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.
New York
Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade
One of the victims remains in critical condition
On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.
According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.
The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.
The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.
In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.
The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.
New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.
“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”
India
Anaya Bangar challenges ban on trans women in female cricket teams
Former Indian cricketer Sanjay Bangar’s daughter has received support
Anaya Bangar, the daughter of former Indian cricketer Sanjay Bangar, has partnered with the Manchester Metropolitan University Institute of Sport in the U.K. to assess her physiological profile following her gender-affirming surgery and undergoing hormone replacement therapy.
From January to March 2025, the 23-year-old underwent an eight-week research project that measured her glucose levels, oxygen uptake, muscle mass, strength, and endurance after extensive training.
The results, shared via Instagram, revealed her metrics align with those of cisgender female athletes, positioning her as eligible for women’s cricket under current scientific standards. Bangar’s findings challenge the International Cricket Council’s 2023 ban on transgender athletes in women’s cricket, prompting her to call for a science-based dialogue with the Board of Control for Cricket in India and the ICC to reform policies for transgender inclusion.
“I am talking with scientific evidence in my hand,” Bangar said in an interview posted to her Instagram page. “So, I hope, this makes an impact and I will be hoping to BCCI and ICC talking with me and discussing this further.”
On Nov. 21, 2023, the ICC enacted a controversial policy barring trans women from international women’s cricket. Finalized after a board meeting in Ahmedabad, India, the regulation prohibits any trans player who has experienced male puberty from competing, irrespective of gender-affirming surgery or hormone therapy. Developed through a 9-month consultation led by the ICC’s Medical Advisory Committee, the rule aims to safeguard the “integrity, safety, and fairness” of women’s cricket but has drawn criticism for excluding athletes like Canada’s Danielle McGahey, the first trans woman to play internationally. The policy, which allows domestic boards to set their own rules, is slated for review by November 2025.
Bangar shared a document on social media verifying her participation in a physiological study at the Manchester Metropolitan University Institute of Sport, conducted from Jan. 20 to March 3, 2025, focused on cricket performance. The report confirmed that her vital metrics — including haemoglobin, blood glucose, peak power, and mean power — aligned with those of cisgender female athletes. Initially, her fasting blood glucose measured 6.1 mmol/L, slightly above the typical non-diabetic range of 4.0–5.9 mmol/L, but subsequent tests showed it normalized, reinforcing the study’s findings that her physical profile meets female athletic standards.
“I am submitting this to the BCCI and ICC, with full transparency and hope,” said Bangar. “My only intention is to start a conversation based on facts not fear. To build space, not divide it.”
In a letter to the BCCI and the ICC, Bangar emphasized her test results from the Manchester Metropolitan University study. She explained that the research aimed to assess how hormone therapy had influenced her strength, stamina, haemoglobin, glucose levels, and overall performance, benchmarked directly against cisgender female athletic standards.
Bangar’s letter to the BCCI and the ICC clarified the Manchester study was not intended as a political statement but as a catalyst for a science-driven dialogue on fairness and inclusion in cricket. She emphasized the importance of prioritizing empirical data over assumptions to shape equitable policies for trans athletes in the sport.
Bangar urged the BCCI, the world’s most influential cricket authority, to initiate a formal dialogue on trans women’s inclusion in women’s cricket, rooted in medical science, performance metrics, and ethical fairness. She called for the exploration of eligibility pathways based on sport-specific criteria, such as haemoglobin thresholds, testosterone suppression timelines, and standardized performance testing. Additionally, she advocated for collaboration with experts, athletes, and legal advisors to develop policies that balance inclusivity with competitive integrity.
“I am releasing my report and story publicly not for sympathy, but for truth. Because inclusion does not mean ignoring fairness, it means measuring it, transparently and responsibly,” said Bangar in a letter to the BCCI. “I would deeply appreciate the opportunity to meet with you or a representative of the BCCI or ICC to present my findings, discuss possible policy pathways, and work towards a future where every athlete is evaluated based on real data, not outdated perceptions.”
Before her transition, Bangar competed for Islam Gymkhana in Mumbai and Hinckley Cricket Club in the U.K., showcasing her talent in domestic cricket circuits. Her father, Sanjay Bangar, was a dependable all-rounder for the Indian national cricket team from 2001 to 2004, playing 12 test matches and 15 One Day Internationals. He later served as a batting coach for the Indian team from 2014 to 2019, contributing to its strategic development.
Cricket in India is a cultural phenomenon, commanding a fanbase of more than 1 billion, with more than 80 percent of global cricket viewership originating from the country.
The International Cricket Council, the sport’s governing body, oversees 12 full member nations and more than 90 associate members, with the U.S. recently gaining associate member status in 2019 and co-hosting the 2024 ICC Men’s T20 World Cup. The BCCI generated approximately $2.25 billion in revenue in the 2023–24 financial year, primarily from the Indian Premier League, bilateral series, and ICC revenue sharing. The ICC earns over $3 billion from media rights in India alone for the 2024–27 cycle, contributing nearly 90 percent of its global media rights revenue, with the BCCI receiving 38.5 percent of the ICC’s annual earnings, approximately $231 million per year.
Women’s cricket in India enjoys a growing fanbase, with over 300 million viewers for the Women’s Premier League in 2024, making it a significant driver of the sport’s global popularity. The International Cricket Council oversees women’s cricket in 12 full member nations and over 90 associate members, with the U.S. fielding a women’s team since gaining associate status in 2019 and competing in ICC events like the 2024 Women’s T20 World Cup qualifiers. The BCCI invests heavily in women’s cricket, allocating approximately $60 million annually to the WPL and domestic programs in 2024–25, while contributing to the ICC’s $20 million budget for women’s cricket development globally. India’s media market for women’s cricket, including WPL broadcasting rights, generated $120 million in 2024, accounting for over 50 percent of the ICC’s women’s cricket media revenue.
“As a woman, I feel when someone says that they are women, then they are, be trans or cis. A trans woman is definitely the same as a cis woman emotionally and in vitals, and specially, when someone is on hormone replacement therapy. Stopping Anaya Bangar from playing is discrimination and violation of her rights. It is really sad and painful that every transwoman need to fight and prove their identity everywhere,” said Indrani Chakraborty, an LGBTQ rights activist and a mother of a trans woman. “If ICC and BCCI is stopping her from playing for being transgender, then I will say this to be their lack of awareness and of course the social mindsets which deny acceptance.”
Chakraborty told the Blade that Bangar is an asset, no matter what. She said that the women’s cricket team will only benefit by participation, but the discriminating policies are the hindrance.
“Actually the transgender community face such discrimination in every sphere. In spite of being potent, they face rejection. This is highly inhuman. These attitudes is regressive and will never let to prosper. Are we really in 2025?,” said Chakraborty. “We, our mindset and the society are the issues. We, as a whole, need to get aware and have to come together for getting justice for Anaya. If today, we remain silent, the entire community will be oppressed. Proper knowledge of gender issues need to be understood.”
The BCCI and the International Cricket Council have not responded to the Blade’s repeated requests for comment.
New York
Zohran Mamdani participates in NYC Pride parade
Mayoral candidate has detailed LGBTQ rights platform
Zohran Mamdani, the candidate for mayor of New York City who pulled a surprise victory in the primary contest last week, walked in the city’s Pride parade on Sunday.
The Democratic Socialist and New York State Assembly member published photos on social media with New York Attorney General Letitia James, telling followers it was “a joy to march in NYC Pride with the people’s champ” and to “see so many friends on this gorgeous day.”
“Happy Pride NYC,” he wrote, adding a rainbow emoji.
Mamdani’s platform includes a detailed plan for LGBTQ people who “across the United States are facing an increasingly hostile political environment.”
His campaign website explains: “New York City must be a refuge for LGBTQIA+ people, but private institutions in our own city have already started capitulating to Trump’s assault on trans rights.
“Meanwhile, the cost of living crisis confronting working class people across the city hits the LGBTQIA+ community particularly hard, with higher rates of unemployment and homelessness than the rest of the city.”
“The Mamdani administration will protect LGBTQIA+ New Yorkers by expanding and protecting gender-affirming care citywide, making NYC an LGBTQIA+ sanctuary city, and creating the Office of LGBTQIA+ Affairs.”
PHOTOS: Fredericksburg Pride
Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade
Anaya Bangar challenges ban on trans women in female cricket teams
Zohran Mamdani participates in NYC Pride parade
La marcha LGBTQ desafía el silencio en El Salvador
Supreme Court upholds ACA rule that makes PrEP, other preventative care free
Supreme Court rules parents must have option to opt children out of LGBTQ-specific lessons
Evan Wolfson on the 10-year legacy of marriage equality
Senate parliamentarian orders removal of gender-affirming care ban from GOP reconciliation bill
Wilmington, Del. leaders paint city’s first rainbow crosswalk
-
U.S. Supreme Court3 days agoSupreme Court upholds ACA rule that makes PrEP, other preventative care free
-
U.S. Supreme Court4 days agoSupreme Court rules parents must have option to opt children out of LGBTQ-specific lessons
-
National5 days agoEvan Wolfson on the 10-year legacy of marriage equality
-
Congress4 days agoSenate parliamentarian orders removal of gender-affirming care ban from GOP reconciliation bill