restrictions could place trans people, particularly youth, at greater risk.
Ukrainian Supreme Court recognizes same-sex couple as a family
Md. Legislative LGBTQ+ Caucus outlines 2026 priorities
PHOTOS: ‘Defrosted’
Trump will refuse to sign voting bill without anti-trans provisions
Owner of D.C. gay bar Green Lantern John Colameco dies at 79
Fla. Senate passes ‘Anti-Diversity’ bill that could repeal local LGBTQ protections
Ugandan activist named Charles F. Kettering Foundation fellow
Liza Minnelli makes surprise appearance at GLAAD Media Awards
Capital Pride must be transparent about sexual misconduct investigation
In D.C. comedy, be sure to shop local
-
Florida5 days agoFla. Senate passes ‘Anti-Diversity’ bill that could repeal local LGBTQ protections
-
Uganda5 days ago
Ugandan activist named Charles F. Kettering Foundation fellow
-
Celebrity News5 days ago
Liza Minnelli makes surprise appearance at GLAAD Media Awards
-
Opinions5 days ago
Capital Pride must be transparent about sexual misconduct investigation
