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.
California
Calif. governor signs 6 pro-LGBTQ bills, vetoes 1
Gavin Newsom rejected measure he claimed is legislative overreach
Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed and vetoed a slew of bills into state law. Among them were seven pertaining to California’s LGBTQ community. Newsom signed six while vetoing one. His actions drew applause and scorn from advocacy groups in the state.
The six signed bills:
Assembly Bill 1775 allows transgender veterans, who were banned from service last year by the Trump-Vance administration, to access housing assistance, use California’s discharge upgrade assistance program, and get support for gaining employment.
Assembly Bill 1930 strengthens privacy protections for healthcare patients and providers by creating clear guidelines for California agencies, individuals, and corporations to respond to out-of-state subpoena requests relating to abortion or gender-affirming care. This includes a requirement to contact the California Attorney General at least seven days prior to responding to the subpoena or providing legal documents. This should add additional protection to those residing in California from investigations in states where abortion or gender-affirming care has more restrictions.
Senate Bill 934 targets conversion therapy in California and increases the amount of time a patient has to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit against a provider for attempting to change the patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill takes aim at the widely debunked practice that treats queerness as a mental disorder that could be cured through psychotherapeutic methods. Conversion therapy has been illegal in California since 2012; however, a recent Supreme Court decision threw the ban into question, prompting lawmakers to write this new bill that legally defines it as medical malpractice.
Senate Bill 1023 expands access to PrEP, a medication that protects people from contracting HIV. The bill requires insurers to cover the drug through the medical benefit and the pharmacy benefit pathways, allowing for more providers to give patients PrEP.
Senate Bill 1114 strengthens privacy protections for voluntary self-identification data about sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill limits when California government agencies can share this data and bars it from being disclosed outside of the state government, with few exceptions.
Senate Bill 1328 expands support for LGBTQ students and staff in California colleges. The bill requires any institution of higher education to designate an employee at any campus, satellite campus, branch campus, or outreach center to support the needs of LGBTQ individuals.
Equality California, the largest statewide LGBTQ civil rights group in the country, commended the governor for his support of legislation that protects and supports the queer community amid escalating threats, attacks, and rollbacks from the federal government.
Executive Director Tony Hoang said in a written statement, “California is once again demonstrating that when LGBTQ+ people are targeted, our state will respond with action,” adding, “We are grateful to Gov. Newsom for signing these measures.”
The vetoed bill:
Assembly Bill 2164 would have banned California from extraditing anyone residing in California for providing abortions or gender-affirming care in another state. Newsom vetoed this bill despite agreeing with its principles, claiming in a written statement that “extradition is an exclusively executive function” and that he did not want to limit the “executive authority of an incoming governor.”
This bill was created in response to Louisiana’s attempt to extradite a California physician for allegedly sending abortion pills in the mail to a Louisiana woman. Newsom responded forcefully to the extradition request, publicly denying it and stating, “We will not allow extremist politicians from other states to reach into California and try to punish doctors based on allegations that they provided reproductive health care services.”
In a written statement responding to the veto, Lizzy Hinkley, the legal director of the bill’s lead sponsor, Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, criticized Newsom, stating, “[the] outgoing governor’s principled stance is cold comfort to Californians living and working in the real world post-Dobbs. A high-brow, academic justification for refusing to codify legal protections only reveals an ignorance for the lived reality of patients and providers — and does nothing to help them.”
National
HRC report: LGBTQ students face ‘far greater challenges’ in non-supportive states
Survey finds anti-LGBTQ school harassment, bullying highest in 17 states
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the educational arm of the national LGBTQ advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign, has released a report showing LGBTQ public school students are more likely to face bullying, harassment, and “other barriers” in states that have less overall supportive LGBTQ laws and policies.
The report is based on the HRC Foundation’s National Educator Survey of School Climate and Bullying, which was released on Sept. 17.
“The report finds that harassment, bullying, and other barriers to LGBTQ+ inclusion are more prevalent in states with limiting policies, where educators report widespread restrictions on LGBTQ+ resources, visible expressions of support, and assistance for transgender students,” a statement released by HRC says.
“As just one example,” the statement adds, “while 59 percent of educators in states with limiting policies report restrictions on supporting their transgender students, just 6 percent to 8 percent of educators in states with supportive policies report the same, underscoring the impact of these policies on school climate, student well-being, and the stakes of the upcoming midterm elections for LGBTQ+ youth and inclusive classrooms.”
The report says the survey consisted of responses by 826 educators in 42 states who worked as teachers, principals, counselors, administrators, and others who worked in support services. All worked at schools with students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, most being public schools and a smaller number being charter schools, the report says.
It says the survey was conducted between April 15 and May 21, 2026, and included a survey questionnaire with about 55 questions covering a wide range of LGBTQ related school issues.
According to the report, its classification of LGBTQ supportive and non-LGBTQ supportive states is based on a detailed analysis of the LGBTQ related laws and policies of all 50 states, D.C., and U.S. territories conducted by the Movement Advancement Project, or MAP, which describes itself as an “independent, nonprofit thinktank.”
The report includes a chart consisting of 51 boxes representing the 50 states and D.C., with 32 plus D.C. colored as blue and said to have overall LGBTQ supportive policies. The 17 boxes colored in red are said to have overall non-LGBTQ supportive policies and laws, Each of the boxes has the initial of a state or D.C. printed inside it.
In addition to D.C., the chart shows Maryland, Virginia, New York, California, and Massachusetts as among the supportive states. Florida, Texas, West Virginia, and Ohio are among the states shown to be non-LGBTQ supportive.
The HRC statement includes these “key” findings from the survey:
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 59 percent of educators report restrictions on supporting transgender students, compared to just 6-8 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive policies, nearly 50 percent of educators reported restrictions on LGBTQ+ books or resources, compared to just 7 percent of educators in states with supportive policies.
- Roughly 32 percent of educators in states with restrictive policies reported anti-LGBTQ+ harassment was a moderate or serious problem, compared with 11 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 29 percent of educators were very worried about anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, compared to 15 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 36 percent of educators witnessed anti-LGBTQ+ student bullying, compared to 27 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 75 percent of educators reported no restrictions on LGBTQ+-supportive displays, highlighting a substantially more supportive school environment than in states with restrictive policies.
- Educators in states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies also reported significant harassment of students based on appearance (57 percent), race or ethnicity (43 percent), sexual orientation (42 percent), and gender identity or expression (39 percent). (No direct comparison figure from supportive-policy states is provided in the data above.)
“Every young person deserves to feel safe and supportive at school, but this report makes clear that for too many LGBTQ+ students, especially transgender youth, are being failed by policies designed to exclude them,” said HRC President Kelley Robinson in the HRC statement.
“We know that when students feel seen, supported, and affirmed, they are more likely to thrive, but when schools become places of exclusion or hostility, young people pay the price through lower engagement, missed opportunities to learn, and poorer mental and physical health,” Robinson said.
The HRC statement notes that the survey findings come at a time when a growing number of states have passed laws targeting LGBTQ students and the school officials and teachers who support them. It says that for the first time, the survey found that “educators themselves are also experiencing anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, highlighting the growing impact of these policies on school staff as well as students.”
The full survey findings and report can be accessed here:
U.S. Supreme Court
Trump asks Supreme Court to allow restrictions on gender-affirming care in prisons
SCOTUS could further restrict rights of trans inmates
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow its policy limiting gender-affirming treatment for federal inmates to take effect while a legal challenge plays out in court.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the government to continue providing gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy, which had become policy nearly a decade ago for inmates who were transitioning.
The Trump administration argues in its application that its policy restricting transgender rights was properly adopted and that the judge overstepped, posing nationwide “security and prison-administrative concerns.”
If allowed, the policy would halt surgeries, hormones and social accommodations such as wigs while allowing mental health therapy to continue as the legality of the policy reversal is litigated.
The government also argues in the application that the Bureau of Prisons had “determined that sex-trait-modification surgeries, hormone interventions in general, and social accommodations could no longer be justified as treatment for gender dysphoria.”
American Civil Liberties Union attorneys for the inmates said the policy is “a direct threat to the well-being of transgender people in federal custody and an open violation of their fundamental rights,” and said withholding necessary gender-affirming healthcare constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
The Blade has covered the ongoing developments surrounding changes to Federal Bureau of Prisons transgender inmate policy that went into effect earlier in Trump’s term. The changes primarily focus on rolling back Biden-era protections for trans inmates.
Earlier this year, the Blade published a joint letter from multiple senators in response to the rollback of the policy. Multiple senators — including Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii) — sent a letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche and Federal Bureau of Prisons Director William Marshall III calling for them to reverse the policy change, saying it endangers inmates’ health and safety.
The senators described how the policy shift, along with President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” is forcing policy changes they argued are rooted more in political rhetoric than in medical research or evidence-based correctional practices.
Federal Bureau of Prisons responded to the Blade’s request for comment in May, declining to reconsider its transgender inmate policy.
The Blade reached out to the Federal Bureau of Prisons once again over the application to the Supreme Court, but did not hear back before publication.
To school to homeschool to school again
Ryan Murphy’s ‘Monster’ vilifies the lesbian
The right to be an ordinary transgender man
LGBTQ community must vote in big numbers
Victory Fund board investigates former staffers’ allegations against CEO Evan Low
PHOTOS: HRC National Dinner
What’s frightening is also funny in ‘Venus’
I’m 66, he’s 27. Is it love or am I being played?
The LGBTQ real estate map is being redrawn
