National
212 congressional Dems call on court to overturn DOMA
In first, Senators join House Dems in saying anti-gay law is unconstitutional
Sen. Tammy Baldwin was among the signers of the congressional Democrats brief against DOMA (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
An unprecedented coalition of 212 House and Senate Democrats have joined together in calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act.
In a 35-page brief filed on Friday, congressional Democrats argue DOMA should be struck down because the law should be subject to heightened scrutiny and the law singles out gay and lesbian couples for harm. The case challenging the statute is Windsor v. United States.
“DOMA imposes a sweeping and unjustifiable federal disability on married same-sex couples,” the brief concludes. “It is ‘class legislation’ that lacks any rational connection to legitimate federal interests, thus violating the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee.”
While House Democrats have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in cases challenging DOMA at lower appellate courts, the latest brief is unprecedented because for the first time Senate Democrats have signed on as well. The 172 House Democrats who signed the brief were joined by 40 Senate Democrats.
House Democrats who signed the brief include House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who lead the effort to gather signatures, as well as the six openly LGB members of the U.S. House: Reps. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Mark Takano (D-Calif.).
Senators who joined in the effort are lesbian Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).
The brief devotes significant attention to disputing the arguments in favor of DOMA made by the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group — which has taken up defense of DOMA in place of the administration — particularly BLAG’s argument that gays enjoy political power and thus aren’t a suspect class.
Congressional Democrats take note of how the LGBT people unable has been unable pass legislation to institute federal protections against job bias — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — as an example of their political powerlessness.
“In fact, in the nearly twenty years since it was first introduced, ENDA passed only once in the House and never in the Senate,” the brief states. “That gay men and lesbians have been unable to achieve even the modest goal of obtaining basic protection against employment discrimination — despite the fact that 89 percent of the American people supports such protection — shows that BLAG is flat wrong in contending that gay men and lesbians enjoy ‘remarkable political clout.'”
The brief also details harm that DOMA causes same-sex couples who are unable to receive federal benefits of marriage — as well as the harm the statute causes children living in these families.
“Many married lesbians and gay men raise children together,” the brief states. “DOMA harms them and their children, and affords no benefit to different-sex couples or their children. It thus cannot survive equal protection review.”
Notably, the brief refrains from making the argument that Congress passed DOMA in 1996 out of animus — a position held by many LGBT advocates — and instead maintains it was made law because members of Congress at the time didn’t know gay people.
“From our perspective — including those of us who voted for DOMA — debate and passage of the law did not necessarily arise ‘from malice or hostile animus,’ but instead from ‘insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves,'” the brief states. “While fear and distrust of families different from our own may explain why DOMA passed by comfortable majorities in 1996, it does not obviate the need for a constitutionally permissible justification for the law.”
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, commended congressional Democrats speaking out against DOMA before the Supreme Court.
“It’s a key indicator of how indefensible the so-called Defense of Marriage Act is that now literally hundreds of members of Congress are signing a brief repudiating it,” Wolfson said. “These senators and representatives, like the American people they serve, know that the government shouldn’t be assigning second-class status to legally married same-sex couples.”
No Republicans signed the brief. Even though Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) have signed on as co-sponsors to legislation that would repeal DOMA — and penned their names to another brief from 131 Republicans arguing that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional — their names are absent from the DOMA brief.
Ilan Kayatsky, a Nadler spokesperson, deferred comment on the absence of any Republican names from the DOMA brief to Republicans. Neither Ros-Lehtinen’s nor Hanna’s office immediately responded to a request to comment.
The argument presented in the brief is along the lines of the argument that the Obama administration made against DOMA in the brief the Justice Department filed last month.
On Thursday, the administration also filed a brief before the Supreme Court arguing Prop 8 is unconstitutional in addition to the DOMA brief. However, congressional Democrats didn’t do the same and only submitted on brief on DOMA.
Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, said the Democratic leader was focused on building support for the DOMA brief and its argument that DOMA should be subject to heightened scrutiny will assist in efforts to overturn California’s marriage ban.
“The brief provides the congressional members’ perspective on why there is absolutely no legitimate federal interest in discrimination, and why, given the history of how DOMA was enacted, heightened judicial scrutiny is needed for federal laws that discriminate against the LGBT community,” Hammill said. “In making the case for heightened scrutiny, the amicus brief will assist the efforts to overturn Proposition 8.”
Hammill also said Pelosi has spoken out against Prop 8 and “appreciates” the Justice Department’s filing against the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in California.
“From the outset, Leader Pelosi has strongly opposed Proposition 8, and believes that the legal advocacy by opponents of Proposition 8 has been outstanding,” Hammill said. “The Leader looks forward to the day when all Californians – and indeed, all Americans everywhere – have the right to marry who they love. She appreciates the President’s strong leadership in favor of overturning Proposition 8 and of striking down DOMA.”
Asked in a follow-up email to clarify whether Pelosi believes Prop 8 is unconstitutional, Hammill replied, “She has said so repeatedly.”
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant
A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
‘Things Like This’ embraces formula and plus-size visibility
Calendar: May 23-29
Comings & Goings
New doc chronicles gay hero’s journey from rape to forgiveness
Murdered Israeli embassy officials were supporters of D.C.’s LGBTQ synagogue
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Pope Leo XIV: Family based on ‘stable union between a man and a woman’
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
