National
BREAKING: Second Circuit latest to strike down DOMA
Anti-gay law ruled unconstitutional in 2-1 decision
The Second Circuit ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional against Edith Windsor‘s legal challenge against the law (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
A federal appeals court has ruled the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional in case filed by a New York widow who’s challenging the statute on the basis that it unfairly forced her to pay $363,000 in estate taxes.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Section 3 of DOMA on the basis that it violates equal protection under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The majority opinion came from Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, who wrote the decision, and Judge Christopher Droney. Judge Chester Straub dissented by asserting DOMA is constitutional.
“DOMA’s classification of same-sex spouses was not substantially related to an important government interest,” the decision states. “Accordingly, we hold that Section 3 of DOMA violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional.”
The plaintiff in the lawsuit, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, is 83-year-old lesbian Edith Windsor, who in 2009 had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes upon the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer, because DOMA prohibits the federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
In a statement, Windsor praised the Second Circuit for coming to the conclusion that DOMA is unconstitutional.
“This law violated the fundamental American principle of fairness that we all cherish,” Windsor said. “I know Thea would have been so proud to see how far we have come in our fight to be treated with dignity.”
The decision means seven federal courts — eight if a bankruptcy court ruling is included — have now determined DOMA is unconstitutional at a time when numerous cases challenging the anti-gay law are pending for consideration before the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court hasn’t yet determined whether it will take up the constitutionality of DOMA, but is likely to do so. The Second Circuit is also the second appeals court to strike down DOMA. The First Circuit ruled against the law in May.
The next step in the process is for House Republicans to appeal the decision either to the full Second Circuit or the Supreme Court, which has already been asked to take up the Windsor case along with several other DOMA cases. The high court will then decide the constitutionality of DOMA once and for all on a nationwide basis.
Susan Stenger, an appeals court attorney who’s handled LGBT rights cases for the Boston-based firm Burns & Levinson, said it’s unlikely DOMA proponents would pursue en banc review in the cases because so many other lawsuits against the anti-gay law are already pending before the Supreme Court.
“The fact that there’s a dissent [means] they might try en banc review, but also knowing that this will ultimately go to the Supreme Court, I would think they wouldn’t bother,” Stenger said. “Why waste time and resources when if an en banc changed anything, whomever lost would certainly appeal?”
Dennis, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, wrote the majority decision against DOMA even though he has reputation for being a conservative judge. Joining him was an Obama appointee, Droney. The dissenting judge, Straub, was appointed by former President Clinton.
In addition to ruling against DOMA, the judges determined the anti-gay law should be subject to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption that the law is unconstitutional. The Second Circuit is the first appeals court to determine that DOMA should be subject to this level of review.
Based on precedent the Supreme Court set in earlier court cases, the court offers four reasons — including the history of discrimination faced by LGBT people — as reasons why DOMA should be subject to heightened scrutiny.
“In this case, all four factors justify heightened scrutiny: A) homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination; B) homosexuality has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society; C) homosexuals are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter same-sex marriages; and D) the class remains a politically weakened minority,” the decision states.
Douglas Nejaime, who’s gay and a law professor at Loyola Law School, called the Second Circuit’s decision to apply heightened scrutiny against DOMA “very significant” because it means the Supreme Court will have to weigh in on the matter in addition to the law itself.
“As a practical matter, this makes it even more difficult for the Supreme Court to avoid the question of heightened scrutiny,” NeJaime said. “If the Gill decision from the First Circuit was the only federal appellate decision striking down DOMA, the Court could have struck down DOMA — upholding that decision — without passing on the level-of-scrutiny question. But with the Second Circuit’s decision in Windsor, the Court is more likely to address heightened scrutiny.”
NeJaime added that as a result of the Second Circuit application of heightened scrutiny, courts are now more likely to find state marriage bans unconstitutional as well as anti-gay laws related parental rights and public employment discrimination.
Notably, the decision rejects an argument proposed by private attorney Paul Clement — who’s advocating on behalf of the anti-gay law for the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group — that Windsor’s case should be sent to the New York Court of Appeals for certification because Spyer died at a time before New York legalized same-sex marriage.
The appeals court says certification is unnecessary because the New York Court of Appeals has expressed a disinclination to decide the question and because New York’s intermediate appellate courts are unanimous on the issue. At that time of Spyer’s death in 2009, Windsor’s marriage was recognized in New York by an executive order issued by then-Gov. David Paterson.
“Given the consistent view of these decisions, we see no need to seek guidance here,” the decision states. “Because Windsor’s marriage would have been recognized under New York law at the time of Spyer’s death, she has standing.”
The court also rejects an argument posed by Clement that the court should uphold DOMA because of precedent set by Baker v. Nelson, a 1972 case challenging Minnesota’s prohibition on same-sex marriage that the Supreme Court refused to hear for want of federal question.
Judges say Baker isn’t controlling because in the 40 years following the case there have been “manifold changes to the Supreme Court’s equal protection jurisprudence” and because the lawsuits are distinct: Baker was about same-sex marriage within a state while the Windsor is about a federal law.
“After all, Windsor and Spyer were actually married in this case, at least in the eye of New York, where they lived,” the decision states. “Other courts have likewise concluded that Baker does not control equal protection review of DOMA for these reasons.”
James Esseks, director of the ACLU LGBT Project, shared in the jubilation that the court’s reasoning led the judges to rule against the anti-gay law.
“Yet again, a federal court has found that it is completely unfair to treat married same-sex couples as though they’re legal strangers,” Esseks said. “Edie and Thea were there for each other in sickness and in health like any other married couple, and it’s unfair for the government to disregard both their marriage and the life they built together and treat them like second-class citizens.”
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who was among the 144 House Democrats who signed a friend-of-the-court brief against DOMA in the Windsor case, also commended the judges for ruling in favor of a plaintiff who’s also his constituent.
“As the amicus brief I spearheaded in this case pointed out, and as the court agreed, there is no justification for denying Edie Windsor the same right as all other spouses to her full inheritance without paying a tax penalty,” Nadler said. “Edie lives in my congressional district, and was with her wife, Thea Spyer, for 44 years. The last thing she should have to worry about following the loss of her spouse is an unjust tax penalty imposed for no other reason than the fact that she and her wife were the same gender.”
In his dissenting opinion, Straub dissents in part and concurs in part, saying he disagrees with the majority opinion that DOMA is unconstitutional and the legislative approach is the appropriate course of action for those who want it lifted from the books.
“The Congress and the President formalized in DOMA, for federal purposes, the basic human condition of joining a man and a woman in a long-term relationship and the only one which is inherently capable of producing another generation of humanity,” Straub writes. “Whether that understanding is to continue is for the American people to decide via their choices in electing the Congress and the President. It is not for the Judiciary to search for new standards by which to negate a rational expression of the nation via the Congress.”
Stenger said she thinks the dissent will have value “to the people who disagree” with the majority opinion to justify their position, but otherwise have little impact.
“The Supreme Court obviously studies all the detail of a dissent in making its own decision, so it may find something in there persuasive, but technically it has no impact,” Stenger said. “It may just give food-for-thought to somebody who’s inclined to go in that direction.”
NOTE: This post has been edited and updated to include more information and reaction to the Second Circuit ruling.
The White House
Trump tells Fox News he won the ‘gay vote’ — but polls tell a different story
Trump falsely claims LGBTQ support on Fox despite polling showing overwhelming opposition.
President Donald Trump claimed he won the “gay vote” in 2024, despite evidence showing otherwise.
While appearing by phone on Fox News’s panel show “The Five” on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed he performed particularly well among gay voters while discussing the ongoing war in Iran — a conflict he initiated without formal congressional approval.
“Now I think I did very well with the gay vote, OK? I even played the gay national anthem as my walk-off, OK?” Trump said on air.
“And I think it probably helped me. But I did great. No Republican’s ever gotten the gay vote like I did and I’m very proud of it, I think it’s great. Perhaps it’s because I’m from New York City, I don’t know…”
His claim contradicts 2024 polling from NBC News, which found that the GOP presidential ticket captured fewer than 1 in 5 LGBTQ male voters — a figure that may also include bisexual and transgender men. Trump’s support among LGBTQ female voters was even lower, at just 8%.
White LGBTQ voters favored Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump by a margin of 82% to 16%, while LGBTQ voters of color backed Harris by an even wider 91% to 5%.
Trump also used the appearance to criticize “Gays for Palestine,” saying: “Look at ‘Gays for Palestine’… they kill gays, they kill them instantly, they throw them off buildings, and I’m saying, ‘Who are the gays for Palestine?’”
He further pointed to his campaign’s use of the song “Y.M.C.A.” by the Village People — which he has repeatedly described as a “gay national anthem” — noting that it was frequently used as a walk-off song at rallies, as an indication that he and his campaign were supported by the gay community. The track, long associated with camp and hyper-masculine gay imagery, became a staple of Trump campaign events.
The Village People were later booked to perform at Turning Point USA’s inaugural ball celebrating Trump’s second inauguration. Lead singer Victor Willis previously criticized Trump’s use of the song dating back to 2020 and considered legal action to block it, but ultimately said there was “not much he can do about it.” He later acknowledged the renewed exposure was “beneficial” and “good for business,” boosting the song’s popularity and chart performance.
Despite Trump’s claims of strong support from gay voters, polling has consistently shown otherwise — even as several prominent gay men have held roles in or around his orbit, sometimes dubbed the “A-gays.” These include Richard Grenell, former executive director of the Kennedy Center and Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; Under Secretary of State Jacob Helberg; Department of Energy official Charles T. Moran; and longtime supporter Peter Thiel, co-founder and CEO of Palantir.
His efforts to portray himself as aligned with the gay community stand in conflict with policies advanced under his leadership. These include removing LGBTQ-related data from State Department reports, attempting to narrowly redefine gender identity in federal policy, restricting access to gender-affirming health care, and rolling back anti-discrimination protections. His administration also rescinded initiatives focused on LGBTQ health equity, data collection, and nondiscrimination in health care and education — moves advocates say contribute to stigma and worsen mental health outcomes.
Additionally, some HIV programs and community health centers have lost funding from the federal government after supporting initiatives inclusive of transgender people as a direct result of Trump-Vance policies.
National
Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents
Trump administration escalates attacks on queer community
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security earlier this month released its third Red Flag Alert for the United States about the Trump administration’s anti-trans legislation. As the Lemkin Institute shared in the press release, “the Administration has moved from identifying transgender people as as threat to the family and to the nation’s military prowess to claiming that transgender people constitute a cosmic threat to the spiritual health of the nation and the great direct threat to the US national security in the world.”
The news came the same day that the State Department issued a new rule, “Enhancing Vetting and Combatting Fraud in the Immigrant Visa Program.” Under this new guidance, all visa applicants are required to disclose their “biological sex at birth” during all stages of the process, “even if that differs from the sex listed on the applicant’s foreign passport or identifying documentation.”
This rule also orders that applicants to the green card lottery program share their passport information, so in knowingly collecting passport information that the agency knows will not match a person’s biological sex at birth, it’s creating grounds to deny trans peoples’ biases on the basis of “fraud,” Aleksandra Vaca of Transitics explains.
As is written in the new ruling, “the Department is replacing ‘gender’ with ‘sex’ in accordance with E.O. 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which provides that the term ‘sex’ shall refer to an individual’s sex at birth. Only male and female sex options are available for entrants completing the Diversity Visa entry form.”
Along with outright denying the existence of nonbinary, genderqueer and gender expansive people, this policy creates a precedence for trans people to be stripped of their visas and deported because under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), any foreigner found to have obtained or possess a visa “by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact” will have their visa revoked and face deportation.
By requesting information on “biological sex at birth,” the State Department is forcing a mismatch between documents and enabling officials to accuse trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive immigrants of fraud. Thus, trans and nonbinary immigrants can have their visas revoked and can be deported, and information gathered from immigrants during the visa request process can be added to federal databases and used by immigration authorities, including ICE agents.
With the Supreme Court’s decision this past year allowing ICE officers to use racial profiling, Vaca argues that “now, The Trump administration has given ICE the reason it needs. Under this rule, ICE agents now have the enforcement rationale to assert that trans people–especially those belonging to racial minority groups–are more likely than cis people to have ‘misrepresented’ themselves during the visa process, and therefore, are more likely to enter the country ‘unlawfully.’”
This would enable ICE agents to target trans individuals specifically for being trans. If the goal of this were unclear, a day later the Trump administration released its statement for Women’s History Month 2026, writing that “we are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written and ensuring colleges preserve–and, where possible, expand–scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes. We are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”
And this is not the first time that ICE has targeted and harmed trans and nonbinary immigrants. Last June, Vera reported that ICE is not including trans people in detection in their public reports, and back in 2020, AFSC reported that trans people held in ICE detention faced “dreadful, ugly” conditions.
While it seems like a new development in Trump’s anti-trans escalation, it echoes a deeply upsetting history of denying and destroying transgender people’s documents following members of the Nazi party seizing power in 1933.
In the early 20th century, Weimar, Germany was an epicenter for gender affirming care with Maganus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science. One of the first book burnings of the rising Nazi regime destroyed the Institute’s extensive clinical records and library on trans health and history by Nazi students and stormtroopers. In doing so, the Nazis effectively destroyed the world’s first trans health clinic and one of the richest and most comprehensive collective of information about trans healthcare.
Similarly, the Nazi government invalidated or refused to recognize what was called “transvestite passes,” or passing certificates that allowed trans people to avoid arrest under Paragraph 175 which prohibited cross-dressing. During the Weimar Republic — the regime that preceded the Third Reich — recognized and affirmed the identities of trans people (in limited ways) with specific documentation that helped prevent them from arrest. Invalidating and disregarding these passes allowed police and Nazi officials to target trans people and harass, extort and arrest them, and the record of passes themselves helped officials target trans people.
The changes to visa guidelines — alongside Kansas’s move to revoke trans drivers’ licenses last month — is reflective of this escalation of violence against trans people during the Nazi’s rise to power, which scholars like Dr. Laurie Marhoefer is just beginning to uncover. And along with the revocation of identification documents this past week, a recent Fourth Circuit Court ruled that states can deny Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery.
The Fourth Circuit Court decision affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti, which ruled that bans on gender affirming healthcare for young people are constitutional. This ruling extends this ban to include adult healthcare bans, allowing West Virginia’s exclusion of Medicaid coverage for adult gender affirming healthcare to take full effect. Even more upsetting was what the ruling itself said, calling gender affirming healthcare “dangerous.”
As was written in the Fourth Circuit Opinion, “it’s not irrational for a legislature to encourage citizens ‘to appreciate their sex’ and not ‘become disdainful of their sex’ by refusing to fund experimental procedures that may have the opposite effect.”
In reality, what this ruling and the opinion reflect, is the next step in government regulation and oversight over marginalized peoples’ bodies. From the overturn of Roe v. Wade, which removed federal protection of access to abortion, this next step represents the denial of people’s access to vital, lifesaving care–and to be clear, gender affirming care is not just for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people. It’s a dangerous escalation and one that echoes previous violence against trans people under fascist regimes; the Lemkin Institute is right to raise concern.
Pennsylvania
Pa. House passes bill to codify marriage equality in state law
Governor supports gay state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta’s measure
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that would codify marriage equality in state law.
House Bill 1800 passed by a 127-72 vote margin. Twenty-six Republicans voted for the measure.
The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate will now consider the bill that state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia), who is the first openly gay person of color elected to the state’s General Assembly, introduced. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro supports the measure.
“Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love,” said Shapiro on Wednesday. “Today, the House has stepped up to protect that right.”
BREAKING: The Pennsylvania House just passed @RepKenyatta's bill to codify marriage equality into law in PA — and they did it with broad bipartisan support.
— Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) March 25, 2026
Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love. Today, the House has stepped up to protect that…
Trump tells Fox News he won the ‘gay vote’ — but polls tell a different story
Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents
Japanese Supreme Court to consider marriage equality
The outrage economy is not the LGBTQ community
Calendar: March 27-April 2
Markwayne Mullin confirmed as next DHS secretary
D.C. goes gaga for Gaga
Menaka Guruswamy celebrated as India’s first openly LGBTQ MP
HRC to host National Rainbow Seder
