National
Another round for Prop 8 in Calif. state court?
Anti-gay groups call for additional input, but legal experts say it’s unlikely


Prop 8 proponents say the Supreme Court may want to send the case back to state court. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Anti-gay groups arguing in favor of California’s Proposition 8 are advising the U.S. Supreme Court to send the lawsuit back to state court yet again before deciding to rule on the case based on standing — although legal experts dismiss such a request as a desperate plea.
As noted in SCOTUSblog, the request to send the case back to the California State Court is found in the reply brief that anti-gay groups, such as ProtectMarriage.com, filed on Tuesday. The request is virtually hidden within the brief; it’s found on the footnote on page 6.
The California Supreme Court has already certified in November 2011 that anti-gay groups have standing to defend Prop 8 in court. After being posed the question by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the state court determined anti-gay groups had standing to defend the ballot initiative in the wake of the decision from California officials — Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris — to decline to defend Prop 8 in court.
But in the reply brief this week, proponents of Prop 8 assert that neither the California Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of whether anti-gay groups have suffered “personal injury” — a quality that is used to determine standing — and suggest justices may want to return the case to state court to address the issue.
“Accordingly, it may be appropriate again to certify this question to the California Supreme Court if this Court concludes that Petitioners, despite their established authority to represent the State’s interest, must also demonstrate personal injury to satisfy Article III,” the footnote states.
The standing issue in Prop 8 is important because if the Supreme Court determines anti-gay groups don’t have standing, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision striking down Prop 8 would stand, allowing same-sex couples to marry in California. Because the Supreme Court has a history of limiting standing, there’s a good chance the court could rule on Prop 8 in this manner.
Doug NeJaime, who’s gay and a law professor at Loyola Law School, said a decision to send the case back to the state court would accomplish two things: delay proceedings in the case and reconfigure the standing issue in favor of proponents of the same-sex marriage ban.
“This is both an attempt to extend the time at which same-sex couples may marry in California (i.e., send it back for more litigation, rather than allow couples to marry) and a reasonable way to argue that the standing question isn’t completely resolved (and would ultimately favor standing),” NeJaime said.
But legal experts who spoke with the Blade said they don’t expect the Supreme Court to send the case back to the state court because the “personal injury” issue is now a matter of federal law, not state law.
Suzanne Goldberg, co-director of Columbia University’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, was among those saying it’s “extremely unlikely” the Supreme Court would once again send the Prop 8 case back to the California State Court.
“If the Supreme Court decides to address that question, it is perfectly capable of evaluating the sponsor’s injury on its own,” Goldberg said. “The court regularly makes assessments of whether litigants have a sufficient injury to proceed with a case in a federal court. This is not a question that the California Supreme Court would have to resolve.”
Goldberg added state courts have an approach to assessing standing that’s different from federal courts, so the Prop 8 lawsuit is “particularly a question where the state court determination would not carry over to the federal court.”
“That footnote seemed to me to be a desperate plea recognizing their standing argument is quite weak,” Goldberg said.
Chris Stoll, a senior staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, was similarly dismissive about the notion of sending the Prop 8 case back to state court.
“I see that footnote as a sign the proponents of Prop 8 are very worried that the Supreme Court will decide they did not have standing to appeal and that Judge Walker’s decision striking down Prop 8 will stand,” Stoll said. “They appear desperate to find a way to avoid that result.”
Stoll said the California Supreme Court already delivered a “detailed opinion” on standing and justices are unlikely to seek additional input from the state court.
“Standing is ultimately an issue of federal law, and I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will decide that it has enough information from the state courts to resolve that federal issue now,” Stoll said.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.
In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.
The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.
He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”
Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”
Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.
Federal Government
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”
The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.
“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”
Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”
Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”
“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”
Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.
Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.
The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.
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.”
-
U.S. Supreme Court3 days ago
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
-
Out & About3 days ago
Celebrate the Fourth of July the gay way!
-
Virginia3 days ago
Va. court allows conversion therapy despite law banning it
-
Federal Government5 days ago
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House