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.
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Pentagon expands testosterone screening as trans troops face hormone therapy restrictions
Defense Department says updated guidelines to be issued shortly
The Pentagon has announced that new clinical guidance will be released establishing mandatory testosterone deficiency screening for active-duty and reserve cisgender male service members ages 30 and older, advancing a policy that expands hormone-related care for cisgender troops.
The Defense Department said the existing clinical guidelines, which are not currently available on the Defense Health Agency’s website, are being updated and that the final guidance will be issued shortly.
The announcement comes amid a wave of anti-transgender policies from both the DoD and the Trump-Vance administration, which continue to prohibit trans men from receiving the same treatment.
Under the forthcoming guidance, men ages 30 and older will be forced to undergo testosterone blood tests as part of their medical care. Younger male service members will be tested if they request screening or if clinicians identify warning signs of low testosterone.
The new guidelines formalize a screening program Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in July, when he said the Pentagon would begin testing service members to ensure that “you have the right testosterone levels to operate at your absolute best.”
“Taking care of your long-term health means ensuring you remain strong, resilient, and capable — not just for your next deployment, but for the rest of your life, so you can thrive long after you take off the uniform,” Hegseth said at the time.
The Defense Health Agency’s clinical guidance says the program is intended to address “hormonal and energy-availability issues.” Hegseth said in July that testosterone replacement therapy would remain voluntary for service members if treatment is recommended.
The Food and Drug Administration is also scheduled to hold a meeting later this month with experts to discuss the medical use of testosterone.
The Pentagon’s push to routinely test testosterone levels runs counter to current medical guidance, which generally recommends considering testosterone therapy only for men who have symptoms consistent with low testosterone and have documented low hormone levels on two separate blood tests.
Testosterone is a sex hormone naturally produced by people of all sexes. It plays a role in regulating muscle mass, bone density, and sex drive. Testosterone levels in men naturally decline with age and have been associated with symptoms including erectile dysfunction, low libido, mood changes and weight gain, although experts continue to debate when testosterone therapy is medically appropriate.
The policy has drawn scrutiny from LGBTQ advocates because the Pentagon and Hegseth have simultaneously cited hormone therapy as part of the rationale for removing trans service members from the military.
Under President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” the military has moved to bar trans people diagnosed with gender dysphoria from serving and has begun formal administrative separation proceedings against trans personnel.
The Pentagon continues to pursue implementation of the trans military ban as litigation over the policy proceeds. As a result, some trans service members have had their gender-affirming hormone therapy halted even as the Pentagon expands testosterone screening and potential treatment for cisgender service members.
SPARTA Pride, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization made up of trans service members, veterans and their allies, criticized the disparity to the Washington Blade when Hegseth first announced the screening program.
“If hormone therapy helps warfighters perform at their best, then it cannot simultaneously be used as evidence that transgender service members are unfit to serve,” said Kara Corcoran, executive director of SPARTA Pride. “The same class of evidence-based medical treatment cannot be characterized as readiness-enhancing for one group and readiness-destroying for another.”
On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that trans service members already serving in the military could continue to do so while allowing the armed services to continue refusing to enlist new trans recruits.
The Blade reached out to the Pentagon when the testosterone screening program was first announced in July, asking why cisgender service members could receive testosterone therapy while transgender service members could not. The Pentagon did not respond.
National
Lou Chibbaro Jr. documentary wins award from NLGJA
‘Lou’s Legacy’ produced by D.C.’s Mattachine Society
“Lou’s Legacy: a Reporter’s Life at the Washington Blade,” a documentary produced by The Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C., will receive an Excellence in Journalism Award from NLGJA, the Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists.
The film premiered on WETA PBS in D.C. and Maryland Public Television (MPT) in June of 2025. The documentary’s Emmy-nominated director and producer Patrick Sammon will accept the award for Excellence in Local Television on Sept. 11 at NLGJA’s National Convention in San Francisco.
“Lou’s Legacy” was produced in association with the Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C., a non-profit LGBTQ history society dedicated to conducting original archival research. Aside from Sammon, the NLGJA is recognizing other members of the film’s production team including Producer Julianne Donofrio, Editor Amir Jaffer, Executive Producer Charles Francis, and Executive Producer Pate Felts.
“Lou’s Legacy” tells the story of two D.C. icons — legendary Washington Blade reporter Lou Chibbaro Jr. and beloved drag performer Donnell Robinson, known to generations of Washington audiences as “Ella Fitzgerald.” Through Lou’s nearly five-decade career at the Blade and Ella’s return to the stage after a three-year hiatus following COVID, the 29-minute documentary explores the history of Washington’s LGBTQ community and today’s rising backlash against LGBTQ rights, including laws targeting drag performers.
“All students of journalism can learn a lot from the story of Lou Chibbaro, Jr. Lou has chronicled nearly five decades of LGBTQ+ life and the community’s struggle for equality in Washington, D.C. Lou’s work and the role of the queer press has been essential in covering stories the mainstream media would often ignore or erase,” said Ryan Levi, president of the D.C. chapter of the NLGJA.
“We are thrilled to receive this award from the NLGJA,” said the film’s director Patrick Sammon. “Lou Chibbaro’s nearly five decade career at the Washington Blade demonstrates the essential role LGBTQ journalism plays in telling our community’s stories and documenting its history. This recognition from journalists who follow in Lou’s footsteps is particularly meaningful to me and the rest of our production team.”
Arizona
Shooting outside gay bar in Ariz. leaves three dead
Tucson police investigating double murder-suicide as a hate crime
Three people were fatally shot outside a gay bar in Tucson, Ariz., early Monday morning, about a mile from the city’s nightlife district.
Police have said the shooting, which took place in the parking lot of Venture-N bar at 1239 N. 6th Ave., was likely a hate crime and a double murder-suicide following a verbal altercation.
The suspect, Ousman Ceesay, allegedly shot Vincent Anthony Siqueiros and Cameron Davis Capara while they were outside the club around 12:30 a.m. Monday.
Reports show Capara and Siqueiros were pronounced dead at the scene. Ceesay died after being taken to a local hospital with gunshot wounds.
Police have also said that Ceesay was carrying a list of LGBTQ businesses at the time of the shooting.
Arizona Public Media has said police are investigating the case as a hate crime because the suspect was carrying a note containing the names of multiple LGBTQ-associated businesses.
“I am deeply saddened that another senseless loss of life has happened in our community,” Tucson Police Chief Monica Prieto said in a statement. “Bias-based crimes are especially heinous and have no place in our community.”
According to Prieto, there is no imminent threat to the community, and the Tucson Police Department is working to provide extra protection to various LGBTQ businesses across town.
Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva, who represents the area, issued a statement condemning the act of violence, which appears to have been at least in part motivated by homophobia.
“I am disgusted and deeply saddened to learn of a targeted act of hate and the cold-blooded murder of two members of our LGBTQIA+ community, Vincent Siqueiros and Cameron Capara, at the Venture-N bar in Tucson last night. This horrific attack is a painful reminder that even in welcoming communities like Tucson, hate and violence against the LGBTQIA+ community still exist.”
“When that hate is combined with easy access to firearms, the consequences can be deadly. I am sick and tired of Congress refusing to lift a finger to protect our communities while, every day, dozens of people are shot and killed across the country. It does not have to be this way. The House of Representatives is returning to session this week, and our first action should be passing common-sense gun safety reforms that we know can save lives.”
Other federal lawmakers also condemned the shooting.
The Congressional Equality Caucus, which is made up of federal legislators advancing LGBTQ interests, issued a statement after news broke.
“Our hearts are with the friends and loved ones of the victims of this devastating attack outside a Tucson gay bar and with the Tucson LGBTQI+ community,” it said on X. “No one should fear violence because of who they are — and we’re going to continue fighting to build a world where no one does.”
The Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ organization in the country, released a statement following the shooting.
“We are heartbroken by the loss of Vincent Anthony Siqueiros and Cameron Davis Capara and our hearts are with their families, loved ones, and the entire Tucson LGBTQ+ community. Once again, we are reminded that gun violence robs people of their lives, destroys families, and devastates communities.”
A candlelight vigil honoring the victims is planned for Sept. 2 at 6:30 p.m. at Catalina Park in North Tucson.
Pentagon expands testosterone screening as trans troops face hormone therapy restrictions
Calendar: September 4-10
Swiss government backs nationwide conversion therapy ban
Gloria Steinem dies at 92
The mastery of love
Poland begins to legally recognize same-sex marriages from other countries
HRC president campaigns for Chris Pappas in NH
We’re getting married but our parents object
Michael Smith could make history as Delaware’s first LGBTQ treasurer
