News
HISTORIC: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, Prop 8
DOMA violates equal protection; Prop 8 supporters lack standing
Gay marriage advocates rallying at the Supreme Court earlier this year during oral arguments for two major cases. The court struck down two anti-gay laws today, opening the door for expanded rights for same-sex couples in many jurisdictions. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
In a historic development, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two decisions on Wednesday that advanced marriage rights for gay couples and will almost certainly reshape the national debate on the issue.
In one 5-4 ruling, the court determined that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it violates due process and equal protection for same-sex couples under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That decision means the U.S. government must begin recognizing same-sex marriages for a broad range of benefits, including those related to federal taxes and immigration law.
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion and was joined by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Kennedy said. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
The dissenting justices were Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. In his opinion, Roberts says Congress acted constitutionally in passing DOMA and took issue with the authority the court granted itself in overturning the anti-gay statute.
Writing his dissent, Scalia said the decision of the court robs the American public of its ability to decide the issue of same-sex marriage through the democratic process.
“Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many,” Scalia writes. “But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better.”
In another 5-4 decision, the court determined anti-gay forces don’t have standing to defend California’s Proposition 8. That decision leaves in place a district court injunction that prohibits the state of California from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage. Gay couples will be able to marry in the state once the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lift its stay.
Roberts wrote the majority opinion for the court and was joined by Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan. Kennedy wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor.
“The Article III requirement that a party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court seek relief for a personal, particularized injury serves vital interests going to the role of the Judiciary in our system of separated powers,” Roberts writes. “States cannot alter that role simply by issuing to private parties who otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse.”
The court’s ruling in the case against Prop 8, known as Hollingsworth v. Perry, is specific only to California — meaning the justices didn’t grant the expansive ruling that supporters of marriage equality had sought to bring marriage equality to all 50 states.
Shortly after HRC President Chad Griffin walked out of the court with plaintiffs in the marriage cases, he received a call from President Obama who was aboard Air Force One. Obama congratulated Griffin for the victories as reporters and onlookers watched.
The decisions were handed down 10 years to the day that the Supreme Court announced its landmark decision in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws throughout the country.
The challenge to DOMA, known as United States v. Windsor, was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and others in 2011 on behalf of lesbian New York widow Edith Windsor. Upon the death of her spouse Thea Spyer in 2009, Windsor had to pay the U.S. government $363,000 in estate taxes because of DOMA — a penalty that she wouldn’t have faced if she were married to a man.
The decision striking down DOMA affirms the initial rulings against the federal anti-gay law last year by U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones and the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Obama administration helped in securing the ruling against DOMA. After it stopped defending DOMA in 2011, the U.S. Justice Department began filing briefs against the law and sent attorneys to litigate against it during oral arguments. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued against DOMA before the Supreme Court, saying the law doesn’t hold up under the standard heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption it’s unconstitutional.
But the Supreme Court didn’t get to the issue of heightened scrutiny in the DOMA case because it found the law was unconstitutional under the less stringent standard of rational basis review.
The case against Prop 8 was filed by the California-based American Foundation for Equal Rights in 2009 on behalf of two plaintiff couples — a lesbian couple, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, and a gay male couple, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo — who were unable to marry because of the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
The attorneys representing them were Theodore Olson, a former U.S. solicitor general during the Bush administration, and David Boies, a so-called “dream team” of attorneys who represented opposite sides in the 2000 case Bush v. Gore.
Because the state officials — California Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris — refused to defend Prop 8 in court, anti-gay groups that put Prop 8 on the ballot in 2008 such as ProtectMarriage.com took up the responsibility of defending the measure. The California Supreme Court certified the groups had standing under state law and the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed they had standing.
But the high court determined that these groups — even though attorney Charles Cooper spoke on behalf on them in oral arguments — don’t have standing because they lack any legal injury in the wake of the lower court’s determination that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
The Obama administration had also assisted in efforts to secure a ruling against California’s Proposition 8. The Justice Department filed a friend-of-the-court brief in February saying the ban was unconstitutional and Verrilli argued in court against Prop 8, suggesting all eight states with domestic partnerships should be required to grant marriage rights to gay couples.
The issue of standing also came up in the DOMA case for two reasons. One, the court had questioned whether the U.S. Justice Department could have appealed the district court ruling to the Second Circuit because the initial ruling against DOMA was what the Obama administration wanted. Two, the court questioned whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a five-member Republican-majority panel within the U.S. House, had standing to take up defense of DOMA in the administration’s stead.
But the court determined an active controversy remains in the case because the U.S. government still hasn’t refunded Windsor the $363,000 she paid in estate taxes. Once the court determined it has jurisdiction based on the Obama administration’s appeal of the lawsuit, it didn’t get to the issue of whether BLAG has standing.
In his ruling, Kennedy writes the continuation of litigation in the absence of a federal ruling on DOMA would cause uncertainty.
“[T]he costs, uncertainties, and alleged harm and injuries likely would continue for a time measured in years before the issue is resolved,” Kennedy writes in the ruling. “In these unusual and urgent circumstances, the very term ‘prudential’ counsels that it is a proper exercise of the Court’s responsibility to take jurisdiction.”
News
An effort to increase the number of psychiatrists of color
After 35 years in law and advocacy, Rawle Andrews Jr. returns to his roots
Rawle Andrews Jr. took an indirect path to become executive director of the American Psychiatric Association Foundation (APAF).
From a psychology major in college to becoming a lawyer, the passion for equity and inclusion that fueled him during his years at AARP and as a professor at Howard and Georgetown universities serves as the foundation for his career in mental health.
Andrews has made it his mission at APAF to prioritize youth mental health — including in schools in D.C. and across the country — and to reduce stigma around mental illness and increase the number of psychiatrists of color practicing in the U.S.
Andrews, who began his educational career studying psychology, said he felt out of place in college when his classmates were pursuing medical careers and he was more interested in law.
“I was the only person in my cohort who was going to law school,” he said. “Everybody else wanted to be a doctor and go to medical school.”
Everything changed for Andrews during the COVID-19 pandemic and after George Floyd was killed by police in Missouri: Those pivotal moments reshaped national conversations about health, race, and inequality, and pushed Andrews to rethink his career.
“I saw people deathly afraid of some disease, but also mortified by the fact that they witnessed somebody die on TV,” he said.
After nearly 16 years working as a lawyer in private practice and 15 years at AARP, Andrews found himself pulled back to mental and “whole body” health.
“My goal in law school was to be a courtroom lawyer all the time. If you had told me in 1990 that I would be a practicing lawyer going to court every day, I would have laughed you out of this room. If you had told me in 2010 that I wouldn’t be an in-house lawyer every day … I would have laughed you out of this room,” he said. “Everybody thinks you’re going to go straight from A to B. Life doesn’t work A to B.”
Now, Andrews says, he has the “ability to serve the whole house.” He can help “the eight-year-old who’s struggling in middle school … the parent who’s trying to get that child through, but also caring for an older loved one … who might have some cognitive decline or mobility challenges.”
Building a pipeline of Black mental health professionals
In his role at APAF, Andrews has his sights set on increasing the number of psychiatrists nationwide by reducing barriers to study and success, particularly for practitioners of color, who are vastly underrepresented.
Only about 5% of physicians are Black, and the number for Black psychiatrists is even lower at just 2%, according to the American Psychiatric Association. Widespread stigma around mental illness in communities of color, combined with “systemic barriers that keep persons of color from getting into medical school and matching for residency with teaching hospitals after graduating,” have contributed to the low numbers, Andrews says.
Financial pressures, limited residency slots, and a lack of exposure to psychiatry as a viable career all play important roles in limiting Black representation in the field. At the same time, stigma surrounding mental health — especially in Black communities — can discourage both patients and future physicians, according to Andrews.
He explains that this stigma is rooted in underlying fear, shame, and historic discrimination, and the only way to deal with those issues is directly. If you break those down, Andrews said, you can actually address them.
There are signs of change, though. “In the digital world, more and more people are seeing and talking about mental health all the time,” Andrews said. “And I believe more and more young doctors of all colors are deciding, ‘we need more psychiatrists, and I want to be a part of that solution.’”
Not having enough psychiatrists of color has far-reaching consequences. If you are a “non-diverse” physician or a physician practicing without humility or cultural competency, you may over-diagnose or misdiagnose a patient, said Andrews. You might assume a patient has symptoms due to your own cognitive biases.
A 2024 study in the Journal of General Internal Medicine revealed that mistrust and suspicion were high among dozens of Black patients with serious mental illness, who said they felt doctors did not take their concerns seriously or took a condescending tone with them during appointments.
This type of treatment does not promote trust or disclosure, Andrews said. “What is my advantage to be vulnerable with people who don’t think much of me, because you already thought I was broken?”
To combat medical racism and bias, APAF runs one of the largest psychiatry pipeline programs in the world. It provides more than 1,000 medical students from underrepresented and marginalized communities with training and professional development. Programs like the Diversity Leadership Fellowship emphasize cultural competency and evidence-based practices to better serve diverse groups and at-risk populations.
These programs have had tangible success in producing leadership in the field of psychiatry: APA’s CEO Dr. Marketa Wills, the first CEO of color and first female CEO in the APA organization’s 180-year history, was a trainee with the APAF nearly three decades ago.
Despite efforts to make healthcare more equitable for patients of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community, many experts believe that racism and biases are more deeply ingrained in the system than many realize. For example, a 2019 study found that Black patients suffering from depression are often misdiagnosed with schizophrenia, and a 2016 study revealed that many doctors wrongly believe that Black patients have higher thresholds for pain tolerance.
“If you don’t have cultural humility or cultural competency, you could over-diagnose somebody because you’re looking for them to be ADHD, you’re looking for them to be bipolar, you’re looking for them to be schizophrenic,” said Andrews. “And then, because of the fears, the stigmas, the shame, people don’t want to go and get tested either.”
Youth mental health focus
Andrews says many fear that telling someone else about their struggles will cause that person to look down on them. That unwillingness to share about mental health challenges can start at a young age.
That’s why the APAF has partnered with local organizations in the Washington, D.C., area to help young people address mental health concerns. One of the programs, Our Minds Matter, operates in D.C.-area schools and other states to educate students on signs of emotional distress and how to address it. APAF also runs the Notice.Talk.Act. at School program, which helps train school staff to recognize and address student mental health issues and connect them to resources. The program was recently adopted at Jefferson Middle School Academy.
The program is “the ‘stop, drop and roll’ of mental health,” Andrews said. “How do I notice signs and symptoms of distress in a student? How do I create an open space to talk and be a better active listener with a student who wants to share their mental health concerns and then act?”
APAF’s program, funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and free to schools, trained about 890 school staff members across the country in 2024, and boasts a 70% reduction in truancy and 89% reduction in disciplinary referrals, according to the foundation.
Notice.Talk.Act. is not just in schools — there are versions for home, for college, for the workplace.
Andrews hopes that this work with the APAF will reduce the stigma surrounding mental health struggles and improve access to culturally competent care. But he acknowledges there’s still a long way to go.
“We are planting and sowing seeds now and fertilizing the soil and tilling the soil,” he said. “We know that the next generation of doctors is going to look closer to the way the population looks. But ultimately, we still haven’t done enough.”
(This work is part of a partnership between the Washington Blade Foundation and Youthcast Media Group, funded through the FY26 Community Development Grant from the Office of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. Jebeh Pajibo is a senior at Bard High School Early College DC, one of Youthcast Media Group’s journalism class partners. Sarah Gandluri, a UNC-Chapel Hill sophomore, is an intern and former high school participant with YMG. YMG founder, former USA Today health policy reporter Jayne O’Donnell, contributed to this report.)
Rehoboth Beach
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Attendees encouraged to wear appropriate gear
Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach hosts a monthly leather happy hour. April’s edition is scheduled for Friday, April 10, 5-7 p.m. Attendees are encouraged to wear appropriate gear. The event is billed as an official event of BLUF, the free community group for men interested in leather. After happy hour, the attendees are encouraged to reconvene at Local Bootlegging Company for dinner, which allows cigar smoking. There’s no cover charge for either event.
District of Columbia
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
Two memorial events scheduled in D.C.
Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.
A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.).
An effort to increase the number of psychiatrists of color
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
Trump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
Police mental health struggles gain growing attention
Man faces first S.C. ‘hate intimidation’ charge
Cuba under pressure and without answers
