Connect with us

National

HISTORIC: Supreme Court hears arguments on DOMA

Issues of standing, discrimination against gays dominate hearing

Published

on

Supreme Court, gay news, Washington Blade
gay marriage, same sex marriage, marriage equality, Roberta Kaplan, Defense of Marriage Act, Supreme Court, gay news, Washington Blade

Attorney Roberta Kaplan said DOMA violates equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution for not just Windsor, but all married gay couples. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Questioning at the Supreme Court during oral arguments on Wednesday was just as intense as the previous day as justices grilled attorneys on standing and federalism issues related to the Defense of Marriage Act.

The prospects of the court striking down the 1996 law seem strong as no justices expressed any particular love for DOMA, but it’s possible the court may not reach consideration of the constitutionality of the law because of standing and jurisdiction issues.

Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Clinton appointee, expressed concern over DOMA because benefits ā€” including Social Security survivor benefits and access to family medical leave ā€” and withheld from married same-sex couples under the law.

Under DOMA, Ginsburg said one might ask the question “What kind of marriage is this?” and compared the law to a statute that creates “full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.”

Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who’s considered a swing vote in the case, made a lot of inquiries on DOMA, but at one point may have tipped his hand when he talked about the “real risk” of encroaching on state power to define marriage.

At issue in the case is Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. As a result of that 1996 law, Edith Windsor had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes in 2009 upon the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer.

The courtroom was just as packed for the DOMA arguments as it was for the Prop 8 arguments. Among those in attendance were Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, Senior Adviser to President Obama Valerie Jarrett and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Roberta Kaplan, a New York-based private attorney working in coordination with the American Civil Liberties Union, said DOMA violates equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution for not just Windsor, but all married gay couples.

“Because of DOMA, many thousands of people who are legally married under the laws of nine sovereign states and the District of Columbia are being treated as unmarried by the federal government solely because they are gay,” Kaplan said.

Arguing on behalf of DOMA was Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush who was hired by House Republicans to defend the law after the Obama administration declined to do so in February 2011.

Clement said DOMA helps create uniformity for the federal government as the democratic process is underway deciding the issue of marriage.

“I do think for purposes of the federalism issue, it really matters that all DOMA does is take this term where it appears in federal law and define it for purposes of federal law,” he said. “It would obviously be a radically different case if Congress had, in 1996, decided to try to stop states from defining marriage in a particular way or dictate how they would decide it in that way.”

At one point, Associate Justice Elena Kagan brought up the House report from the passage of DOMA, quoting where it said Congress approved the law to “express moral disapproval of homosexuality.”

Clement responded by saying legislators having an “improper motive” shouldn’t be enough for the Supreme Court to overturn DOMA.

“And if that’s enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute,” Clement said. “But that has never been your approach, especially under rational basis or even rational basis-plus, if that is what you are suggesting.”

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who’s taken up litigation against DOMA on behalf of the Obama administration, also argued against DOMA on the basis of equal protection.

“What Section 3 does is exclude from an array of federal benefits lawfully married couples,” Verrilli said. “That means that the spouse of a soldier killed in the line of duty cannot receive the dignity and solace of an official notification of next of kin.”

Further, he said DOMA should be subject to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption it’s unconstitutional, because of the “terrible discrimination” faced by gay people throughout history.

Verrilli also disputed Clement’s argument that DOMA helps ensure uniformity for the U.S. government, saying “if anything, it makes federal administration more difficult.”

Standing was so much of an issue as part of the DOMA case that justices allotted extended time and the first half of the oral arguments to consider the issue.

There are two questions: whether House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group has standing to defend DOMA in court, and whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the case because the U.S. government appealed even though it got what it wanted when the district ruled against the anti-gay law.

Vicki Jackson, a Harvard law professor hired by the court to answer these questions, made her case for why BLAG doesn’t have standing and the court doesn’t have jurisdiction to decide the issue.

Jackson said the U.S. government lacks standing to appeal because it has not asked the court to overturn lower courts’ decisions, it has asked to affirm them.

“The government has not asked this court to overturn the rulings below so it doesn’t have to pay the $365,000,” Jackson said. “It has asked this court to affirm. And the case or controversy requirement that we’re talking about are nested in an adversarial system where we rely on the parties to state their injuries and make their claims for relief.”

She also expressed doubts about BLAG’s standing, saying separation of powers “will not be meaningful” if Congress stays out of defense of a statute unless it thinks the executive branch is doing its job badly.

Clement maintained BLAG has standing because the House has an interest in preserving a law if the executive branch determines it won’t defend the measure in court.

“The House’s single most important prerogative, which is to pass legislation and have that legislation, if it’s going to be repealed, only be repealed through a process where the House gets to fully participate,” Clement said.

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, expressed skepticism that BLAG has standing to defend DOMA in court.

“But the appointment of BLAG is strange to me because it’s not in the statute, it’s in the House rules,” Sotomayor said.

Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinavasan argued the court has jurisdiction to defend DOMA, pointing to court precedent created under INS v. Chadha, an immigration-related case that came before the court in 1982. Srinavasan also said the U.S. government still suffers aggreivement, which allows it to appeal the case.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia expressed displeasure with the Justice Department’s decision to stop defending the law and creating a situation where it’s appealing a case that was decided in its favor.

“I’m wondering if we’re living in this new world where the attorney general can simply decide, yeah, it’s unconstitutional, but it’s not so unconstitutional that I’m not willing to enforce it, if we’re in this new world, I don’t want these cases like this to come before this court all the time,” Scalia said.

It’s difficult to say if the court will rule on the basis of standing because justices challenged the views on whichever attorney was speaking ā€” whether they arguing in favor of standing or not. A ruling on this basis would likely more limited on its impact on gay couples as opposed to a nationwide ruling striking down DOMA.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Federal Courts

Appeals court hears case challenging Florida’s trans healthcare ban

District court judge concluded the law was discriminatory, unconstitutional

Published

on

NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Parties in Doe v. Ladapo, a case challenging Florida’s ban on healthcare for transgender youth and restrictions on the medical interventions available to trans adults, presented oral arguments on Wednesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta.

The case was appealed by defendants representing the Sunshine State following a decision in June 2024 by Judge Robert Hinkle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, who found “the law and rules unconstitutional and unenforceable on equal protection grounds,” according to a press release from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is involved in the litigation on behalf of the plaintiffs.

The district court additionally found the Florida healthcare ban unconstitutional on the grounds that it was “motivated by purposeful discrimination against transgender people,” though the ban and restrictions will remain in effect pending a decision by the appellate court.

Joining NCLR in the lawsuit are attorneys from GLAD Law, the Human Rights Campaign, Southern Legal Counsel, and the law firms Lowenstein Sandler and Jenner and Block.

“As a mother who simply wants to protect and love my child for who she is, I pray that the Eleventh Circuit will affirm the district courtā€™s thoughtful and powerful order, restoring access to critical healthcare for all transgender Floridians,” plaintiff Jane Doe said. “No one should have to go through what my family has experienced.ā€

“As a transgender adult just trying to live my life and care for my family, it is so demeaning that the state of Florida thinks itā€™s their place to dictate my healthcare decisions,” said plaintiff Lucien Hamel.

“Members of the legislature have referred to the high quality healthcare I have received, which has allowed me to live authentically as myself, as ā€˜mutilationā€™ and ā€˜an abominationā€™ and have called the providers of this care ā€˜evil,ā€™” Hamel added. “We hope the appellate court sees these rules and laws for what truly are: cruel.ā€ 

ā€œTransgender adults donā€™t need state officials looking over their shoulders, and families of transgender youth donā€™t need the government dictating how to raise their children,ā€ said Shannon Minter, legal director of NCLR. ā€œThe district court heard the evidence and found that these restrictions are based on bias, not science. The court of appeals should affirm that judgment.ā€ 

Noting Hinkle’s conclusion that the ban and restrictions were “motivated by animus, not science or evidence,” Simone Chris, who leads Southern Legal Counsel’s Transgender Rights Initiative, said, ā€œThe state has loudly and proudly enacted bans on transgender people accessing healthcare, using bathrooms, transgender teachers using their pronouns and titles, and a slough of other actions making it nearly impossible for transgender individuals to live in this state.”

Lowenstein Sandler Partner Thomas Redburn said, ā€œThe defendants have offered nothing on appeal that could serve as a valid basis for overturning that finding” by the district court.

 ā€œNot only does this dangerous law take away parentsā€™ freedom to make responsible medical decisions for their child, it inserts the government into private health care matters that should be between adults and their providers,” said Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law.

Continue Reading

State Department

LGBTQ rights abroad not discussed during Marco Rubio confirmation hearing

Senate expected to confirm Fla. Republican as next secretary of state

Published

on

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) during his confirmation hearing to become the next secretary of state on Jan. 15, 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Wednesday did not speak about LGBTQ rights abroad during his confirmation hearing to become the next secretary of state.

The Florida Republican in his opening statement to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee noted President-elect Donald Trump “returns to office with an unmistakable mandate from the voters.”

“They want a strong America, a strong America engaged in the world, but guided by a clear objective to promote peace abroad and security and prosperity here at home,” said Rubio.

“The direction he has given for the conduct of our foreign policy is clear,” he added. “Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”

Trump nominated Rubio a week after Vice President Kamala Harris conceded she lost the presidential election.

Rubio in 2022Ā defendedĀ Florida’s ā€œDonā€™t Say Gayā€ law that Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed. The Florida Republican that year also voted against the Respect for Marriage Act that passed with bipartisan support.

LGBTQ rights a cornerstone of Biden-Harris administration’s foreign policy

President Joe Biden in February 2021Ā signed a memo that committed the U.S. to promoting LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad as part of his administrationā€™s overall foreign policy. A few months later he named Jessica Stern, the former executive director of Outright International, a global advocacy group, as special U.S. envoy for the promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad.

Ned Price, who was the State Departmentā€™s first openly gay spokesperson, during a May 2021 interview with the Washington Blade noted the decriminalization of consensual same-sex sexual relations was one of the administrationā€™s priorities in its efforts to promote LGBTQ rights abroad.

Trump during his first administration tapped then-U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, who has been tapped as special missions envoy, to lead an initiative that encouraged countries to decriminalize homosexuality. Activists with whom the Blade has previously spoken questioned whether this effort had any tangible results.

Stern in 2022 noted the Biden-Harris administration also supported marriage equality efforts in countries where activists said they were possible through legislation or the judicial process.

Brittney Griner in December 2022 returned to the U.S. after Russia released her in exchange for a convicted arms dealer. The lesbian WNBA star had been serving a nine-year prison sentence in a penal colony after a court earlier that year convicted her on the importation of illegal drugs after Russian customs officials found vape canisters containing cannabis oil in her luggage at Moscowā€™s Sheremetyevo Airport.

The State Department in 2022 began to issue passports with an ā€œXā€ gender marker.

The Biden-Harris administration in response to the signing of Ugandaā€™s Anti-Homosexuality Act sanctioned officials and removed the country from a program that allows sub-Saharan African countries to trade duty-free the U.S. Harris during a 2023 press conference with then-Ghanaian President Nana Akufo-Addo in Accra, the Ghanaian capital, spoke about LGBTQ rights.

Chantale Wong, the U.S. director of the Asian Development Bank, in 2022 became the first openly lesbian woman ambassador. David Pressman, the outgoing U.S. ambassador to Hungary, and Scott Miller, the outgoing U.S. ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein, are two of the other American ambassadors who Biden nominated that are gay.

Outgoing Secretary of State Antony Blinken in 2021 appointed former U.S. Ambassador to Malta Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley as the State Department’s first chief diversity and inclusion officer.

U.S. Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), who chairs the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, criticized the State Department’s DEI efforts during Rubio’s confirmation hearing.

“The Biden administration often undercut effective foreign policy by inserting ideological and political requirements into the fabric of personnel decisions and policy execution,” said Risch.

“Rather than making hires or promotions based on merit and effectiveness, the department created new diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) requirements that distracted from this mission, undermined morale, and created an unfair and opaque process for promotions and performance evaluations,” he added. “Fealty to progressive politics became the benchmark for success. As we look around the United States that view is diminishing very quickly amongst even large progressive cooperations.”

Continue Reading

National

Anti-LGBTQ Franklin Graham to give invocation at Trumpā€™s inauguration

Evangelical leader also delivered address in 2017

Published

on

Franklin Graham speaks at the 2024 Republican National Convention. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Anti-LGBTQ evangelist Franklin Graham will deliver the invocation for President-elect Donald Trumpā€™s inauguration on Monday, Jan. 20, according to a copy of the program that was circulated on X.

Graham, who serves as president and CEO of Samaritanā€™s Purse, the evangelical Christian humanitarian aid organization, and of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, which was named for his late father, offered the opening prayer for Trumpā€™s first inauguration in 2017.

As documented by GLAAD, the Asheville, N.C.,-based evangelist has attacked the LGBTQ community throughout his life and career.

He supported the draconian laws in Russia targeting ā€œpropaganda of nontraditional sexual relationsā€ that have been used to suppress media that presents ā€œLGBTQ identities and relationships in a positive or normalizing light.ā€

Praising Russian President Vladimir Putin for taking ā€œa stand to protect his nationā€™s children from the damaging effects of the gay and lesbian agenda,ā€ Graham also bemoaned that ā€œAmericaā€™s own morality has fallen so far that on this issue.ā€

Grahamā€™s anti-LGBTQ advocacy on matters of domestic policy in the U.S. has included opposing Pride events, which he compared to celebrations of ā€œlying, adultery, or murder,ā€ and curricula on LGBTQ history in public schools, telling a radio host in 2019 that educators have no right to ā€œteach our children something that is an affront to God.ā€

When his home state rolled back rules prohibiting gender diverse people from using public restrooms consistent with their identities, he tweeted that ā€œpeople of NC will be exposed to pedophiles and sexually perverted men in womenā€™s public restrooms.ā€

Graham has repeatedly smeared LGBTQ people as predatory and said the community seeks to ā€œrecruitā€ children into being gay, lesbian, or transgender.

He has also consistently opposed same-sex marriage, claiming that former President Barack Obama, by embracing marriage equality, had ā€œshaken his fist at the same God who created and defined marriage,ā€ adding, ā€œit grieves me that our president would now affirm same-sex marriage, though I believe it grieves God even more.ā€

Graham also supports the harmful and discredited practice of conversion therapy, which he likened to ā€œconversion to Christianity.ā€

When Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg announced his bid for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020, Graham tweeted that ā€œMayor Buttigieg says he’s a gay Christian. As a Christian I believe the Bible which defines homosexuality as sin, something to be repentant of, not something to be flaunted, praised or politicized. The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman ā€” not two men, not two women.”Ā 

Graham embraced Trump well before he was taken seriously in Republican politics, telling ABC in 2011 that the New York real estate tycoon was his preferred candidate.

Particularly during the incoming presidentā€™s first campaign as the GOP nominee and during his first term, the evangelical leaderā€™s support was seen as strategically important to bringing conservative Christians into the fold despite their misgivings about Trump, who was better known as a philandering womanizer than a devout religious leader. 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular