National
Mixed reaction over Verrilli’s Prop 8 arguments
U.S. gov’t attorney doesn’t call for nationwide ruling in favor of marriage
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s arguments before the court on marriage are receiving mixed reviews. (Photo public domain)
The U.S. solicitor general’s performance before the Supreme Court on marriage is receiving mixed reviews amid disappointment that he didn’t overtly say same-sex marriage should be institutionalized nationwide as a result of the cases.
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was the sole attorney who argued in both cases before the court — one on California’s Proposition 8, the other on the Defense of Marriage Act. The message was the same for both measures: Laws related to sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption they’re unconstitutional.
But the nuance in what Verrilli said should be the outcome of the Prop 8 case is noteworthy. Asked by Chief Justice John Roberts whether the administration wants a ruling that would strike down marriage bans across the country, Verrilli declined to give an affirmative answer.
“We are not taking the position that it is required throughout the country,” Verrilli said. “We think that that ought to be left open for a future adjudication in other states that don’t have the situation California has.”
Under later questioning, Verrilli said a state would have to reach a “very heavy burden” to justify a measure similar to Prop 8, but at the same time said a “caution rationale” — presumably a wait-and-see approach to same-sex marriage — would be “one place where we might leave it open.”
Suzanne Goldberg, a lesbian and co-director of Columbia University’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, said she was “uncomfortable” with Verrilli’s assertion that states may have justification to ban couples from marrying.
“He seemed to suggest that they might actually have a legitimate reason for maintaining the exclusion, and that did not seem necessary to me, given the arguments that he was making,” Goldberg said. “It did not feel right for the government’s attorney to suggest that their might actually be a plausible reason for a state to exclude same-sex couples from marriage.”
Goldberg drew a distinction between the arguments presented by the Justice Department in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases. For DOMA, Goldberg noted the administration hasn’t identified any instance in which the federal anti-gay law would be constitutional.
“That wasn’t the government’s position in the DOMA case even though the government said under the weakest standard of review, DOMA might be upheld,” Goldberg said. “But it did not suggest any of the rationales would be sufficient.”
It should be noted that Verrilli’s arguments in the Prop 8 case are consistent with the friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Justice Department against the California measure. The brief never explicitly says all bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional and instead focuses on Prop 8, which is the question before the court.
Richard Socarides, a gay New York-based advocate, said the presentation of that limited argument on marriage equality is not the fault of Verrilli — whom he said “did a good job” — but is the result of the White House making a political calculation on the Prop 8 case.
“I think that they made some political choices that were not the ones exactly I would have made,” Socarides said. “And I think that some of those came back to haunt them.”
Verrilli noted that California offers gay couples domestic partnerships, suggesting the court should rule that states offering some benefits to gay couples, but not marriage, should instead offer them marriage rights. Legal experts have coined this potential decision as the “nine-state solution.”
But Socarides questioned the wisdom of embracing that position, noting justices seemed disinclined to adopt a ruling saying states that offer some benefits to gay couples aren’t doing enough while leaving other jurisdictions unaffected.
“I think that argument is too clever by half,” Socarides said. “I appreciate the fact that I think the White House was trying to thread the needle there a little bit. It may have served its purpose, but I think in retrospect not the best decision.”
David Gans, civil rights director for the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center, found a positive in the limited argument presented by Verrilli: it provides another option to justices unswayed by American Foundation for Equal Rights attorney Ted Olson’s argument in favor of a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.
“In some ways, it was a very useful complement to the argument that Ted Olson made,” Gans said. “What Verrilli offered was sort of an alternative. Olson and Verrilli gave them a broader option as well as a narrow one that would decide this case, but not other cases. In light of some of the concern expressed by justices, in the end, it may prove valuable.”
Several legal experts and LGBT advocacy groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, declined to comment for this article.
Socarides emphasized the Justice Department has already stepped up to the plate in helping same-sex couples win their rights at the Supreme Court by dropping defense of DOMA and participating in the Prop 8 case.
“I would also emphasize that, I think at this point, we’re really quibbling around the edges and that we want to be very grateful for the work that the Justice Department did and for the president’s support,” Socarides said.
That was a sentiment shared by Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, who commended the Justice Department for its work before the bench and in the briefs that were filed.
“Briefs speak louder than arguments, and the Solicitor General effectively dismantled every argument made in defense of excluding gay couples from marriage and inflicting unequal treatment on married gay couples under so-called DOMA,” Wolfson said. “He repeatedly urged the justices to focus on what is really going on: discrimination against gay people and indefensible denial of the freedom to marry, and when they go back and read his briefs in both cases, the justices will see a strong, clear path forward toward the freedom to marry and repudiation of the impermissible discrimination we have endured for too long.”
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.
PHOTOS: Helen Hayes Awards
Laverne Cox, Reneé Rapp, Deacon Maccubbin named WorldPride grand marshals
House passes reconciliation with gender-affirming care funding ban
PHOTOS: D.C. Trans Pride
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
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
